Loading document...
| Consulttee: | Manx Electricity Authority |
| Notes: | Note received |
The site represents the residential curtilage of 13 Queens Valley, Ramsey, which is a two storey detached property, located on the eastern side of Queens Valley (cul-de-sac) and on the western side of Ballure Road.
The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of 'Predominately Residential', under the Ramsey Local Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area.
The following policies are therefore considered relevant in the consideration of this application:
There are no previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.
The application seeks approval in principle for the erection of garage extension, timber cabin within rear garden and boundary wall with pedestrian access.
The proposed garage extension to the western elevation would have a width of 7 metres, a depth of 7.1 metres and a ridge height of 5.7 metres.
The proposed timber cabin would be located within the rear garden of the property, in the northeast corner. The cabin would have a width of 5.9 metres, a depth of 3.6 metres and a ridge height of 3.1 metres.
The eastern boundary of the side which adjoins onto Ballure Road, current consists of a 1.8 metre high grass bank. The proposal is to replace this with a 3.3 metre high Manx stone wall, similar in design to the boundary wall of Dunluce. The proposal will also result in a new pedestrian access onto the public footpath.
The Ramsey Commissioners have objected to the application on the following grounds:- "It is considered that, due to the location and height of the proposed garage extension, particularly in relation to its close proximity to the property boundary, such extension is deemed to be un-neighbourly and would therefore constitute an over intensive use of this site.
Whilst the Commissioners did not object to the proposed cabin, they wish to make an observation that the cabin should only be used for the personal use of the house occupiers and therefore should have a non-habitable use and used only in association with the existing dwelling.
No objection has been raised in respect of the proposed boundary wall." The Manx Electricity Authority makes no comment on the merit of the proposed development but requests that an informative note be attached to any approval decision notice.
The owners/occupiers of 16 Queens Valley, Ramsey, have objected to the application which can be summarised as; over intensive and out of keeping.
The owners/occupiers of 4 Queens Valley, Ramsey, have objected to the application which can be summarised as; loss of light; loss of view; would completely alter the aesthetics of my property and
neighbourhood; the use of the garage for keeping vintage cars would generate a higher level of noise than a modern car; the timber cabin would affect my rear garden; potential use of the cabin for the production of stain glass, this use would cause additional noise; the cabin would have a detrimental impact on my property; and impact upon residential amenities.
The owners/occupiers of 3 Majestic Court, Queens Valley, Ramsey, have objected to the application which can be summarised as; the construction of this nature would be disproportionate and contrary to planning and spacing of the properties in this area, and would be overly intensive and unneighbourly.
The owners/occupiers of 2 Queens Valley, Ramsey, have objected to the application which can be summarised as; overdevelopment of the site; close to neighbouring bedroom window; and the proposal would be an unneighbourly.
The owners/occupiers of 15 Queens Valley, Ramsey, have objected to the application which can be summarised as; overbearing, intrusive; overdevelopment of the site; detrimental to the character and appearance of this part of Queens Valley.
Due to the zoning of the site the following policies are relevant for consideration:-
Policy 2: "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:
Material Planning Matters which required consideration are:-
Potential impacts upon the neighbouring amenities The neighbouring properties most affected by the development would be Nr 12 Queens Valley (possibly 4 Queens Valley), which is located to the north of the site and Nr 15 Queens Valley which is located northwest of the site.
The proposed extension would be approximately 5 metres from the side elevation of Nr 12. This elevation forms the double garage for the neighbouring property. There are no windows within the southern elevation of the garage. The proposed extension would project 2.5 metres past the western elevation of the neighbouring property ( Nr 12 ). It is considered given the garage is not a primary habitable room (kitchen / living room) and as there are no windows which would result in a loss of light to the garage, the proposal would not have any adverse impacts upon residential amenity.
The neighbouring property also benefits from a conservatory which is attached to the eastern elevation of the garage and the south elevation of the main dwelling house (layout very similar to applicants dwelling). It is considered, that due to the distance and siting the proposal would be and as the height of the proposed extension would be lower than the existing garage ridgeline, the proposal would result in no significant loss of light to this room nor have an overbearing impact, to warrant a refusal.
The proposal does include the installation of a single window to the northern elevation of the proposed garage, however, no overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy would occur given the northern boundary treatment consists of a 1.8 metre high timber fence.
Regarding the potential impact upon 15 Queens Valley, the extension would be 14 metres from the main dwelling house. The neighbouring property has two windows which look towards the proposal, a ground floor bay window and a dormer window within the roof space. Both are more than 20 metres away from the western elevation of the proposed extension.
The current boundary treatment between the two neighbouring properties consists of a 1.8 metre high trellis fence and 2 to 2.5 metre high bushes.
Some light will be lost during the early morning; however, the area which will lose light would be the driveway. This is not regarded as a habitable space and it is therefore considered the amount of light which would be lost would not have a significant impact upon the residential amenities.
A second issue which needs thought is the potential overbearing impact of the extension. The proposal would be 2 metres from the boundary between the properties. However, the extension would be 14 metres from the eastern elevation of the main dwelling house. This elevation has no windows serving any primary habitable rooms. It is considered given the position, height and distance the proposal would be from the neighbouring dwelling and due to the existing boundary treatment, the proposal would no lead in having any significant adverse impacts upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring property.
The proposed rear cabin in the rear garden is larger than most sheds. The northern boundary treatment consists of a 1.8 metre timber fence. The proposal would be sited 1 metre from the boundary and would be approximately 11 metres away from the rear elevation of the dwelling. A neighbour has objected on the grounds that the cabin would have a detrimental impact upon their property. The proposal would be 17 metres from the rear elevation of Nr 12 Queens Valley. It is considered given the size of the cabin, the existing boundary treatment, and the distance to the neighbouring dwelling it is not considered the proposal would have any adverse impact upon the neighbour either through loss of light, overlooking and/or an overbearing impact upon their outlook.
The objector has stated that applicant indicated that they may produce stain glass windows from the cabin, and therefore the objector had concerns that this would lead to visitors to the site, which would cause a disturbance. The Department has subsequently been in contact with the applicants agents, who have confirmed that the cabin would be used for their dogs only (their current property
has the same shed). There may be concerns that the dogs may generate excessive barking, however, where this to occur, than this would be an environmental health matter, as with any situation with owners with pets. Overall, it is not considered the use would have an adverse impact upon any of the surrounding properties. Additionally, should the applicant wish to use the shed for a hobby, this would be acceptable. However, if a commercial aspect was to lead from this hobby/use than a further planning application may be required.
Impact upon the street scene
In terms of the design and the external materials to be used for the proposed extension, it is considered the scheme would be in keeping with the existing property and that of the surrounding properties.
It is not considered the proposal would have a detrimental impact upon the street scene; the site is a fairly large plot and even with the proposed extension would still retain a larger frontage than a number of dwellings within the cul-de-sac, namely 17, 18 and 19 Queens Valley.
Regarding the potential visual impact upon the street scene of the proposed rear wall, currently the boundary is made up of a 1.8 metre high (approx) grass bank. The two neighbouring properties (Nr 12 & 14) rear boundaries are made up of a similar 1.8 metre grass banks, but also a number of semi-mature trees/bushes (see photo 1). The proposed 3.3 metre high Manx stone wall is therefore considered to be appropriate and would not appear out of place. The height would still be lower than the neighbouring boundaries and therefore would not appear completely alien in the street scene. Additionally, directly across Ballure Road is a very similar Manx stone wall which runs for a significantly longer distance along the highway. The design is proposed to match this existing stone wall.
RECOMMENDATION
Overall, it is considered the proposal would be acceptable for the reasons given previously within this report. Accordingly, the proposals would be appropriate in these locations and therefore the application is recommended for an approval.
It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:
It is considered that the following do not meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should not be afforded interested party status:
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted
18 December 2008 08/01716/B Page 5 of 6
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 the erection of garage extension, timber cabin within rear garden and boundary wall with pedestrian access as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings 01,02 , 100 and 101 REV A all received on 11th September 2008.
C 3. The external finishes of the extension must match those of the existing building in all respects. C 4. The proposed timber cabin may be used only in association with the main dwelling house "13 Queens Valley" and for purposes ancillary to the use of main dwelling house "13 Queens Valley" as a single dwelling.
N 1. There must be NO discharge of surface water (directly or indirectly) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s) so as to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transport Drainage Division and the Sewerage Act 1999.
It should be noted that it is an offence under Manx legislation to permit the discharge of pollution or harmful matter to any public sewers or watercourses. Appropriate measures must be taken by the developer/occupier of the premises to ensure compliance with the legislation.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular No 56/08 (Delegation of Functions to the Acting Senior Planning Officer), GC 55/08 for Advertisements and 69/08 for Registered Buildings.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : Signed : Acting Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
