Installation of a gazebo and engineering works to create a childrens feature cave (retrospective)
Site Address:
Beehive Kindergarten Hillberry Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 3JP
Case Officer:
Mr Jamie Leadbeater
Photo Taken:
03.07.2012
Site Visit:
03.07.2012
Expected Decision Level:
Planning Committee
Officer's Report
THE APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO A HIGH LEVEL OF OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL COMMISSIONERS AND NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTS; HOWEVER THE PLANNING OFFICER HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
The Application Site
The application site is the curtilage of an infant nursery on Hillberry Road, Onchan. The nursery became operational in 1985. The property on the site was a large detached dwelling built before 1921 and has had since a number of modern extensions added to it. It has a large landscaped rear garden area that includes a large timber summerhouse, several climbing frames and associated playing facilities. The rear garden borders the rear garden of three bungalows on Birch Hill Grove to the east, three bungalows on Briarfield Avenue to the north and one property on Hillberry Road to the west.
The Proposal
Proposed is the erection of a gazebo and the creation of a children's cave in rear garden area. Both proposed works have already been carried out. The cave rises approximately 1.8 metres upwards from ground level and has a curved top which extends down to a width of 4 metres at ground level. The curved top of the cave is finished in grass. The gazebo has a pointed roof finished in timber tiling, 4 metres square in area. The roof is supported by four timber pillars approximately 2 metres in height.
Planning History
The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, two of which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
10/01838/B - Alterations and erection of extensions - Refused. The application was originally recommended for approval by the case officer but the Planning Committee refused the application as it would inevitably lead to an increase in the number of
children and staff, resulting in additional disturbance and loss of amenity to surrounding residents. A subsequent appeal by the applicant was dismissed by the Minister in October 2011, who concurred with the appointed Independent Planning Inspector's recommendation to uphold refusal. The inspector stated in their conclusions to their assessment, "I do not disagree with the Planning Authority's assessment that the extension would be appropriate in scale, form and design. It would not conflict with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan in those respects. However, I have concluded that it would cause significant harm to the living conditions of adjacent residents in terms of noise and general disturbance, and so would be contrary to part (g) of General Policy 2...I consider that it would be fundamentally unsound to approve an extension of the nursery, entailing an additional increase in the numbers of children, until the Planning Authority has formally considered whether there is a breach of planning control and whether any action should be taken in this regard".
06/00161/B - Erection of a timber summer house to provide play room – Approved. 97/00135/B – Erection of a glazed extension incorporating entrance – Approved. 88/00155/B – Internal alterations and extensions to form additional nursery accommodation – Refused, but later approved on review.
Planning Policy
The application site falls within an area designated for Predominantly Residential use in the Onchan Local Plan 2000. There are no policies within Planning Circular 1/2000, the written statement that accompanies the local plan, which are considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application.
The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains one policy that is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. General Policy 2 states:
"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:
(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
(c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
(g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality".
Representations
Onchan District Commissioners recommend that the application is refused, if the application is to be determined prior to the determination of the permitted occupancy levels of the nursery. As the permitted occupancy level of the application property has yet to be determined, the commissioners' representation must therefore be taken as a objection against the grant of planning permission. In their response, the commissioners' justified their refusal on the basis of the applicant's continued disregard to the planning process and decisions. The commissioners' second ground for objection to the proposal that it is likely to encourage increased use of the garden and subsequently exacerbate the potential noise generated by children to the detriment of the local residents' residential amenity.
The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority have registered an interest in the application.
The occupants of the following properties in Onchan object to the proposal on the grounds that it would cause noise and other disturbances to their properties:
Occupant of No. 2 Briarfield Avenue;
Occupant of No. 4 Briarfield Avenue;
Occupant of No. 7 Briarfield Avenue;
Occupant of No. 8 Briarfield Avenue;
Occupant of No. 11 Briarfield Avenue;
Occupant of No. 13 Briarfield Avenue;
Occupant of No. 14 Birch Hill Grove;
Occupant of No. 15 Birch Hill Grove;
Occupant of No. 16 Birch Hill Grove; and,
Occupant of No. 2 Birch Hill Crescent.
Assessment
It perhaps should firstly be noted that there is an ongoing enforcement investigation concerning the number of children that attend the nursery. The applicants acknowledge that this is greater than 55. It is possible this has occurred for greater than 10 years and maybe lawful, however this has yet to be formally determined.
It is deduced from the Inspector’s report to the appeal made by the applicant for previous planning application 10/01838/B, and the objections to the current proposal, that the fundamental concern with any further development on the site is whether it is going to aid further noise and general disturbance to adjoining residential properties by virtue of intensifying the use of the site for children nursery purposes. Although the proposed works have already been carried-out, no objection has specified that the proposed ‘garden features’ are intrinsic to the disturbance experienced by neighbours of the site, but nevertheless act an ancillary facility that stimulates noise and disturbance. As such, whilst the findings from the Inspector’s appeal report should be materially considered, reasonable, and rational considerations should be given to the purpose, and even common existence of similar works to those proposed, in the context of a residential area. Unlike previous application 10/01838/B that sought to extend the existing teaching facilities – placing greater demand on staff numbers and the need for further car parking, it is considered this proposal has no direct parking implications. The significance of this is that it disregards the argument that the proposal is causing harm to the residential amenity of neighbouring properties by way of placing increased demand on neighbouring residential streets for parking linked to the nursery.
In concluding their assessment for the appeal to planning application 10/01838/B, the Inspector states in paragraph 41, “..Local people have raised a number of other concerns. Most significant is the suggestion that the nursery is operating in breach of the conditions on PA 88/00155/B. The evidence before me is inadequate to ascertain whether the Planning Authority could still enforce the restriction on the number of children to 55. In any event, that matter is outside the scope of the matters I am able to advise on in the context of this appeal. Nevertheless, I consider that it would be fundamentally unsound to approve an extension to the nursery, entailing additional increase in the numbers of children, until the Planning Authority has formally considered whether there is a current breach of planning control and whether any action should be taken in that regard”. The Planning Authority has yet to determine whether or not the nursery is currently operating beyond its current planning rights.
Given the Inspector advocates a cautious approach towards permitting further development until such time that the nursery's actual capacity has been determined, consideration must be given to whether or not this proposal is likely to fundamentally affect the capacity in the short-term and subsequently any further disturbance to the neighbouring properties. In reality, it is unlikely that garden features such as those proposed have the fundamental capacity to accommodate increased number of children and staff, unlike the extension refused in previous application 10/01838/B.
The proposed gazebo is sited approximately 2 metres away at its nearest point from the eastern boundary which primarily borders the rear of semi-detached bungalow number 15 Birch Hill Grove. The cave, at its highest point, is located approximately 2 metres away from the same boundary. The cave rises to a height that is similar to the height of the timber fencing that treats the boundary between the application site and number 15 Birch Hill Grove. The gazebo, which is located closer to the main property within the garden and approximately 6.2 metres from the cave, rises higher than the height of the timber fence, but due to a thick lining of trees within the boundary of number 15, it would not be readily visible from the neighbouring dwelling. Even if the trees were to be removed, the proportion of gazebo that would be visible from the neighbouring dwelling would be small and not visually intrusive. In terms of area covered, both the cave and gazebo combined utilise a very small proportion of the garden space for the nursery and are not the only garden features provided for children play purposes.
In terms of design, the gazebo is made from a modest timber structure that is not uncommon for garden feature of its type. The cave appears to be unique and much of its visual impact is minimised by a tapered land shape. The gazebo covers approximately 4 square metres of space, with the cave slightly less. Arguably these could accommodate very few children at any one time. The cave, when inside has an enclosed nature. Any noise being omitted from within inside the cave is likely to be echoed, but not fully heard from outside. The gazebo, however, has open sides and any children within it could cause noise that would not be impaired by physical sound barriers like the cave.
It is subjective whether or not the proposed garden features would directly cause demonstrable harm to the amenity of neighbouring residential properties. It is certain, however, the proposals will help facilitate the running of the nursery that is known for causing disturbance to neighbouring residential properties. Both features in their built form are considered acceptable in terms of siting and design so not to be of detriment to public amenity or private amenity as both cannot be seen from the public highway or readily seen from inside most adjoining dwellings. It is their use, however, that implicates their acceptability in planning terms. The objections received question the proposal's likely role in inadvertently causing harm by way of noise and general disturbance to neighbouring dwelling. On one hand both proposals could attract a congregation of children culminating in an intensification of noise disturbance in one part of the garden, but not in another. On the other hand, refusing this application would not restrict use of the garden, and subsequently even without the proposed garden features the neighbouring residents could be subject to noise and disturbance from children, although it is accepted this would be dependent upon the number of children in the garden at any one time. As such, I have concluded, on balance, the proposal represents a reasonable level of development for a garden of the application site's size. Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest the proposals would be directly responsible, in isolation, for the noise disturbances to neighbouring properties. The proposal therefore complies with the relevant provisions in General Policy 2 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and therefore is acceptable.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the planning application be approved.
Party Status
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:
The local authority, Onchan District Commissioners are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2006, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The residents of the following neighbouring properties are considered 'interested persons' by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2006, Paragraph 2 (1) and as such are afforded 'party status':
Occupant of No. 2 Briarfield Avenue;
Occupant of No. 4 Briarfield Avenue;
Occupant of No. 7 Briarfield Avenue;
Occupant of No. 8 Briarfield Avenue;
Occupant of No. 11 Briarfield Avenue;
Occupant of No. 13 Briarfield Avenue;
Occupant of No. 14 Birch Hill Grove;
Occupant of No. 15 Birch Hill Grove;
Occupant of No. 16 Birch Hill Grove; and,
Occupant of No. 2 Birch Hill Crescent.
It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:
The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority has not raised any material planning considerations and therefore are not afforded 'party status'.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 10.09.2012
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
: Notes attached to refusals
C 1.
This approval relates to the erection of a gazebo and cave feature in rear garden, as shown in the 1:2000 scale Location Plan, 1:400 scale Site Plan, proposed site layout plan, and proposal specifications drawings, all received on 21st June 2012.
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
