Officer Planning Report

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:111538}} {{table:111539}} {{table:111540}} ### Considerations ### Written Representations ### Consultations Consulttee: Maughold Commissioners Notes: Will be placed before commissioners at their next meeting, Mon 5th Sept 17/08/05 see notes 06/09/05 - object; commissioners have strong objections to the nature of the entrance to a field of agricultural use, on a track that, presently, does not exist. Further, commissioners question the placing of the garage in an agricultural field. 18.12.05 - Maughold Commissioners would like to submit the following view in relation to the amended plans received relating to this application. Comments re amendments re siting of garage and workshop The Commissioners have concerns with the placing of the detached garage/workshop in the deviation in the hedge boundary, as shown on the plans. The mapping available shows no such deviation in the field boundary as suggested in the Applicants proposals. The filed boundary appears to have been re-shaped to suite the applicants developmental purposes. According to the amended plans, the trees which the applicant proposes to remove appear to follow the original boundary hedge line. The Commissioners oppose any alteration of the original field boundary, and ask that the Planning Committee allow no such action. They are concerned that no precedent is set for moving field boundaries, especially if fields affected are zoned for other purposes. Their view is that the garage/workshop must be sited nearer to the house. The Commissioners ask that any necessary strengthening of the culvert is taken in to consideration before the extension building is placed upon it. Consulttee: S.P.M.C. & E. Notes: see notes 21.10.05 see comments 12.12.05 - In that it no longer interferes with the old culvert (apart from building over part of it, it may need strengthening? this scheme is better than the original one. Our concerns about the detached garage/workshop block in the adjoining field, remains. Consulttee: Drainage Division Notes: defer defer - 23/08 19.12.05 - The applicant ha confirmed to the Drainage Division that the existing watercourse and culvert that runs through the grounds of the property and underneath the dwelling itself will not altered during the proposed construction work. The Division, therefore wishes to withdraw its deferal dated 18th Agust and have no further comments to add. Policy

Officer's Report

The planning application seeks approval for the alteration and extension of a detached dwelling in Maughold and the erection of an adjacent detached garage with attached workshop. The positioning of the garage and workshop requires the slight extension of the domestic residential curtilage into the adjacent field, which is done in a manner so as to provide an improved field access.

The originally submitted drawings proposed the garage and workshop outside the defined red line of the application site. This has since been rectified by the submission of amended drawings, which have been properly re-advertised and circulated to parties.

It is understood that culverted watercourses run under the property, which has been the subject of some comment. The Department of Transport Drainage Division have advised that following discussion with the applicant they are satisfied that this will not be altered and is therefore acceptable.

SPMCE have advised that they have no objections to the majority of the proposed extensions but are concerned about the expansion into the adjacent field and the effect of development on the culverting.

The Department of Transport Highways Division has advised that they consider there to be no adverse traffic impacts.

Maughold Parish Commissioners object to the expansion into the adjacent field and consider that the garage and workshop should sited nearer to the house. They also have concerns about the culverting.

At the same time as highlighting the red line issue I suggested moving the garage and workshop building closer to the house. The applicant’s agent advised that the applicant’s were reluctant to do this as the area of hardstanding is currently considered to be limited.

In terms of assessment due to their position I consider the alterations and extensions to the dwelling to be in keeping with the character of the property and acceptable. The issue of the possible impact on culverting has been suitably addressed with the relevant body. With regards to the garage and workshop building I am content that the expansion into the adjacent field is relatively minor and when viewed in association to the dwelling is acceptable. Subject to conditions restricting its use to ancillary I consider the garage and workshop building to be acceptable.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 13.01.2006 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. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This approval relates to drawing no.s 0421/05, 0421/06, 0421/07 and 0421/08 date stamped the 11th July 2005 and drawing no.s 0421/04 rev. B and 0421/09 date stamped the 5th December 2005.

C 3. The external finishes of the extension must match those of the existing building in all respects.

C 4. The garage and workshop building may only be used for the storage of motor vehicles in conjunction with the adjacent dwelling, known as "Rest and Be Thankful", or purposes ancillary to the enjoyment of "Rest and Be Thankful".

Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...