Loading document...
Application No.: 18/00322/B Applicant: Mr Philip & Mrs Caroline Roriston Proposal: Erection of two storey building incorporating workshop and guest accommodation with associated parking, all ancillary to existing property Site Address: 18 Ballastrooan Colby Isle Of Man IM9 4NR Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 19.04.2018 Site Visit: 19.04.2018 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.05.2018 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
This approval relates to drawings 1798-01, 1798-02, 1798-03 and 1798-04 all received on 27th March, 2018.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are 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 owner of 14, Ballastrooan which is immediately adjacent to the application site.
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 of 12A, Ballastrooan, which is not adjacent to the site and at a distance which would not be directly affected by the proposal.
_____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE SITE
1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling, 18, Ballastrooan, which is a detached, two storey dwelling situated in the centre of a small estate of 21 dwellings to the north of Main Road (A7), Colby. The houses are all dormers bungalows other than the application property and a new dwelling which has been constructed to the south west. - 1.2 The property currently has a driveway which accommodated a boat at the time of the site visit. The survey drawing shows a wall to the north east of the driveway which no longer exists. The boundary along the public highway is formed by a masonry wall that is no higher than 1m and hedging behind it.
2.1 Proposed is the erection of a second building within the site, accommodating a workshop, toilet, sunroom and utility room on the ground floor and a bedroom, en-suite bathroom, kitchen and lounge on the first floor. The overall living accommodation is 99 sq m, the workshop 28 sq m and has timber bi-fold doors on the elevation facing the road, set above ground level (ie there is a step up to the inside of the building), and with two vertically proportioned doors facing the main house. Access to the living accommodation would be through a canopied door leading to an internal porch and there is a Juliet-style balcony on the first floor facing the main house which is 7m away.
2.2 Two vehicle parking spaces are shown on a new driveway resulting in four parking spaces for all of the accommodation on site. - 2.3 One tree is to be removed to facilitate the development. This is described as "a poor specimen" by the Arboricultural Officer of DEFA. A number of trees overhang the site from the rear. - 2.4 The applicant explains that the previous scheme, which was submitted prior to them buying the property, would not sit comfortably with the other properties in Ballastrooan and as the dwelling currently has no garage or workshop, they feel that a better proposal is to have a
workshop with guest accommodation which is designed to be more in keeping with other properties in the estate. They are making major improvements to the house and the workshop would be very useful for that and in addition, they have family and friends who would benefit from the guest accommodation.
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South (2013) as Predominantly Residential. The land immediately to the west is a development site, number 16. This has been developed in the form of the two storey house in paragraph 1.1 above.
3.2 The development should be considered in respect of the provisions of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan as follows:
"Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
4.1 The most relevant planning history for this particular development is approval which was granted in principle then for the reserved matters, for a new dwelling on the area where the workshop and guest accommodation is now proposed - 14/01201/A and 16/00195/REM. This involved the retention of the existing dwelling as it currently is, with no vehicular parking or access, and the erection of a new dwelling with vehicular access and two parking spaces. This scheme involved the felling of a tree in the centre of the site and the retention of the tree alongside the roadside wall, which is shown in the current application, as being removed. REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 The Arboricultural Officer of DEFA comments on 19.04.18, noting that the large tree in the centre of the site was previously removed under licence and that beside the road, indicated in the plans to be removed, is "a poor specimen" and he has no concerns about the proposal.
5.2 Arbory Parish Commissioners have no objection but suggest that a condition should be attached to any approval restricting the occupation of the proposed dwelling to such associated with the main dwelling and not used separately therefrom. - 5.3 There are objections from two neighbours: the owners of 12A, Ballastrooan which lies to the north west of the application site, separated therefrom by the rear garden of number 14, and from representatives of the owner of number 14. 12A, Ballastrooan - 5.4 They are concerned that the scale and proximity of the proposed building will interfere with the enjoyment of the space and light available to the south of their property and note that they
already have a large house under construction directly in front of their lounge/conservatory (03.05.18).
14, Ballastrooan
5.5 The letter on behalf of this neighbour expresses concern not at the principle of the development, but at the potential views from the proposed ground floor sunroom into her garden through the existing hit and miss fencing. If a solid fence were erected, this may overcome this issue. The proposed first floor Juliet-style balcony and patio doors will have a direct view over the rear garden and conservatory and the balcony would encourage occupants to spend time there, adversely affecting the privacy of the adjacent garden where the occupant currently spends a lot of time. The property is already overlooked by 18, Ballastrooan but the impact of this is reduced through the use of obscured glazing and one of the windows is a little used bedroom. Itt is suggested that this could be overcome if the balcony were removed and the property fitted with a south facing dormer, like others in the vicinity. There is concern that the proposed building may eventually become detached from the main dwelling and be occupied separately (03.05.18 and 10.05.18). They add on 14.05.18 that the previous scheme was positioned further from the boundary with number 14 and confirm that they would have no objection if the balcony and patio doors were relocated to the south eastern elevation. Applicants' reponse - 5.6 The applicants have been made aware of the objections which have been received which bemused and worried them as they had been round to see both neighbours prior to submitting the application, neither raising any of the issues which now seem to be a problem. The fencing referred to is not hit and miss, but spaced round topped posts which they thought would have improved privacy but at the same time, let light in and remain more stable. If necessary, climbing plants could be allowed to grow up the fencing on the side of the party with the issue. - 5.7 In respect of the concerns about the balcony, they suggest that it faces their own property, not number 14 and when they spoke with the owner of number 14, she appeared to be under the impression that it was to be a full balcony. - 5.8 They take issue with the suggestion that one of their bedrooms is little used and query how the objector knows this. They suggest that number 14 has a "huge" dormer which overlooks their kitchen and dining room and the gable window of number 14 has a direct view into their kitchen when they lived at number 16. They considered that they had a very good relationship with the owner of number 14 and have looked out for her welfare and privacy. If the property which has planning permission were to be built, there are two first floor windows which directly overlook number 14. In respect of the suggestion to install an additional dormer and remove the Juliet-style balcony, they consider that the visual impact of an additional dormer at the front would unbalance the front elevation and there would not be much light from it. They point out that the view from the proposed balcony will be of the far end of the garden of number 14 and this view is obscured by an existing apple tree. Ideally, a window on the rear elevation would allow light into the rear of the property but as this would directly overlook number 14, they did not propose it (11.05.18). - 5.9 In respect of the objection from number 12A, the applicants consider that the distance from their property to the development is such that they will only be minimally affected including a number of trees which will mitigate any impact. They do not consider that the impact of the new house on number 12A has any relationship with what they are proposing. - 5.10 Highway Services have no objection provided that the roadside boundary is no higher than 1.05m and accept that the visibility which will be achievable will be acceptable. The visibility splay crosses the entire frontage of the site to the east of the proposed driveway. (14.05.18). ASSESSMENT
6.1 The issues here are whether the proposal accords with the principles of General Policy 2: in particular whether the proposal would sit comfortably in the streetscene, whether it would have any adverse impacts on the living conditions of those in neighbouring dwellings or the main house on the site or would prejudice the development of the land to the west, whether the proposal would have any adverse impact on highway safety and finally whether the development would have any adverse impact on the natural context of the site, having regard to the loss of the roadside tree as proposed. In assessing these various impacts, it is relevant to consider what already has approval and the impact that would have compared with that of what is proposed.
6.2 The site has approval for a different form of development which would have as much of an impact as that now proposed. The change in design approach is welcome and its orientation and position of windows, access and amenity space, probably means that separation of the two units is unlikely in the future. The approved scheme would see two first floor windows in the rear elevation which would look directly towards the rear garden of number 14. What is proposed will have a shorter length facing directly towards number 14 (9m compared with 12.6m) although the two storey part of the approved scheme is shorter than that of the proposed (6.7m long by 7m high compared with 9m by 7m with a small section being slightly higher then sloping downwards). There are no first floor windows in the proposed scheme. - 6.3 The proposed balcony will look directly towards the rear of the main dwelling on the side but an angled view will be available of the rear of number 14 although there is vegetation in the rear garden of number 14 which will help obscure a clear view. - 6.4 There is clearly inter-visibility between the properties in the estate, where dormers look directly towards the rear of adjacent properties and first floor windows sit close to mutual boundaries, both offering views into adjacent property. What was approved would also have provided a clear view from the proposed first floor not only into the rear garden of number 14 but also towards number 12A, which the proposed development will not do. On balance it is considered that the proposed building is more neighbourly than what has approval and unlike both existing dwellings will not have a direct view over the neighbour's property. - 6.5 Number 12A is 10m to the north at is closest, the dwelling being 17m from the proposed building. This distance is considered sufficient to overcome any impacts of light or shading. - 6.6 The property would clearly look directly towards the main property on the site and would be close. The proposal is for the new accommodation to be associated with the main house and if the owner were to seek separation at any time, the main impact would be upon themselves and the amenities and value of their property. The plot has approval for a separate dwelling in any case, so the principle of a separate dwelling on this part of the site has been judged to be acceptable. - 6.7 The proposal will increase the amount of car parking on the site in accordance with the requirements of the Strategic Plan and there is no objection in respect of the safety of the access which has visibility over the existing walling and with only one property to the north west from where vehicles may be approaching from this direction. - 6.8 The proposal will result in the loss of small trees which are not considered by the Arboricultural Officer as having significant impact. The design of the property is different from the main house, but this is not considered to be a negative aspect and the variety of materials and building profiles are considered welcome and will add interest to the streetscene.
7.1 Given the approval which exists on the site, the proposal is considered to accord with the standards set out in General Policy 2 and the application is supported.
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.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 17.05.2018 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
