Loading document...
The application is being referred to the Planning Committee by the Director of Planning and Building Control as he has been in correspondence with one of the objectors regarding the application.
The application was previously considered by the Committee who resolved to defer the application and seek further advice regarding any health and safety issue relating to acetylene gas cylinders in an adjacent workshop. A supplementary report is provided at the end of this report.
The site represents the residential curtilage of Billey Millish, Nassau Road, Regaby
which is a single storey flat roofed detached property located on the southern side of Nassau Road and east of the Regaby Crossroads.
The site has been zoned under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982 as being within an area of 'white land' not zoned for development; the site is neither within a Conservation Area nor within an area zoned as High Landscape Value or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
Due to the zoning of the site the following policy are relevant for consideration:-
Policy 16: The extension of non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form will not generally be permitted where this would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public."
The following previous planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:-
Alterations and conservatory extension to dwelling including provision of pitched roof to replace existing flat roof - 04/02596/B - APPROVED
The application seeks approval for the alterations and extensions to form additional living accommodation.
The extensions form two parts; the first is the extension to the rear elevation, which involves the demolition of the existing detached workshop. The extension would have a depth and width of 6.1 metres. The second aspect of the proposals is the introduction of a pitched roof to accommodate additional living accommodation. The proposed new roof ridge would have a height of 7 metres (measured from front elevation) which is an increase in height over the existing flat roof of 4 metres (existing 3 metres). The new gable ended roof will extend from the front elevation over the existing dwelling and over the proposed rear extension.
Highways Division:- "Do not oppose has no traffic management, parking or road safety implications." The owners/occupiers of Thie Vannin, Nassau Road, Regaby have objected to the application which can be summarised as; the increase size in the building will not benefit what is essentially an agricultural area and proposal will result in a loss of trees.
The owner/occupier of Unit 1, Regaby Works, Nassau Road, Regaby has objected to the application which can be summarised as; if the garage was turned into residential accommodation the result would be a catastrophe. Concern of the proximity of the residential development to the gas cylinders in my workshop. Need to ensured that restrictions are not subsequently placed on the keeping of these cylinders as a result of the extension.
The owner/occupier Boundary Cottage, Nassau Road, Regaby has objected to the application which can be summarised as; ownership matters; the proposal would result in a loss of a mature oak tree; the increase in height of the proposal would be unsympathetic in the area; the new rear extension
would abut the rear workshop which would introduce a conflict of interests; and the soakaway for this dwelling is within my ownership, will not allow any further drainage expansion.
ASSESSMENT
The first aspect to consider is Housing Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. This policy relates to existing dwellings which are considered to be of a non-traditional design, but also of poor or inappropriate form. It is considered the existing flat roofed dwelling would fall under this category given its flat roof appearance.
This policy goes on to state that generally permission will not be granted where the proposal would increase the impact of the building as viewed by the public.
The main aspect of the development is the introduction of a pitched roof over the dwelling to provide additional living accommodation. As indicated the new ridgeline would be approximately 4 metres higher than the existing flat roof. It is therefore clear that the proposal would increase the appearance of the building from public view. However, the proposal, whilst increasing built development on the site and making the dwelling more apparent along the street scene, has a more traditional design given the pitched roof design and would improve the appearance of the existing dwelling. Within close proximity of the site there are properties which have gable ended properties, so the gable end design would be more in keeping, especially given the present flat roof design.
As indicated within the history section of the report, planning permission has been granted for the provision of a pitched roof to replace the existing flat roof. That proposal would have resulted in a roof ridge of 4.7 metres, and would only realistically serve as attic space for storage given the height.
In this situation whilst the proposals will increase the size and scale of the dwelling, they would improve the appearance of the property significantly given the gable end, pitch roofed design. Additionally, the proposal would remove the existing pebble dash finish and replace it with a render finish and the proposed new roof would be finished with slate. Both these finishes are traditional finishes. Housing Policy 16 states that extensions will "not generally be permitted", which leaves flexibility for extensions of some non-traditional dwellings or those of poor or inappropriate form. It is considered in this case this flexibility should be applied given the benefits to the appearance of the site and the area.
In terms of impact upon the neighbouring properties, to the east is a group of buildings used as a commercial garage. The garage forms an "L" shape and wraps around the eastern and southern boundaries of the application site. The garage's western elevation runs directly adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site. This elevation has a total of five windows. The proposal will reduce some of the light to these windows during the afternoon periods; however, it is not considered the light potentially lost would be significant, given the proximity of the existing dwelling a few metres away. Additionally, the neighbouring property is used as a commercial garage and not a residential property.
The proposal also includes the introduction of two windows within and above the new rear extension and four velux roof lights within the new roof. These directly look towards the garages, however given the use and the size of the adjacent building no overlooking would occur.
Turning to the proposed western elevation, there would be a total of six velux roof lights which would look towards the neighbouring site, which currently has an un-finished residential property. The distance from these velux roof lights to the western boundary of the site is 15 metres and a further 12 metres to the dwelling under construction. It is considered this distance to the neighbouring boundary and to the neighbouring property would be sufficient to ensure no significant overlooking would occur. Again due to these distances, the proposal would not lead to any loss of light and/or overbearing impacts upon the future occupants of the neighbouring dwelling.
23 July 2010
Therefore it is considered the proposal would not lead to any significant impacts upon neighbouring residential amenities sufficient to warrant a refusal.
The Planning Authority has received a comment from the Department's Environmental Protection Officer. Their comments relate to Environmental Policy 24; that normally residential development would not generally be allowed within industrial areas, and that residential accommodation should not be located any closer to adjacent commercial workshops than existing residential premises. The existing relationship of the garage adjacent to the dwelling whilst not ideal has existed for many years. Extending the dwelling as proposed, is not considered to result in an increase in disturbance to the occupants of the dwelling by the commercial garage. If there was/is disturbance from the commercial premises, whether the property was extended or not, the level of disturbance would remain relatively the same.
The Planning Authority has been in discussion with the Forestry Division (DAFF) regarding the potential impact of the development upon the oak tree. The Forestry Division has confirmed that the Division have agreed for the tree to be removed under a felling licence. The reasons for this are the proximity of the existing main dwelling and the impact the tree could/is having upon the foul pipes/septic tank. Accordingly, given the Forestry Division has no objection to the tree being removed, it is considered the development would be acceptable from this aspect.
The Planning Committee deferred the application, solely on the ground of concerns regarding of the storage of acetylene gas cylinders within the workshop, adjacent to the application site, and the potential impact upon the residential amenities due to these gas cylinders.
The Planning Division has consulted with the Health and Safety Officer who has advised that there are no regulations for the storage of a few acetylene gas cylinders, but there is guidance on the use and maintenance of the bottles and equipment.
The Officer advised also that the storage of the acetylene gas cylinders is commonly used by both commercial and for residential purposes throughout the Island and therefore this practice is not unique.
The Health and Safety Officer goes on to indicated that there does not appear to be any specific regulations relating to distance that the cylinders should be kept away from residential properties and that the Health and Safety Department would only intervene if the gas cylinders were in an obvious dangerous condition and/or not being used in a safe way.
The Health and Safety Officer has offered to visit the garage/workshop adjacent to the application site, which was indicated within a letter (24th May) to the workshop owner; however, no response has been received.
Overall, whilst the existing situation of a workshop/garage directly adjacent to a residential property is not ideal, this situation has existed for a number of years.
The proposal would result in an extension to an existing residential property. If there are disturbances from the workshop/garage then these matter would be taken up by the Environmental Protection Officer, whether the proposed extension exists or not.
RECOMMENDATION
For these reasons it is consider the proposal would be acceptable to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, accordingly, it is recommended that the planning application be approved.
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:-
23 July 2010
The owner/occupier of Unit 1, Regaby Works, Nassau Road, Regaby
The owner/occupier Boundary Cottage, Nassau Road, Regaby
It is considered that the following do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:-
The owners/occupiers of Thie Vannin, Nassau Road, Regaby
The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the Planning Authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 03.02.2010
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
This approval relates to the alterations and extensions to form additional living accommodation as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings 09/0001/01, 09/0001/02 and 09/0001/03 all received on 29th June 2009.
The roof(s) must be finished in dark natural slate.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Authority in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made: ............................ Authority Meeting Date: ........................ Signed: ............................................... Presenting Officer 23 July 2010
09/01103/B
Page 5 of 6
Further to the decision of the Authority an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
