Loading document...
Application No.: 17/01219/B Applicant: Mr Paul Leneghan Proposal: Alterations to garage to create ancillary accommodation Site Address: The Haven Agneash Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7NS Case Officer : Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken: 25.01.2018 Site Visit: 25.01.2018 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 06.03.2018 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. The proposal is not within a named settlement in accordance with the settlement hierarchy and would encourage unsustainable use. Accordingly it is contrary to Spatial Policy 5; Strategic Policy 2 and Strategic Policy 10. - R 2. It has not been demonstrated that the property is redundant for its originally intended purpose or that it is of historical, architectural or social interest (or visual attraction) to warrant retaining, the proposal fails to meet the test of General Policy 3 which in turn fails Housing Policy 11 and Housing Policy 4. - R 3. The proposal is not of a nature which would be supported in the countryside under those policies which set out the exceptional forms of development which would be allowed in the countryside. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that there is an overriding national need and a site for which there are no reasonable and acceptable alternatives. Therefore the proposal is considered to undermine Environment Policy 1, which seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake. - R 4. The application site is not zoned for development and is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. The proposed garage, by virtue of its height and size and the inclusion of a first floor of accommodation, would be visually out of keeping with its surroundings and given the size and design of the proposal it would be tantamount to the creation of a new residential dwelling in an area not zoned for development. It would result in an inappropriate development in the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions and they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are mentioned in Article 6(4): The owners/occupiers of; La Petite Colline, Agneash. The owners/occupiers of; Ballayolgane Farm, Agneash.
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4): The owners/occupiers of; Draycott, Agneash The owners/occupiers of; Hillside Cottage, Agneash
_____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is part of the residential curtilage of dwellinghouse "The Haven", Agneash, Laxey. The dwellinghouse, fronts onto the Highway with vehicle parking either side and is characterised as a detached two storey traditional cottage that has seen a number of extensions over the years with a garden to the rear. - 1.2 Within the curtilage is a detached single storey garage that sits to the south west of the dwellinghouse and adjacent to a neighbouring dwelling house La Petite Colline. The garage is single storey in height and constructed from brick with a up and over garage door. The front of the garage gives access onto the Mines Road which leads up to the Ballayolgane Farm and access to the former mines and utilities. PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed are the alterations to the garage to create ancillary accommodation. - 2.2 The proposal would see an increase in the size of the building by an upward projection to add another storey above the garage under a shallow 35deg, pitched roof and an increase in the footprint of the garage by 700mm to the west. - 2.3 The building would be finished with horizontal cedar boarding and a zinc plated roof. The windows and doors would be Upvc in a grey colour with a sectional garage door. - 2.4 Access into the building would be either through the garage door or rear door into the garage or from a new external side staircase that leads up to the main access into the accommodation on the west elevation at first floor level. Also proposed is a cantilevered glass balcony on the on the south elevation. - 2.5 To the rear of the garage would be a section of lower garden that could be used for an amenity area in association with the proposed building without affecting the main rear garden amenity of the main dwelling house "the Haven". - 2.6 Internally are proposed two vehicle parking spaces on the ground floor (internally measuring 4.9m x 6.6m) and above, a self-contained accommodation featuring an open plan lounge and kitchen to the front / south, with a ensuite bedroom to the rear/ north. - This would give a total space of 33 sq m which would accommodate 1 person on a permanent basis or 3 tourists under the Housing (Standards) Regulations 2013. PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning application that is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. PLANNING STATUS - Local Plan Policy - 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area zoned as "white land" or not zoned for development as identified on the 1982 Plan it is also identified that the site is within an area of High landscape or coastal value and scenic significance.
4.2 On the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan 2005 (Map no. 2) identifies the surrounding areas as being open space/ agricultural with a further hatching indicating the area is within an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. - 4.3 Also, the applications site and surrounding area are further identified in red on the 2005 map as within an Area of Ecological Interest which links to the written statement for the area plan policy L/OSNC/PR/3 - Areas of Ecological Interest, which says; - 4.4 ''In order to preserve those areas of interest to nature conservation within the study area, there will be a general presumption against any development which would have an adverse impact or effect thereon. This policy will apply to areas identified as of ecological interest on the plans and those which may be identified in the future as of such importance''. - 4.5 This area of Agneash is referred to as area 8 on the 2005 map with further information within the written statement on page 30 detailing the area as; - 4.6 "4.32 Agneash is a small hamlet within the Parish of Lonan, situated at the end of the cul-de-sac which leads from Laxey Wheel in a north westerly direction. Agneash acquired its name from the Scandinavian Eggjarnes meaning "edge-ness" due to its location on the lower side of the slopes of Slieau Lhean and Slieau Ouyr (the broad and the brown mountains). The hamlet comprises approximately twenty dwellings the majority of which have existed in the village in some shape or form for a considerable length of time. The area is popular with walkers who stop their vehicles in the hamlet and walk to Snaefell Mines or in an easterly direction towards The Dreem". - 4.7 "4.33 This is a very rural area which is not presently designated for further development and in which development has generally been opposed in recent times due to the visual impact and also due to the very poor access which is generally single width with few passing places between the first very sharp right hand corner after Wheel Hill to the hamlet itself. There is no mains drainage in this part of the parish. Planning permission has been sought in the past for development within the hamlet - field 610337 - see Area 8 - but was refused as the land was not designated and there was perceived to be inadequate provision of mains infrastructure to accommodate the proposed development. The Department considers that this area is not suitable for any further development due to the condition and nature of the roads and the lack of mains sewerage or significant capacity for further supplies of potable water. The area in the vicinity of Development Area 8 is suggested as a habitat for breeding long eared and pipstrelle bats and heath spotted orchid (Dachtylorhiza maculata) have been observed here". PLANNING STATUS - Strategic Plan Policy - 4.8 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application; - 4.9 Strategic Policy 2; New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.
4.10 Strategic Policy 10: New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:
4.11 Spatial Policy 3 states: "The following villages are identified as Service Villages:
4.12 Spatial Policy 5; "New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3". - 4.13 The relevant parts of General Policy 3 state; "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:
… (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); … (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative…"
4.14 Environment Policy 1; "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix
3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an overriding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."
4.15 Environment Policy 2; "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:
4.16 Housing Policy 11; Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted, but only where:
Further extension of converted rural buildings will not usually be permitted, since this would lead to loss or reduction of the original interest and character.
4.17 Housing Policy 4 states; "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Garff Parish Commissioners has commented (12/12/17) - Suggesting the planning officer to do a site visit and this and other material planning issues considered.
5.2 Highways Services have commented (20/12/17) - The position of the garage and the access arrangement to the garage remains unaltered. Therefore, Highway Services does not oppose this application.
5.3 The residents of 'Draycot', have commented (20/12/17) to object on a number of issues regarding the plans and description as the proposal is significantly disconnected from the main house and not designed in a manner that provides a functional connection from the main house. Access to and from the main house to the ancillary accommodation is not practical and is clear the use is separate accommodation. A further issues is raised about the existing congested parking and additional traffic. Whilst the drawings indicate two vehicles it is impractical and would only accommodate one. Agneash is narrow with few passing places and is not suitable for additional houses. The balcony adds an obstruction as it over hangs the road and twinned with the orientation of the building would bring it closer to the road. Further comment is mentioned about the drainage and waste water and problems already encountered in the area. The proposal is over intensive use of the land as there is no circulation space around the property to allow for maintenance or build ability, the site is not adequate for a building of this size. The proposal will also block light into the La Petite Coline and is not of a design or aesthetics that is suited to the area. - 5.4 The residents of 'Hillside cottage', has commented (14/12/17) to object as the proposal has implications for the whole village of Agneash, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty. The existing infrastructure (roads, surface water and sewerage drainage) cannot cope and could be compromised by additional dwellings, as is experienced with the status quo. Access to Agneash is difficult. The proposed design is not in keeping with the cottages in the area. The balcony would impinge on the road users. The interior layout indicates to be for
ASSESMENT
6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
6.2 The starting point here is the land designation, it is clear from the Development plan, the local plan and the written statement, the application site is a small hamlet outside the village of Laxey within a rural and protected part of the countryside where any development is strictly controlled. The garage is physically detached from the dwellinghouse and sits approx. 30m to the south west with its own access and garden area which is capable of being annexed off from the dwellinghouse and its curtilage to viably operate on its own with no linkage or dependancy o the main dwellinghouse. The application for the alterations to the garage and creating ancillary accommodation above is to be assessed as if it were a new residential property in the countryside.
6.3 In considering this application, Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 3 identify areas of development to be located, generally within existing towns and villages. It cannot be said that this part of Agneash is within the service village of Laxey or within an existing town or village and is very much part of the open countryside as previously identified. Agneash would be considered detached from Laxey village by its distance from the village approx. 1mile away to the east. To access the application site, the road is single track and not served by any public transport, by virtue the remoteness of the application site would be considered contrary to Strategic Policy 10 and its aims to promote integrated transport network through (a)-(d).
6.3 Through Strategic Policy 2 and spatial policy 5, development in the countryside is only permitted in exceptional circumstances, as detailed in paragraph 6.3 of the Strategic Plan, which is General Policy 3 as referenced in Spatial Policy 5. However, when assessed against Spatial Policy 5 and Strategic Policy 2 and Strategic Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan it is considered that the proposal would not be a sustainable location for development and would be contrary to those policies, if an exception is not achievable through GP3. - 6.4 To summarise, As identified earlier within the planning policy section of this report, this presumption against is set out in four different ways; the application site is not zoned for residential development under the 1982 Development Plan Order; Secondly, General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic plan, states that in such areas new dwellings will generally not be permitted; Thirdly, the site is not identified in an Area Plan being a town, village, or within a sustainable urban extension and there for contrary to the exceptions indicated in Housing Policy 4; Fourthly, The site is zoned within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance which seeks to prevent development, unless the development is essential or would not harm the character and quality of the landscape, which the proposal would fail on both counts and therefor a refusal can also legitimately be made on that basis.
6.5 In terms of planning policy there is a long established presumption against new residential development in the countryside. General Policy 3(b), and Housing Policy 11 all provide for the conversion of buildings within the countryside subject to various caveats, including that the building is redundant and of architectural, historic or social value. It is considered the proposed conversion of a garage to a self-contained accommodation, would be contrary to those initial criteria. - 6.6 When considering HP11, at the site visit the garage was being use for the storage of domestic paraphernalia, motorbikes and furniture as evidenced in the site visit photos dated 25.01.18. In this case it cannot be accepted the building is redundant from use and is used as part of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse and fails the first test (a). Moving on, whilst the building is structurally intact for its current purpose, the proposal would see a new build on a self-supporting structural timber frame to carry the weight of the proposed upper floor, which would fail the second test (b). The building is constructed in single brick finish and of modern (70's-80's) construction and cannot be said to be of architectural, historic or social interest, which is contrary to the third test (c). Whilst the proposed extension would be increasing the footprint and massing of the building, it cannot be said to be subordinate and would change the character of the building completely contrary to the fourth test (d). The neighbouring properties to the east are all residential. The upper floor space of accommodation would measure internally 33m2 which would accommodate 1 person on a permanent basis or 3 tourists under the Housing (Standards) Regulations 2013. The proposal for residential use would not be at odds, however the land use zoning is overarching and the site is not within an area of residential use, which is contrary to the fifth test (e). Whilst I have no doubt the building can be connected to electric and telecom, gas and mains foul drainage are not achievable. The existing dwellinghouse is connected to a septic tank and issues raised by the
neighbours would highlight this is already an issue with the effluent discharging into the adjacent field. On the whole it is considered the application fails the main test of Housing Policy 11 for development in the countryside, in turn would then fail housing policy 4 (b) as the site does not serve a viable agricultural holding nor replaces an existing dwelling-house and therefore there are no special circumstances to warrant the setting aside of the presumption against. The development proposed by this planning application is therefore clearly contrary to GP3, HP11 and HP4.
6.7 It is perhaps important to also note Environmental Policy 1 and 2 where Environmental Policy 1 indicates that the countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake and development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. It is not considered the proposal would have an over-riding national need. - 6.8 As the site is within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance, Environment Policy 2 also applies. This policy states that within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that, the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or the location for the development is essential. - 6.9 As the principle of the development fails to satisfy the test of Environment Policy 1 and 2 which set out the exceptional forms of development allowed in the Countryside, and no information has been provided to suggest is of over-riding national need and a site for which there are no reasonable and acceptable alternatives. The proposal is considered to undermine those policies which seek to protect the countryside for its own sake (Environmental Policy 1) even if the impact on the Landscape is minimal (and so does not undermine Environment Policy 2).
6.10 The concerns of the neighbouring residents are noted in paragraphs 5.3-5.6, and thematically raise issues concerning; the design; drainage problems; capacity of existing infrastructure; impact on existing trees; impact on the neighbouring property 'La Petite Colline'. The increase in height and massing of the garage will have an impact on the windows and doors to the west elevation of La Petie Colline, and being only approx. 2.0m away would be considered a detrimental impact making the current situation worse, leading to a loss of light which in turn will have an overbearing effect on La Petite Colline.
7.1 The proposal as it stands would result in the creation of a separate self-contained independent unit of living accommodation where at present there is only one, being the dwellinghouse.
7.2 The Strategic Plan directs development in accordance with a Settlement Hierarchy to facilitate the delivery of sustainable development which has access to facilitates, reduces the need to travel and protects the countryside. Development within the countryside undermines this.
7.3 It is difficult to accept that the criteria which are designed to allow the conversion, restoration and retention of structures within the countryside which are of cultural, historic or architectural value should be used to support the retention of an existing modern single storey garage building. The Strategic Plan seeks to protect the countryside for its own sake and a
concern is with incremental development in the countryside undermining policies that seek to protect it.
7.4 Approval of such a scheme would set a significant precedent for similar types of development through the countryside in the Isle of Man. The purpose of the planning system is to control the use and development of land in the public interest. That requires a consideration of what is most appropriate for the population of the island as a whole. The protection of the Manx countryside from development and the presumption that new housing should be directed to locations consistent with the principles of sustainable development are two of the most important themes running through the Strategic Plan, the purpose of which is to establish a consistent framework within which the public interest can be served by the planning system. When making a planning decision that has permanent consequences (such as the alterations to the garage and creating ancillary accommodation as is proposed here). - 7.5 On balance it is judged, the proposal is contrary to those aforementioned Policies of the Strategic Plan and does not meet the tests for exceptional development within the countryside. It is therefore concluded that the planning application is recommended for refusal.
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
