Planning Officer Report

Planning Officer Report And Recommendations {{table:11137}}

Officer's Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION, WHICH REFERRED TO THE ROOFLIGHTS WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION, WAS DETERMINED BY THE COMMITTEE RATHER THAN UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY

The Site

1. The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling situated on the south western side of the A15 coast road around Maughold and to the north west of the minor road which runs between this and Cornaa, passing over the electric railway line.
2. The site has on it a dwelling under construction which was permitted to replace a former cottage.
3. The site is around half an acre in size and at its greatest is 37m deep. There is a watercourse running to the rear (west) of the site.

Planning Status

1. The site lies within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982.

The Proposal

1. Proposed is the variation of two conditions imposed upon the most recent planning application for the site - PA 11/0542.

1. Condition 4 removed permitted development rights by stating 'Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005, no extensions, greenhouses, walls, gates, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, flag poles, decking, roof lights, windows, garages, or tanks for the storage of oil for domestic heating shall be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval).' The application seeks approval to be varied to allow for three of the four roof lights to be retained. The restriction for other types of development would remain.
2. Condition 6 required that 'within one month of the approval all extensions and roof lights not approved under this application are to be removed in accordance with drawing 10 726 07.' This application seeks to vary the approval to allow for the retention of the two lights in the rear roof

slope and the one in the front roof slope to allow for natural light into the approved attic/roof space. The application confirms that the unauthorised sun room and lean-to outlet have now been removed.

Planning Policy

1. Housing Policies 14 and 15 are applicable in this case which require that new dwellings bear relation to those which they replace and that size constraints of up to 50% of the existing floor area. New dwellings and alterations and extensions to them must respect the form and character of traditional architecture and form. The dwelling has, however already been approved and the proposed changes relate only to the rooflights - two in the rear and one in the front. The remaining central rooflight in the rear is to be removed.

Planning History

1. PA 11/00542/B - Erection of a replacement dwelling (retrospective) (Amendments to PA 09/01978/B & PA 04/01353/B). This was granted on 24th June 2011 with a number of conditions attached. In addition to the conditions 4 and 6 detailed above, condition 7 is also of relevance. This stated

' The use of the attic/roof space is restricted to the storage of domestic items only; no approval is hereby given for the use of the attic space for any type of living accommodation.'

1. PA 11/00539/B - Erection of a detached garage (retrospective) (Amendment to PA 04/01353/B)

Status - Appeal in Progress Refused 24th June 2011

1. PA 11/00032/B - the erection of a replacement dwelling

Status - Refused 15th March 2011

1. PA 09/01978/B - The erection of a replacement dwelling (amendments to PA 04/01353B)

Status - Permitted 6th May 2010

Representations

1. Maughold Parish Commissioners indicate that they do not oppose the application.

Assessment

1. The history of this site is somewhat complex whereby the developer began to construct a house that was not in accordance with any of the planning approvals that had been given. Planning application 11/00032/B sought to regularise the works but was refused for the following reason:

' The proposed dwelling would result in a floor area 345% larger than the original dwelling, contrary to Housing Policy 14. Furthermore, the resulting visual impact would have an adverse affect upon the character of the surrounding area recognised as being an Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and accordingly by causing harm to the character and quality of the landscape, the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of Environmental Policies 1,2 and 35.'

1. The subsequent application (11/00542/B) sought to address the reasons for refusal by clarifying that the height of the dwelling was less than previously indicated as the ground level had been dug down 0.7m. They proposed to remove the habitable floorspace in the roof, which was previously to be served by roof lights and accessed by internal stairs in order to reduce the overall floor space. The application also removed the rear single storey storey extension (sun room) and the side extension was reduced from two storeys to one storey. The application was approved. At the committee, Members added the two conditions that required the removal of the roof lights and the prevention of the attic being used for habitable space.

1. The proposal seeks permission for the retention of two of the rooflights to the rear of the property and the one to the front. No alteration is being sought of condition 7 which requires that the roofspace may only be used for storage. The applicants state that the rooflights would help provide natural daylight to the attic.

1. The application possibly highlights one of the difficulties of the application of Policy H14. The use of floorspace as a means to determine the size and impact of a dwelling in the countryside is, in most instances a useful tool, however in this instance one may question the harm from the insertion of the rooflights and the use of the attic, a space that exists as habitable accommodation as it would not be detrimental to visual or any other amenity.

1. The rooflights will be visible from the top road (A15) from where they will not be visually prominent nor out of character with the property. It is considered that the rooflights are not objectionable, even if this were to facilitate more active use of the roofspace.

Recommendation

1. The application is not considered to be contrary to the spirit of Housing Policies 14 and 15 and is recommended for approval, thus removing rooflights from the list of developments excepted from the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 and removing the need to remove three of the rooflights as stated in the condition.

Party Status

1. The local authority, Maughold Parish Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 16.09.2011

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals

C 1.

This permission relates to the variation conditions 4 and 6 of application 11/00542/B.

New condition 4: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 (or any order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions, greenhouses, walls, gates, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, flagpoles, decking, windows (except roof lights), garages, or tanks for the storage of oil for domestic heating shall be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval).

New Condition 6: Within one month of this approval becoming final the central rooflight to the rear of the property shall be removed in accordance with drawing number 10 726 11

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

Decision Made : A Committee Meeting Date : 13-10-11

Signed : S. S. G. W. E. T. Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate ☐ YES ☑ NO