DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 21/00744/B Applicant: Mr Darren Scotts Proposal: Siting and cladding of a storage container to be used as motorcycle storage/workshop in rear garden and widening of existing driveway access (part retrospective) Site Address: 1 Lezayre Park Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 2PS Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 09.11.2021 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. The principle of a shipping container within a residential area is considered wholly unacceptable being out of keeping and an inappropriate form of development which should be kept to more suitable site i.e. industrial estates/ports/ships therefore contrary to General Policy - 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2021. - R 2. The shipping container given its form, design, bulky appearance and siting would introduce an incongruous feature into the street scene and fail to respect the site and surroundings, adversely affecting the character of the surrounding street scene contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2021. - R 3. The shipping container, given it is metal in construction, and which is proposed to be used as a workshop, would likely result in any noise generated by workshop activities being amplified. And which, given the very close proximity of the neighbouring dwelling and rear garden (Nr 3), would result in a significant adverse noise impact contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

1 Gardeners Lane, Ramsey

• 3 Lezayre Park, Ramsey
• 4 Lezayre Park, Ramsey

As they all satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 SITE - 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of 1 Lezayre Park, Ramsey which is a single storey detached bungalow locate don a corner plot with Lezayre Park to the south and Gardeners Lane to the west of the site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the siting and cladding of a storage container to be used as motorcycle storage/workshop in rear garden and widening of existing driveway access (part retrospective). - 2.2 The containers would be sited to the north-eastern corner of the site , located 1m from the northern and eastern boundaries. The container would measure 6.1m in depth and 2.4m in width and a height of 2.5m. It is proposed to cladding the elevations of the metal container in timber. The applicants have advised that the container is current and temporarily placed to the front garden of the property to enable easy access to their belongings which were store in the container when they moved to the IOM from Australia. They hoped to erect a shed but due to the pandemic it seems the raw materials are hard to come by and a shed would not be available until later in the year. During the application process the Department asked the applicant's if they would consider a temporary approval for 1 or 2 years (reasons will be outlined within the assessment of this report); however, the applicants indicated that; "I have looked into the logistics of siting it temporarily and with the costs involved of moving it it just isn't feasible financially to then have to move it again in possibly 12 months time. The only way it would be is if it were able to remain in its current location as it sits, a 1 year approval would work well while I build another structure in the rear corner. I'd like this application to be considered as is for a permanent placement." - 2.3 The works also include the increase in width of the existing vehicular access form 2.4m to 4.1m.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There are no previous planning applications on this site which are considered relevant in the determination of this application.

- 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential under the Ramsey Local Plan. - 4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains one policy that is considered specifically relevant 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;
• (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;"

4.3 Environment Policy 22 states: "Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of:

• i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater;
• ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and
• iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution."

4.4 Residential Design Guide July 2021 - 4.5 Permitted Development Order 2012; "The erection of one or more garden sheds or summer-houses within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. Conditions: (a) the general conditions applicable to Section A; (b) the height of the garden shed or summer-house must not exceed 2.8 metres above ground level; (c) the area of ground covered by the garden shed or summer-house must not cumulatively exceed 15 square metres in total; and Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 SCHEDULE 1 c SD No. 0254/2012 Page 17 (d) no part of the garden shed or summer-house may be nearer to any highway which bounds the curtilage of the dwellinghouse than — (i) that part of the dwellinghouse nearest to that highway, or (ii) 20 metres, whichever is the nearer."

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Highways Services (DOI) do not oppose and comment (03.08.2021): "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services find it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network efficiency and /or parking. There is an existing dropped crossing and adequate visibility. An electric vehicle charging point should be considered to aid climate change objectives" - 5.2 Ramsey Commissioners object to the application on the following grounds (26.08.2021): "It was felt that the container did not comply with General Policy 2 (b) & (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and did not respect the site and surroundings in the terms of form, design and landscaping or town scape and would affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality. It would set a president that the Commissioners did not want within the town." - 5.3 Highway Drainage (DOI) make the following comments: "Additional surface water runoff from the new widened driveway will fall toward the existing public highway. No drainage arrangements have been shown that would intercept the additional runoff before it drained onto the highway. This would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in Chapter 16 of the Manual for Manx Roads. Recommendation: DEFER pending further information with regard to private drainage arrangements for the driveway." - 5.4 The owners/occupiers of 1 Gardeners Lane, Ramsey have objected to the application which can be summarised as (28.07.2021); the container would be located 1 metre from the boundary to my property, and would be visually obtrusive from my property; The proposal seeks to provide a motorcycle storage/workshop facility, the property already has the benefit of a garage; Whilst it is appreciated that a garden shed of these dimensions might be permissible

under permitted development, the proposed development seeks approval for a garage/workshop utilising a metal shipping container as the primary construction element; and it is contended that the location of a motorcycle workshop of this construction is totally inappropriate in a residential setting, it is not in the nature of a garden shed, and its intended use and construction material presents the real potential of noise nuisance in what is otherwise a quiet residential area, in very close proximity to neighbours.

5.4 The owners/occupiers of 3 Lezayre Park, Ramsey have objected to the application which can be summarised as (27.07.2021); a large tree was removed to the rear to allow the container to be sited their; the property already has a garage to store motorcycles; proposal will be 4 to 5 foot above the boundary fence; my house and garden is approximately one to two feet below the level of next doors garden and house; I have seen how much water drains off the containers when it rains and have concerns this will cause problems if sited next to my property; any work been carried out in the container which is constructed of steel will have an amplified noise levels (running machinery, compressor and/or air tools); no thought has been given to neighbours; and a shipping container is still a container even if it clad in wood. - 5.5 The owners/occupiers of 4 Lezayre Park, Ramsey have objected to the application which can be summarised as (06.08.2021); proposal is 'in lieu of a traditional shed': from this statement I suggest that this indeed confirms that it is not a garden shed of traditional appearance, form and scale, which would be more in keeping with the existing character of this residential area; the resulting structure would be overbearing and unneighbourly; The structure would also be visible and prominent from both Lezayre Park Road and Gardeners Lane; The proposed structure would have a greater bulk and impact visually, than the existing garage on the site, especially when viewed from some aspects

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main considerations are the principle of development, potential visual impact, the potential impact upon neighbouring amenities and potential impact upon highway safety and parking. Principle of development - 6.2 In terms of using a shipping container for storage/workshop/garaging the Department cannot support such a structure; certainly on a permanent basis, which is what is being proposed. Such structures should be generally restricted to ships/ports/some industrial sites / building sites, not within residential curtilages. Allowing such development would set a significant and adverse precedence and would make it more difficult for the Department to resist such similar development throughout the IOM. While other jurisdictions may find such structures acceptable, the IOM does not. The Department in recent years has been tasked with improving built development throughout the IOM by the Council of Ministers. Allowing such development would be a derogated step backwards in terms of built development within the IOM. - 6.3 There are various options available to applicant/s which are far more suitable to residential curtilages. While there may be a longer waiting times and can be more expensive than pre-Covid; these concerns do not override the principle concerns of this type of structure being used in such areas. Potential visual impact - 6.4 Visiting the site it was noted that there was a mature hedgerow along the western boundary of the site which runs parallel with Gardeners lane. To the northern boundary is a approximate 1.8m high timber fence. The applicants have also indicated they have planted landscaping along this boundary. These features would reduce the visual impact along Gardeners Lane, albeit from the photographs submitted by the applicants, views of the upper section of the container will be apparent when stood in front of Nr 1 Gardeners Lane looking

• towards the site. To the front of the application site, again a mature hedgerow exists to the front boundary (with the exception of the access) which again helps limits views. However, views of the container will be apparent from the access to the site and when stood in front of Nr 3 Lezayre Park looking towards the site/along eastern boundary. Along the eastern boundary (shared within Nr 3) consists in the main an approximate 1.8m high timber fence. Careful consideration also has to be made that relying solely on landscaping, in this case the mature hedgerows to make a development acceptable, is not appropriate, as the hedgerows could be removed, diseased or die at any point in the future.
• 6.5 Accordingly, as indicated by General Policy 2 any development in such areas needs to respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape.
• 6.6 The applicants are proposing to clad the container in timber, which is an improvement compared to leaving the container as is. However, the fact will remain that the container will still appear as a container, just clad with wood. Its form is a rectangle box with flat roof. Again this is not a type of development which is generally found in residential settings. Overall, it is considered in terms of its design, form and bulky appearance the proposal would introduce an incongruous feature into the street scene and contrary to General Policy 2. Potential impact upon neighbouring amenities
• 6.7 Arguable the proposal would have the greatest impact upon Nr 3 Lezayre Park which is immediately to the east of the site. The owner of this property has objected to the application, namely concerns that their ground level is set below that of the application site and the siting/size of the container in relation to their property/garden. There is some concern that the siting, depth and height of the container; coupled with the level differences of the two sites, would have some impact upon the amenities to the neighbouring occupant/s, namely by have an overbearing impact upon their outlook. However, it is noted the proposal is located 1m away from the boundary, which is more than a shed constructed under Permitted Development would need to be. Further, approximately half of the container runs parallel the neighbours (Nr 3) shed. Lastly there is a timber fence which would screen the majority of the shed, albeit clearly the upper 0.8m would still be apparent. There is scope for some landscaping to the east of the container. This may also soften the impact.
• 6.8 One concern also relates to noise. Shipping containers by their very nature can generate greater noise levels, especially compared to a timber shed. Noises reflects significant more off metal and causes the metal to vibrate and resonate causing sound to bounce of the surfaces which amplifies the noise, both inside and also outside if the doors are open. The applicants have sought the container be used for motorcycle storage/workshop. Accordingly, the noise generated by the shipping container, is likely to be greater than a timber shed for example. The applicants have indicated that: "The container is currently sited on the property and has been for 4 months now. Its use now is exactly what its future use will be. Surely if there is excessive noise coming from it, and disturbance to the extent he is it stating, it should be being documented and used as evidence. A shed built in the same location will have the same use/noise. I'd like to state he has never once talked to us about excessive noise or disturbance."
• 6.9 A concern is if the container where just used for domestic storage there would be less concern as it is likely the frequently of use of the container would be low, hence less noise. However; the application seeks permission to store a motorbike and to be used as a workshop. Therefore the Department needs to consider the worst case scenario based on this proposed use; i.e. a workshop which would likely involve power tools of some sort or hand tools which would make noise etc. Again, it is noted that a standard garden shed could be erected within the application site and could be used in a similar manner. However, again the material of the container and its construction will only amplify noise both inside and outside, namely to

• neighbouring properties. The siting immediately adjacent to the rear garden of Nr 3 and near to a number of rear windows also raises concern.
• 6.10 It is considered the proposal will have an impact upon the neighbouring amenities, namely an overbearing impact and noise it can create. The applicant's argument in favour of the application is that they could construct a metal garden shed slightly higher and closer to the boundary than what is currently proposed. This is a fact, such works could be undertaken under the Permitted Development Order. However, a counter argument is that the current proposal does not fall under Permitted Development as it isn't a shed; it is shipping container, therefore the Permitted Development has little material planning weight in this case.
• 6.11 Overall, it is considered the proposal would have some overbearing impacts, albeit it is not considered to be so significant to warrant a refusal. If approved it is recommended a condition be attached for landscaping between the container and the shared boundary fence with Nr 3 to help soften the impact. However, there is a concern of noise, especially given the container could be used as a workshop and given the nature of the metal shipping container which is a structure which would only amplify noise; especially within very close proximity of the neighbouring dwelling and rear garden. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to be contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 22. Impact upon highway safety and parking
• 6.12 Highway Services have considered the application and have raised not objection. The proposal would create a larger access onto Lezayre Road and would increase the driveway; albeit retaining the majority of the front garden. The proposal from these respects raise no concerns.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 In summary, the principle of shipping containers with domestic curtilages is wholly unacceptable especially on permeant basis given there general form, appearance, construction and being out of keeping within a residential area, more suit for their purpose; on ships or in ports/industrial estates. Further, the visual impact of the container will be apparent from public views along Gardeners Lane and Lezayre Park, and would introduce an incongruous feature, even when clad in timber. Further, the very nature of the container being used as a workshop would likely result in adverse noise generation to the neighbouring property Nr 3 Lezayre Park which is within very close proximity of the proposed container/front doors. Therefore, the proposal would adversely impact upon public and private amenities for the reasons given. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 22 of the IOMSP and therefore recommended for a refusal. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material. 8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status

Decision Made : Refused Date : 25.11.2021 Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

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.