Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00051/B Applicant: Justin Paull Proposal: Alterations and conversion of building to form a dwelling with integral garage Site Address: Alpine Mews Strathallan Lane Onchan Isle of Man IM3 1NJ Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THE APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL AND THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE.
THE COMMITTEE MAY RECALL READING THE OFFICER REPORT IN RESPECT OF A NEARIDENTICAL PROPOSAL (PA 15/00388/B), WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN TWO DAYS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE MEETING ON 29TH JUNE 2015 AT WHICH A DECISION ON THE APPLICATION WAS DUE TO BE MADE.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE 2015 AND 2016 APPLICATIONS ARE IDENTIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 3.2 OF THIS REPORT. THE REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED ALSO RAISE DIFFERENT ISSUES TO THAT OF THE 2015 APPLICATION.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is a building almost two storeys in height on Strathallan Lane that was probably at one point an outbuilding associated with 110 Summerhill Road, behind which it sits. The building, known as Alpine Mews, is currently unoccupied but has in the past been in a number of different uses, not all of which appear to have benefitted from planning approval. The most recent use appears to have been as an office, but now this has ceased it would appear that the building has no lawful use. - 1.2 The building is finished in Manx stone at first floor throughout but for a patterned render at the ground floor on the highway-facing elevation, while its roof is natural slate. It has no outdoor amenity space. There are four openings on the highway-facing elevation: the three at ground floor offer a door providing corridor access to the building behind, three panes of floor-to-ceiling glass (and that, given the lintel above, was almost certainly originally intended as garage entrance), one of which is a door and provides access to the unit, and, finally, a single window. The fourth opening in the gable is another floor-to-ceiling glass panel, split in half by a transom. Because of the access provided to the dwelling at the rear that effectively is within Alpine Mews, the upper floorspace is greater than the lower floorspace. - 1.3 Alpine Mews is adjoined to the north by a single garage, presumably used in conjunction with 108a Summerhill Road to the northeast. Opposite the site to the east is a recently completed residential development, while to the west are the gardens and then dwellings of Summerhill Road.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the conversion of the unit to residential use. - 2.2 There would be a few external alterations. The roof would have four new rooflights, while a flue would also be installed in the roof. The gable window would be replaced with a door with a glazed panel at the lower half. A new garage door would be installed at ground floor, along with a new entrance door to the unit next to this to the left. The garage door would partially replace the existing three-glazed panel unit but would also be set in an existing area of Manx stone. There would be no new (or, indeed, existing) openings in the elevations other than that facing the highway. - 2.3 Internally, there would be a garage and toilet along with wheelie bin storage and utility room units at ground floor level. Access to the first floor would be provided by a staircase by the front door, and above would be a kitchen / living room as well as a separate bedroom and bathroom.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY AND PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site has a complex and relevant planning history, which is summarised below. It is worth noting first of all that there does not appear to be a lawful use of the building. - 3.2 A temporary planning approval was granted in 1974 for the use of the building as a plumber's workshop and store, which required the business to cease operating beyond 20th June
comings and goings and additional demand for car parking in respect of a site which has no on-site parking and which is situated in an area where there is only limited on-street parking available and The Fire Prevention Officer recommended that the layout and means of escape is not satisfactory as a fire occurring within the new office area on the ground floor may have the potential to trap persons on the first floor with no means of escape.
The applications follow an earlier application to convert the building (at that time a workshop) to living accommodation under PA 90/01235/B.
The main concerns relate to the lack of parking in the area and effect of the proposed use(s) on local residential amenity, with reference made also to the zoning of the area; this is outlined on the Onchan Local Plan as being "residential" and, as such, any proposal to convert the building to residential use would comply with the zoning here. However, it is also clear that there are also potential issues with Building Regulations in respect of appropriate fire escape as raised under 05/00105/C.
3.3 Housing Policy 17 of the Strategic Plan is therefore probably the most relevant in terms of the principles it outlines: "The conversion of buildings into flats will generally be permitted in residential areas provided that:
3.4 General Policy 2 also contains some useful wording: "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:
3.5 It is to be noted that the three decisions outlined above were issued prior to the adoption of the Strategic Plan, albeit that the matters for consideration are not altogether different. From a more strategic point of view, however, the Strategic Plan does alter the Development Plan relative to that existing previously by virtue of Strategic Policies 1 and 2. - 3.6 Strategic Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
3.7 Strategic Policy 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3."
3.8 Returning to the planning history of the area, it is relevant to note that two garages with ancillary living accommodation have been approved nearby: at the rears of both 112 and 114 Summerhill Road. - 3.9 At 112, the original intention under PA 12/01670/B to build a detached garage was refused for the following reason:
"The erection of a detached garage with first floor ancillary accommodation above represents an inappropriate form of backland development by reason of its form, design, relationship with the main dwellinghouse, layout and failing to provide levels of adequate amenity for both the new building and existing dwelling and as such fails to meet the provisions set out in General Policy 2 (b, g , h), Environment Policy 42 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007."
The case officer noted that this would be - or, eventually, could become - an independent dwellinghouse within the garden of an existing dwelling, since the garage was proposed to be a new building. A subsequent application (PA 13/00439/B) proposing a link between the proposed new garage and the existing dwelling was approved. These works were at the early stages of being implemented at the time of the site visit.
3.10 At 114 Summerhill Road, the situation is slightly different. The garage there has ancillary accommodation in the form of a study/guest room and shower room. In 2008, Planning Committee granted approval to this under PA 08/00195/A (which, despite the suffix, was a detailed planning application). These works have been implemented.
4.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 4.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure deferred a decision on the application on 25.1.15, which is surprising as they offered no objection to the previous proposal on the site, which in highways terms presumably had very similar impacts. Clarification on this will be sought prior to the Committee's hearing of the application. - 4.2 Onchan District Commissioners recommend the application be refused: "The proposals fail to meet the requirements of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan in respect of adversely affecting the amenity of local residents and failing to provide satisfactory amenity standards in itself". These comments were received 10th February 2016. - 4.3 The owner / occupier of Strathallan Hall Cottage, Strathallan Lane, Onchan, which is obliquely opposite to the site, object to the application in correspondence received on 2nd February
4.4 The owner / occupier of 'Lamorna', 110 Summerhill Road, Onchan, whose rear shed sits between their own kitchen and Alpine Mews to the northwest, object to the application in correspondence received on 5th February 2016. They object on various grounds by outlining the Planning history of the unit from the early 1970s to present. They highlight concern with the proposal in respect of: (i) the limited level of living accommodation that would be provided because of the garaging at the ground floor; (ii) the proposal is similar to those at 112 and 114 Summerhill Road but they were only judged to be acceptable as additional living accommodation; (iii) previous refusals identified a limited outlook and approval to this could set a precedent across the island, not least at 112 and 114 Summerhill Road where similar buildings / extensions exist, (iv) the proposal will result in inadequate levels of natural light within the conversion, which has been a reason to refuse the application twice previously.
4.5 The owners / occupiers of 108a Summerhill Road, Onchan, whose garage adjoins the site to the northeast, object to the application in correspondence received on 11the February 2016; they note that their objections are the same as those raised in respect of "a very recent planning application in relation to this property". They object on various grounds: (i) residents of Alpine Mews would be able to overlook the rear of their property; (ii) any material alterations to the building could result in loss of light / overshadowing; (iii); there is congestion in the area and no one could park opposite the proposed garage as this would prevent the garage being used, with the street here at its narrowest; (iv) there is already too much traffic on Strathallan Lane and traffic counts relating to the recent development at Ridgeway Road were badly carried out; (v) there would be an increase in noise from building work and traffic; (vi) they have no faith that the works could be carried out without damaging their own garage; (vii) one of them works at night and so building works during early mornings are stressful to deal with; (viii) they believe the owners are applying for permission to make a profit and this is insufficient reason to cause considerable danger and inconvenience to residents, and (ix) there are already plenty of apartment-style accommodation available in the area. In addition to these concerns, they identify that the site notice has not been displayed prominently and suggest that the applicant is a developer rather than prospective resident, who will just look "to make a profit on his investment, regardless of the effect it would have on current residents" - they then go on to say that there are already a number of other, similar properties in the area (some owned by the developer) so there is no need for the development.
5.0 ASSESSMENT - 5.1 On the basis of Development Plan policies and the previously issued refusals on the site, the main issues arising from any application to convert the existing building into a residential unit are set out below in no particular order:
5.2 It is evident from the Local Plan zoning that the principle is acceptable from the point of view of the Development Plan, but the acceptability of that principle is tied in very closely with the four matters outlined above. As such, they are each considered in detail now. It should first be noted that a change to the Development Plan between now and the previous decisions on the site requires specific attention be paid to the re-use of previously-developed land where appropriate, along with an expectation that new residential development should be located within existing towns. Amenity space - 5.3 Internally, the unit would provide roughly 74sqm of living accommodation, albeit that 32.5sqm of this is on the ground floor and accommodates the garage and utility units / wheelie bin storage while some of the space on both floors is also given over to the staircase. The useable space - the living room / kitchen, bedroom and bathroom, plus hallway - is therefore probably closer to around 38sqm in size and within the upper floor, which is almost but not quite fully two storeys in height. - 5.4 The Housing (Standards) Regulations 2013 set out the minimum space size for new residential units; this states that any unit of less than 30sqm (net) would not be registered as a flat and therefore would not be acceptable. This is helpful to note in the first instance - but, while there is clearly far more than this in the proposed unit, it is important from a Planning point of view to understand what the quality of that living space would be. A site visit was instructive.
5.5 Internally, there is more ambient light than might be expected. The four rooflights provide a good level of internal light, and these would not alter. The proposal would remove some lighting at the ground floor via the insertion of a garage door, but the ground floor would not provide any primary accommodation and so there can be little concern on this point. - 5.6 The outlook, too, is perhaps surprisingly good. While there is only one window, this is a double-height window and offers views in different directions. The existing unit would be replaced by a full-length glazed panel. The views are not restricted by housing on the other side of the highway, with dwellings sat at an angle or a little way removed from the front of the unit. Strathallan Hall Cottage, the nearest dwelling, is 13m away and set at an angle, allowing views beyond that dwelling and towards the sea beyond. To the north, the car park provided for the recently completed housing development nearby offers a sense of openness that is intensified by views of other housing at a greater distance away. It is considered that the outlook offered by this sole window would be sufficient to ensure a good amenity for someone living there. - 5.7 The proposed internal arrangements would not affect this situation greatly, with only one internal wall proposed for installation - as such, the light levels observed during the internal site visit would be more or less the same should the proposal go ahead. - 5.8 While additional windows would be welcome from this point of view, these could cause concern beyond that which already exists in respect of the impact of the proposal on neighbours' living conditions. - 5.9 While there is no outdoor amenity space, the agent has cleverly found space on the ground floor for a utility room (in all but name) and this is welcome. It is also not uncommon for residential accommodation to exist without outdoor amenity space in the form of flats / apartments, and so no objection on this point would be appropriate. Impact on living conditions of neighbours - 5.10 As already noted, Strathallan Hall Cottage is nearby: the dwelling is angled from Alpine Mews, but its nearest window - identified by the owners - serves a bedroom. It is also noted from a previous planning application at Strathallan Hall Cottage that there is another bedroom window at first floor level. The nearest window is approximately 14m from the window in Alpine Mews. The issue raised by the proposal is probably more specifically related to the perception of overlooking rather than overlooking itself, since there is only one window in place at Alpine Mews and, from the site visit, it was clear that direct views into that window on Strathallan Hall Cottage were difficult to make given the reflective nature of the glazing in the windows to the front elevation of Strathallan Hall Cottage. - 5.11 The angle that the buildings sit at from one another would not allow for direct overlooking between the two, although it would feel a little like that. It is also relevant to note that the owners of Strathallan Hall Cottage only identify one window as being likely to be affected by the proposal, suggesting that they are only concerned about the effect on this window. While this might be a little to the detriment of their position, it is considered that it would be inappropriate to ignore the impact on the other bedroom window. - 5.12 However, it also cannot be ignored that the window at Alpine Mews is already present, and although there does not appear to be a lawful use for the unit such that it could not be used at any time for any use, the fact remains that the building has been in use in the past, and the window's presence - even if the building is unoccupied - would give rise to a perception of overlooking, at least to some degree. This perception is certainly likely to increase once it is known the unit is occupied. - 5.13 The heightened perception of overlooking felt by the occupants of Strathallan Hall Cottage would be felt in only two rooms. While any increase in the perception of overlooking is not ideal, it
6.0 CONCLUSIONS - 6.1 Alpine Mews is a building that has been out of use for some considerable time and does not appear to have a lawful use. Proposals in the past have been refused for various reasons. The Development Plan suggests that the principle of the proposal is very clearly acceptable. As such, the acceptability of the proposal very clearly turns on its detail. The previous decisions are material considerations, but these are tempered somewhat by the alterations to the Development Plan since those decisions were made. Moreover, it is a fundamental principle that each application should be treated on its own merits, and that previous decisions should not be determinative of outcomes of future applications. The issue is very much whether or not the change in the Development Plan and an inspection of the site internally is such as to conclude that the proposal is acceptable. - 6.2 It is considered that the proposal can, on balance, be viewed favourably when assessed against each of the key criteria. The internal space is sufficient, as is the level of amenity in terms of light and outlook sufficient. The provision of a single parking space is appropriate for a singlebedroom unit. The use of the unit will increase the perception of overlooking in respect of Strathallan Hall Cottage, but this increase has not been concluded to be unduly harmful. The use of the unit will also attract a greater level of activity but this will not be likely to cause undue harm to the living conditions of those living nearby. It is therefore concluded that the proposal accords with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan, with particular regard having been had to Housing Policy 17 of the Strategic Plan. - 6.3 Many of these conclusions are quite fine balances and, in some ways, where an application is balanced in this way it is sometimes right to take the precautionary approach and recommend its refusal. However, in this instance, the factor considered to be in the greatest balance is that of the living conditions of the occupier of the unit, and in this some credit must be given (and responsibility assumed) for that occupier to determine whether or not they should wish to live there prior to making such a decision.
7.1 In view of the above, it is considered that the proposal would comply with the relevant parts of General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 17, as well as Strategic Policies 1 and 2.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
7.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
All these dwellings are sufficiently close to the application site to be materially affected by any change in the nature / use of the application site.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 17.02.2016 Conditions and Notes for Approval: 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.
Reason: In the interest of protecting public amenity and protecting private residential amenity, and for the avoidance of doubt.
The development hereby approved relates to the Design Statement, as well as following drawings, all date-stamped as having been received 19th January 2016: 291A3EX.01, 291A3EX.02, 291A3EX.03, 291A3EX.04, 291A3EX.05, 291A3EX.06, 291A3EX.07, 291A3P1B.01, 291A3P1B.02, 291A3P1B.03, 291A3P1B.04, 291A3P1B.05, 291A3P1B.06, 291A3P1B.07 and 291A3P1B.08.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Signed E Riley Presenting Officer
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
