Loading document...
Application No.: 15/00878/B Applicant: Mr Dennis Kneale Proposal: Extension to and conversion of detached garage into a dwelling and improvement to vehicular access onto highway Site Address: Ballashalom Glen Road Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7AT Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 08.09.2015 Site Visit: 08.09.2015 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THE REPORT BELOW IS IDENTICAL TO THAT PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THEIR PREVIOUS SITTING OF 5TH OCTOBER 2015. THE APPLICATION'S DETERMINATION WAS DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT.
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & BUILDING CONTROL.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of the detached residential dwelling known as 'Ballashalom', which is located to the east of Glen Road in the Laxey Conservation Area. Ballashalom was once of traditionally Manx vernacular but has been altered in the past via a side and rear extension along with a conservatory. - 1.2 Ballashalom is set back slightly from the road, in common with its detached neighbour to the southeast; the dwelling to the northwest, by contrast, sits immediately adjacent the Glen Road highway. There is a long driveway to the southeast, at the end of which sits a double garage. The dwelling benefits from a fairly large garden area to the rear in addition to a smaller area to the front, which is bounded by a traditionally rendered wall. - 1.3 There are significant numbers of trees lining the boundary of the site, with the rear particularly characterised by trees in common with many of the other dwellings on Glen Road.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the conversion of the garage, along with its extension and the raising of the roof pitch, into an independent dwellinghouse. A log burner flue is also shown. The proposed dwelling would have a lounge-kitchen, dining room and WC/shower room at ground floor, and a bedroom and bathroom upstairs. The driveway, and highway access, would be widened to enable independent access to the proposed dwelling, although the driveway is clearly proposed to be shared by the two dwellings. - 2.2 The rear garden would be subdivided and bounded with a 1.8m-high boundary fence.
2.3 The submitted plans show the proposed residential curtilages of the two dwellings and, although the application is not clear on this, it is understood that the proposed new dwelling would remain in the ownership of the applicant with a view to his living there and other family members occupying Ballashalom itself. - 2.4 Included within the application is a covering letter indicating the nature of the proposal, and in particular drawing attention to the widening of, and consequent improvement to, the existing highway access that would result from the proposals. It is also stated that there would be no overlooking between the proposed dwelling and those adjacent.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 Neither the site nor the area surrounding it has been the subject of any applications considered to be of especial material relevance to the determination of the current proposal.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Residential within the Laxey and Lonan Local Plan; there are no policies within the Local Plan considered to be directly related to the proposal. - 4.2 The Strategic Plan, meanwhile, contains three policies of direct relevance, which are set out below. - 4.3 General Policy 2 states, in part: "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:
4.4 Environment Policy 35 states: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development." There is no Character Appraisal accompanying the Laxey Conservation Area. - 4.5 Environment Policy 42 states: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans." - 4.6 The supporting text to EP42 is perhaps worth noting:
"'Backland development' (which is development on the land at the back of properties) may also be acceptable in some circumstances, but only if satisfactory access can be achieved and if there is sufficient space to provide adequate amenity for both new and existing adjoining dwellings."
"'Tandem development' (consisting of one house immediately behind another, and sharing the same access) is generally unacceptable because of the difficulties of access to the house at the back, and the disturbance and lack of privacy suffered by the house in front."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 The Department of Infrastructure's Highway Services offered no objection to the proposal on 18.09.2015. - 5.2 Laxey Village Commissioners recommended the application be approved on 18.09.2015.
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 In general, new dwellings in the Island's 'Service Villages', which includes Laxey, is acceptable in principle as such settlements benefit from a range of services including shops, schools, employment opportunities and access to public transport. - 6.2 In such cases, the acceptability of new dwellings will depend on the detail of what is proposed, which in this case also requires consideration of the impact of the proposal on the Laxey Conservation Area. The key issues are the extent to which the proposal is appropriate in terms of (a) its visual impact, (b) the proposed access, (c) the impact on neighbouring living conditions, to include Ballashalom itself, and (d) the acceptability of the living accommodation in the proposed converted garage. The visual impact - 6.3 As noted, there is no Character Appraisal that accompanies the Laxey Conservation Area. Any assessment of the proposal's visual impact therefore has to be made in the context of the character of the area. - 6.4 The dwellings here, as is commonly the case along Glen Road, are historical rather than recent and many of them have, or had, traditional Manx styling. Most are finished in render and are detached in good-sized gardens. The backdrop to each dwelling tends to be the rising valley side to the east, which is heavily covered in trees. There are a number of garages - some converted to office use - sat behind the dwellings on the highway, much like that associated with Ballashalom. In contrast to the dwellings, none of the garages are especially attractively designed, but they are quite modest in size and do not detract from the appearance of the area. Aside from the dwelling to the northwest of the application site, the dwellings along this side of Glen Road are all set back from the highway and offer a fairly strong building line behind their front garden walls. - 6.5 The building the subject of the application is already present. Its alteration as proposed is fairly large in proportional terms but modest relative to the larger dwellings in the area. It is also not especially prominent within the streetscene, visible only above an existing gateway and also for only short period as one travels along the highway given its significant setback from the highway. - 6.6 Also proposed is a new turning area within the front garden, although the majority of the front wall would be retained. While the loss of the garden is unfortunate, this would not be hugely apparent from the highway and it is also noted that Ballacowin Cottage to the southeast has a driveway as its front garden and so this proposed alteration would in many ways reflect other, similar development nearby. - 6.7 It is therefore considered that the physical alterations proposed would have a fairly limited impact on the character and appearance of the immediate area and would, as such, satisfactorily preserve that character and appearance in accordance with parts (b) and (c) of General Policy 2 and also Environment Policy 35.
The proposed access
6.6 It is noted that Highway Services have no concerns with the proposal. The existing access would be widened to provide access for two vehicles and this is likely to result in an improvement on the existing situation, albeit that visibility in a forward gear could not be described as especially poor even if it does not seem to be ideal by any means. - 6.7 However, any improvement is always welcome and the retention of the majority of the front wall would also be welcome in preserving a traditional - and important - feature in the streetscene. The proposed access is therefore considered acceptable in the context of part (i) of General Policy 2. The impact on neighbouring living conditions - 6.8 There is, however, another element to consider in respect of the proposed access arrangements overall and the proposal to retain the driveway as a shared one for both properties is linked to the proposal's overall impact on neighbouring living conditions. - 6.9 While the definition of 'backland' development might also include elements of this proposal, it is might be best described as 'tandem' development even if the proposed dwelling does not sit immediately behind Ballashalom itself. In some ways the differences between the two terms seems to be in the acceptability of the proposal as a whole, so perhaps it is best in the first instance to consider the impact of the proposal on neighbouring living conditions rather than rely on defining what kind of development is proposed. - 6.10 In the first instance it is noted that no objections have been received from either neighbouring dwelling, with the occupants most likely to be affected residing at Ballacowin Cottage to the southeast. - 6.11 There would be no windows directly facing Ballacowin Cottage, although those proposed for the front extension to the building would be at an oblique angle from the dwelling. The distance between them feels rather larger while on site than might appear the case from the submitted plans, while there is also a fairly robust hedgerow lining the boundary between the properties. It is rarely appropriate to rely too strongly on existing vegetation as a means to ensure adequate privacy between dwellings, but it is noted that the vegetation here is proposed for retention. It is also strongly acknowledged that the distance between the properties and oblique angle at which Ballacowin Cottage would site relative to the proposed dwelling would be such as to retain sufficient privacy for the two dwellings' occupiers. - 6.12 The impact of the proposal on the occupiers of Ballashalom itself, however, is more problematic. - 6.13 In the first place, the shared access arrangements shown are likely to be quite uncomfortable for both dwellings' occupants. The submitted plans show a double-width driveway from the highway all the way to the proposed dwelling, but this is reduced to single width by the location of a timber gate shown at the proposed boundary between the existing and proposed dwellings. This arrangement results in the cars associated with Ballashalom being parked to the southeastern extent of the site with access to the proposed dwelling being between those parked cars and Ballashalom itself. This could make existing vehicles and accessing Ballashalom sufficiently difficult and possibly unsafe such as to warrant raising an objection to the proposal in line with part (h) of General Policy 2. - 6.14 Moreover, vehicular access from the highway to the proposed dwelling will result in vehicles driving past the side elevation, conservatory and rear garden of Ballashalom. This will very likely result in an uncomfortable living environment for the occupants of Ballashalom, and reduce the enjoyment of the rear of the property - in particular the conservatory - to a harmful degree.
6.15 Perhaps the fundamental point here, if the dwellings are to remain in single ownership, is that a disturbance of the level likely to result from the proposal would be a nuisance whether or not the occupiers know who is causing that nuisance. The relationship between the two dwellings would, despite the somewhat creative manner in which the architects have approached the scheme, be sufficiently uncomfortable as to suggest that the proposal is best described as inappropriate backland development and therefore contrary to Environment Policy 42. - 6.16 The proposed reduced rear garden of Ballashalom will likely also have an uncomfortably claustrophobic effect on the residents of that property given the proposed provision of a 1.8m fence along the entirety of the garden and the cars that would be parked immediately behind it. The garden would as a consequence be narrower than the dwelling of Ballashalom. It is therefore considered that the proposal is also contrary to part (g) of General Policy 2 in that it would adversely impact on the living conditions of Ballashalom itself. The acceptability of the living accommodation in the proposed converted garage - 6.17 The garden proposed to be associated with the proposed converted garage, by contrast, would be proportionally quite large, although possibly rather dark and damp. Similarly, the new dwelling would be quite well-proportioned and benefit from large glazed areas in certain elevations to maximise the amount of light within the property. It is therefore considered that the new dwelling would be sufficiently large and well-lit to offer an acceptable living environment.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 The proposal would have a sufficiently uncomfortable impact on the living conditions of Ballashalom as to be contrary to Environment Policy 42 and also parts (g) and (h) of General Policy - 2 of the Strategic Plan. The proposal is concluded to represent inappropriate backland development and as such is recommended for refusal.
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:
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 13.10.2015
R 1. By virtue of the proposed shared access and proposed altered garden arrangements for Ballashalom that would result from the proposed new dwelling, the proposal if implemented would result in a sufficiently uncomfortable impact on the living conditions of those residing at Ballashalom as to be
contrary to Environment Policy 42 and also parts (g) and (h) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
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 : REFUSED Committee Meeting Date:…19.10.2015
Signed : E Riley Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraphto the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
