DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No.: 23/00529/B Applicant: Mr & Mrs Chris & Jilly Allen Proposal: Removal of existing conservatory to kitchen. Erection of a replacement solid utility room and garage. Extension of existing flat roof to cover, erection of replacement porch extension. Installation of replacement vehicle access to driveway (maintaining neighbour's right of way to pedestrian access). Site Address: Pier House Stanley Mount East Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 1NP Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 29.06.2023

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

Overall, It is considered the proposal while not entirely complies with the Residential Design Guide in terms of its flat roof form, in this case it is considered appropriate for the reason outlined. Further, the proposal would have no adverse impacts upon public or private amenities. Accordingly, the proposal also complies with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP and the Ramsey Local Plan

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers all received;

• 05.05.2023

- JTM2301-P-01

• 27.06.2023
• JTM2301-P-02 REV A _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

None _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Pier House, Stanley Mount East, Ramsey which is a part single (from roadside) and part three storey (rear elevation) detached dwelling. The property has an integral garage with two off road parking spaces to the front. - 1.2 The dwelling is located to the eastern side of Stanley Mount East.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The planning application seeks approval for the removal of existing conservatory to kitchen. Erection of a replacement solid utility room and garage. Extension of existing flat roof to cover, erection of replacement porch extension. Installation of replacement vehicle access to driveway (maintaining neighbour's right of way to pedestrian access). - 2.2 The application initially proposed the installation of a sliding gate to the main entrance; this has now been omitted.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The application site has been the subject of the following previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the determination of this application: 13/91121/B - approval granted in 2013 for the erection of porch 11/00656/B - approval granted in 2011 for extension and alterations. 10/01112/B - approval granted in 2010 for erection of a conservatory. 09/00601/B - approval granted in 2009 for installation of a window. 08/02019/B - approval granted in 2009 for erection of a conservatory. 08/01237/B - approval granted in 2008 for erection of a conservatory. 08/00346/B - approval granted in 2008 for the creation of an access.

There are various older decisions, none of which are considered to be of particular relevance to the current application.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Ramsey Local Plan as Predominantly Residential. The property is not within a Conservation Area. - 4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:

4.3 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:

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (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;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (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;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

4.4 Residential Design Guide July 2021

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services comment they are generally satisfied with the proposal but seek the sliding gate be removed from the proposal due to the following reasons (02.06.2023); "The proposal now includes a sliding gate at the connection of the access and the pavement. This is not located far enough from the highway to allow for a vehicle to pull in off the road in order to access. As a result, when accessing and waiting for the gate to open, there could be negative effects to the road network and vehicle flow. There is not sufficient room to relocate the gate further back, therefore Highways request the gate is removed."

• 5.1.1 Following the agreed omission of the sliding gate, Highway Services comment (28.06.2023); "In previous Highways response dated 02/06/2023, Highways were accepting of most access arrangements proposed. However, the inclusion of the gate at a distance below the minimum required distance from the highway was not accepted.

The removal of this gate now means vehicles can freely pull into the access with no disruption to the operation of the road network. The minor alteration to the highway in the form of altering the access, will require a Section 109(A) Highway Agreement to be made post planning consent.

The proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services Development Control raises no objection to the proposal subject to the access arrangements according to drawing No. JTM2301-P-02. The Applicant is advised that a S109(A) Highway Agreement is needed after the grant of planning consent.

Recommendation: DNOC"

5.2 Ramsey Town Commissioners (29/06/23) do not object.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The key issue to considerer in the assessment of this planning application is the potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the street scene and individual property and potential impact upon neighbour's amenities.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE STREET SCENE

6.2 As outlined within the Residential Design Guide flat roof design are generally not encouraged now and GP(b) seeks any new extension to respect the site in terms of siting, layout, scale, form, design. Accordingly, there could be concern with the current proposals flat roof. However, it is noted that there are existing flat roofed elements and a conservatory and this proposal would replaces these section with a more uniformed and updated design approach which is considered to be an improvement in this case. - 6.3 The flat roofed garage would be apparent from public view; albeit give the front existing boundary wall, only the upper section would be apparent. Again while a flat roof design, it is considered given the works to the front of the dwelling this would be more in keeping and also less of a visual impact to the street scene. - 6.4 Accordingly, while not generally acceptable, in this case the proposal would be appropriate and would not adversely affect the visual amenities of the property or the street scene. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOUR'S AMENITIES - 6.5 The main potential impact is the proposed garage which has the potential to impact neighbouring amenities to the south of the site. However, given the heights, existing boundary wall height, design of the garage and distance to neighbouring dwelling, it is not considered there would be any significant impacts to warrant a refusal.

7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 Overall, It is considered the proposal while not entirely complies with the Residential Design Guide in terms of its flat roof form, in this case it is considered appropriate for the reason outlined. Further, the proposal would have no adverse impacts upon public or private amenities. Accordingly, the proposal also complies with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP and the Ramsey Local Plan. The application is recommended for an approval. - 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:

• o 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 a Principal Planner 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 : Permitted Date: 30.06.2023 Determining officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton Principal Planner

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.