Officer Report

Application No.: 15/00943/B Applicant: Mr Declan Jackson Proposal: Erection of a detached garage with studio accommodation above Site Address: 134 Fairways Drive Mount Murray Douglas Isle of Man IM4 2JG Case Officer : Miss Jennifer Chance Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE HISTORY OF THE SITE

Site

1.1 The application site is a detached two storey garage with studio adjacent to a dwelling at 134 Fairways Drive. The Proposal - 1.2 The application seeks approval for the retention of the garage with studio accommodation above without compliance with a previously entered into legal agreement. The drawings show a double garage with a separate side entrance providing access to the first floor. The drawings show two rooms and a w.c. The report expands further on what the application proposes. Planning History

2.1 01/01928/B: Planning approval was granted on 21 February 2002 for the erection of a bungalow and double garage. The double garage showed stairs to an upper room, although the space therein would have been limited. The dimensions of the garage are given in the assessment section of this report. - 2.2 03/00120/B: (03/0192) Planning approval was refused on appeal on 6 January 2004 for the erection of a two storey dwelling and garage. The reasons for refusal stated:

• 1. The garage shown in the drawing reference 03/677/B received on 23 June 2003 and which has already been erected, is taller than both that which was approved under PA01/01928 and the existing garage on plot 135. The additional height and bulk at the upper level which effectively looks like another house squeezed in between the dwelling which would be built on plot 134 and the garage on plot 135 and represents overdevelopment of this plot, as viewed from Fairways Drive and the Castletown Road.
• 2. Whilst the dwelling proposed in the application may be acceptable if situated alongside the garage which was approved under PA01/01928, the impact of the dwelling alongside the garage which has been built would represent overdevelopment of the plot and a mass and bulk of development exceeding those adjacent plots.
• 2.3 The Inspector when making his recommendation felt that the garage would have an adverse impact when viewed from within the estate due to it being markedly higher than other garages in

• the vicinity. It was felt that the proposal for a two storey dwelling would be preferable to the permitted bungalow, however he felt that the two storey house would only serve to emphasise further the very different nature and scale of the garage which he felt to be a discordant feature.
• 2.4 The Minister, in accepting that recommendation directed that the garage should either be removed completely or modified such that it was in accordance with the 01/01928 approval. If this was not done, she set out that consideration would be given to legal proceedings.
• 2.5 04/00169/B: 'Erection of a dwelling and detached garage with studio over' The application sought approval for the two storey house which was deemed acceptable in the previous application (but refused on its cumulative impact with the two storey garage) and a garage modified such that it was similar, although not the same as the original garage (01/01928). The applicant showed the proposed garage to be 7m to its apex as opposed to the 7.5m garage that has been constructed. An upper floor was proposed which has a shower room and the description 'studio'. The applicant was, at the time of the application, living in the garage in anticipation of the dwelling being constructed. He wanted the timing of the works to be such that the garage need only be altered once the house was finished and occupied. The application was approved subject to a condition and the prior completion of a Section 18 Agreement (a precursor to a S13 Agreement). The condition required that 'the said garage must be regularised, in order that it complies completely with the approval granted, within three months of the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved.'
• 2.6 Section 18 of the 1991 Town and Country Planning Act. The legal agreement came into force upon the grant of the planning permission. In it the owner (the applicant Mr Jackson) covenanted that: '1. The Development will be completed in all respects in accordance with any planning consent issued by the Department pursuant to the Third Application (04/00169/B);

• 2. The said garage will be regularised in order that it complies completely with the consent issued by the Department pursuant to the First Application (01/01928) or any consent issued by the Department pursuant to the Third Application within three months of the occupation of the two storey dwelling proposed in the Third Application;
• 3.To supply the Department with such information as it reasonably required to determine whether the provisions of this Agreement are being complied with.'

2.7 The legal agreement also states 'this Agreement is enforceable by the Department and shall remain in full force and effect without limit of time the Property being subject to the provisions of this Agreement so long as this Agreement remains in force.' - 2.8 In November 2014 the applicant submitted an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness. Following advice from officers that the Certificate would not quash the legal agreement and the development would still be in contravention of the legal agreement, the application was withdrawn. The applicant was advised that the way to regularise the situation would be to apply for planning approval to retain the structure without compliance with the legal agreement. However it is interesting to note that the supporting statement for that application expressly sought approval for retention of the garage as constructed and for its use as a garage with residential studio above. It states that the unit has been continuously occupied and used as a garage with studio accommodation above since 2002. Development Plan Policies:

3.1 In the Braddan Plan 1991, the land upon which the Mount Murray complex now stands is designated for tourist accommodation in parkland. To a large degree the land use designation is superseded by the development that has occurred. General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan is the most relevant of policies. It requires development to (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;

• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;

• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;

• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.

3.2 Housing Policy 17: The conversion of buildings into flats will generally be permitted in residential areas provided that:

• (a) adequate space can be provided for clothes-drying, refuse storage, general amenity, and, if practical, car-parking;
• (b) the flats created will have a pleasant clear outlook, particularly from the principal rooms and
• (c) if possible, this involves the creation of parking on site or as part of an overall traffic management strategy for the area.

Representations

4.1 Santon Commissioners: No objection

4.2 The site lies within Braddan. No response has been made Braddan Commissioners. - 4.3 DEFA Environmental Housing. The Housing (Registration) Regulations 2013 defines a flat as "a separate set of domestic premises whether or not on the same floor forming part of a building and either the whole or a material part of which lies above or below some other part of the building.' The application site does not fall within these definitions. - 4.4 DEFA Building Control. Whilst a completion certificate has been granted, this is for use as a garage only. Building Regulations approval would be needed to use the premises for a flat.

Assessment

5.1 The key considerations in the determination of the application are the impact of the development in the street scene bearing in mind the previous determinations, and the use of the building for independent living purposes.

5.2 The application in 2003 was refused on the basis that the height and bulk of the garage would make it look like a dwelling squeezed in between two other properties and as such would be overdevelopment. Smaller garages were approved in 2001 and 2004. - 5.3 It might be useful to set out the dimensions of the different garages at the different stages: 01/01928 (approved)

• Width 7.5m Length 8.0m Eaves 2.5m

• Ridge 6.95m

• 03/00120/B (refused) - as constructed and as per the current application

Width 6.2m Length 7.1m Eaves 4m Ridge 7.4m

• 04/00169/B (approved but not implemented)

• Width 8.1m Length 7.65m

Eaves 2.5m Ridge 6.9m

5.4 The 2003 application was refused on the grounds of its visual impact, and that refusal was upheld at appeal. The Inspector commented that the garage was a noticeable feature, particularly travelling towards Ballasalla, and although the erection of the proposed house would reduce its visual impact to some extent, the visual effect of the garage and the house when viewed within the estate was of concern. It would be a discordant feature which together with the house would give the impression of overdevelopment. - 5.5 The building has now been in place for a number of years and has, arguably, become accepted in the street scene. Whilst it is larger than other garages and its proportions are arguably not quite right, it is not considered that the development is sufficiently discordant in the street scene now that the neighbouring house has been completed, that a refusal on this ground would be warranted. - 5.6 The use of the studio accommodation is of more concern. Following the refusal of the 2003 application and the approval of the 2004 application, the applicants were allowed to continue to live in the garage for three months until their house was completed. Following that the garage was meant to be altered so that its height was reduced in accordance with either the 2001 or the 2004 application. In the processing of this application, the argument has been made that the Planning department has always accepted that it would be used for living accommodation because a shower room was shown in the 2004 application. However, the internal layout showed a garage with a toilet on the ground floor, and a room entitled 'studio' on the first floor and a shower room. Irrespective of what the applicant's actual intentions were, the term studio does not grant approval for a selfcontained flat. The site was shown, together with the main house as a single planning unit, and therefore no approval was given at that time for two separate units. - 5.7 Initially the current application showed the garage as being a separate planning unit to the house, notable by the red-line dividing the two. Furthermore it was clear from the site visit that the unit contained a shower room and kitchenette in a lounge and a separate bedroom and was being used as self-contained accommodation. There was washing up on a draining board and washing on a clothes horse in addition to a number of other personal items that could not be attributed to visiting relatives or friends. Officers have also noted that rates demands show the property rated separately from the house. - 5.8 Upon asking whether the applicant would be happy with a condition restricting the use of the space, the initial response was that they would not be agreeable to any condition which would restrict the use of this residential studio as to who should use it (i.e. to immediate family) as that would be beyond what was previously deemed acceptable and also as to how it has been used for in excess of 10 years without any objection from neighbours. However following a recommendation to refuse the application, the applicant's agent has now written to confirm that they would be happy with a condition that states the unit may not be let or sold separately. In addition an amended plan showing the site together with the main house as one planning unit has been received.

Recommendation.

6.1 To approve Party Status - 7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material;

• (d) The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 28.06.2016 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

C 1. The accommodation hereby approved above the garage and store may be occupied only as such ancillary to the main dwelling, 134 Fairways Drive and may not be let or sold separately.

Reason: The garage is required to serve the host property and the space above the garage is not suitable for permanent living accommodation.

Two plans submitted; 1. Floor layout and elevation; and 2, Site location plan received 5 July 2016.

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.

Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 18.07.2016

Signed : J Chance Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO

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.