Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00670/MCH Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00670/MCH Applicant : Mr Steen Heidemann Proposal : Minor Changes application to PA 19/00176/B involving alterations to external apperance Site Address : Beach House Stanley Mount East Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 1NP
Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Split Decision Date of Recommendation: 29.07.2021 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
N 1. This approval only relates to the following (all shown and described in the information received on 10.06.2021):
o Item 1- subterranean storage room under the former garages and workshop has be omitted from approved plans (footprint the same); o Item 2 - Single roof light replacing two previous approved roof lights to kitchen extension; o Item 4 - Correction of a mistake on approved drawings, which did not include a return wall on the front corner of the kitchen extension on the elevation plan (BH4(C)), but did show it on the approved plan drawing (BH2(A)); o Item 5 - external entrance area - to front elevation the canopy is to move the approved canopy outwards again in a Georgina style, towards the road and replace the existing front boundary walls with more Georgina style railings on top of a reduced wall height; o Item 7 - First floor windows to side extension (north elevation), will be the same size and style compared to previous approval where they differed in size; o Item 8 - Existing pedestrian gate to front elevation increased in size by 10cm; o Item 9 - Installation of chimney stack incorporating a flue to north elevation of approved extension; o Item 10 - A outside lean-to roofed structure (bicycle store) behind front boundary wall and below road level; o Item 11 - installation of a pedestrian door to north elevation boundary wall; and o Item 12 - Rear elevation (east) of approved extension alterations, removal of approved external staircase and replaced with a Juliet Balcony and change to window design.
For the avoidance of doubt no approval is hereby given for:
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00670/MCH Page 2 of 7
o Item 3 - Installation of a wood burning flue to south elevation (first floor); and o Item 6 - Front windows to side extension at lower and ground floor levels increased in size namely their height - with a single window added at lower ground floor level;
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to drawings H/6228/B, H/6228/C, H/6228/7 (G) & H/6228/6 (D) all received on 10.06.2021.
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
N/A __
Officer’s Report
INTRODUCTION
The following application is to be assessed against the criteria set out in Part 3 - Minor Changes Applications of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 specifically Articles 21, 22, 23 and 24.
BASIS OF APPLICATION
21(1) This is the only minor changes application that has been made in respect of any particular grant of planning approval.
21(2)(a) The Minor Change Application relates to the grant of planning approval in respect of a building
21(2)(b) The application specifies what minor changes are being sought
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00670/MCH Page 3 of 7
o Item 6 - Front windows to side extension at lower and ground floor levels increased in size namely their height - with a single window added at lower ground floor level; o Item 7 - First floor windows to side extension (north elevation), will be the same size and style compared to previous approval where they differed in size; o Item 8 - Existing pedestrian gate to front elevation increased in size by 10cm; o Item 9 - Installation of chimney stack incorporating a flue to north elevation of approved extension; o Item 10 - A outside lean-to roofed structure (bicycle store) behind front boundary wall and below road level; o Item 11 - installation of a pedestrian door to north elevation boundary wall; o Item 12 - Rear elevation (east) of approved extension alterations, removal of approved external staircase and replaced with a Juliet Balcony and change to window design.
21(2)(b) The application specifies why the applicant considers the minor changes to be of a minor nature
21(2)(c)(i) The Minor Change Application does not increase the number of dwellings or buildings for which planning approval has been granted
21(2)(c)(ii)The Minor Change Application does not increase the net external footprint of a building for which planning approval has been granted
21(2)(c)(iii) The Minor Change Application does not alter the site for which planning approval has been granted and which was defined by a red line on the site location map by changing that line
21(2)(c)(iv) The Minor Change Application does not make material changes to the vehicular access arrangements for which planning approval has been granted
21(2)(c)(v) The Minor Change Application does not alter the conditions (if any) which have been imposed
21(2)(d)The Minor Change Application is not be made where the parent approval is less than 21 days old, subject to an undetermined appeal or has expired
APPLICATION CONTENT
22(3)(a) Application Form
22(3)(a&c) The information in Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 has been provided: o Site location plan (with red/blue lines) o (if necessary) Flood risk assessment o The planning approval that is the subject of the application o Explanation of changes being applied for and reasons why o (if necessary) site plan, plans, elevations and sections of the proposed minor changes with buildings and structures amended to indicate the changes.
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00670/MCH Page 4 of 7
OR
o Site location plan (with red/blue lines) o The planning approval that is the subject of the application o Explanation of changes being applied for and reasons why o drawings of the proposed minor changes with buildings and structures amended to indicate the changes o Flood risk assessment is/is not necessary in this case
22(3)(b) Provision of other documents specified on form but not in Schedule 1
22(3)(4) Fee
22(6) Such further info as Department may request prior to determination (has anything further been requested and provided?
REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED The Department does not advertise Minor Amendment Applications and therefore generally does not receive representations. However, in this case a single comment from the owner/occupant of The nook, Stanley Mount East Ramsey made the following comments (01.07.2021) - in summary:
DETERMINATION
If a Minor Change application passes the above procedural requirements, an assessment is therefore required of whether it passed the following o 23(1)(b) The Minor Change does not significantly change the nature of the development in question o 23(1)(c) The Minor Change does not result in an approval which, at the time of approval, complied with a Development Plan, National Policy Directive or a Planning Policy Statement, ceasing to do so o 23(1)(d) The Minor Change does not result in new or increased adverse impacts on adjoining or neighbouring properties having a significant or disproportionate impact on the environment (irrespective of whether such impacts might be outweighed by other considerations) o 23(1)(e) The Minor Change is not more than minor and is not of a magnitude to warrant a new application
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00670/MCH Page 5 of 7
o 23(1)(e)The Minor Change does not otherwise fundamentally change the basis on which the grant was originally made. o 23(2) If it does not do any of the above, must then be considered. - is the application considered acceptable?
Each proposed change has been considered, in light of the above - see below. Given the number of changes it is appropriate to also consider whether cumulatively they fail the above requirements and, of those which are considered individually acceptable, it is considered that even when considered cumulatively they are acceptable as a Minor Change Application. Although there are a significant number, they are (with the exception of those to be refused) minor with in most cases no impact, and in some cases potentially reduce impact.
o Item 1- subterranean storage room under the former garages and workshop has be omitted from approved plans (footprint the same) and removes a rear window and staircase. Comment - The remove of this are raise no concerns and will have no impact upon public or private amenities. APPROVE
o Item 2 - Single roof light replacing two previous approved roof lights to kitchen extension; Comment - The removal of this raise no concern, while the roof lantern will be larger and taller than the previously approved two roof lights this will have no significant impact upon the upon public or private amenities, given the minor scale of the new lantern and it would be screened in most part by the front parapet wall. APPROVED
o Item 3 - Installation of a wood burning flue to south elevation (first floor); Comment - The flue which is located to the southern gable elevation and finished in same colour as the dwelling would be located 9m from the front path, being located towards the rear elevation of the new side extension. The proposal from a visual point would not be significant, ands would largely go unnoticed given its position and given the neighbouring property to the south. However, it is noted the neighbouring property (The Nook) has a number of gable windows within their north elevation which face the flue. Accordingly, there may be a potential impact of smoke pollution. It is considered this would need to be fully considered by a full planning approval. Therefore this change is not recommended to be approved as a minor amendment. REFUSE
o Item 4 - Correction of a mistake on approved drawings, which did not include a return wall on the front corner of the kitchen extension on the elevation plan (BH4(C)), but did show it on the approved plan drawing (BH2(A)); Comment - Given the approved plan has been approved which shows the corrected position of the return wall, then arguably this has approval. Of course the reverse could be argued that the approved elevation plan doesn't show it. However, it is considered the proposed elevation plan which now shows the return is acceptable and would have no impact upon public or private amenities. APPROVE
o Item 5 - external entrance area - to front elevation the canopy is to move the approved canopy outwards again in a Georgina style, towards the road and replace the existing front boundary walls with more Georgina style railings on top of a reduced wall height; Comment - The design and style of the canopy over the front doors remains the same, the only differences is that the canopy projects a further 1m towards the front boundary. This would be an improvement over the original scheme and would have no impact upon public or private amenities. APPROVE
o Item 6 - Front windows to side extension at lower and ground floor levels increased in size namely their height - with a single window added at lower ground floor level; Comment - The main potential change is the three ground floor windows which would have a width of 0.7m and two of the windows would have a height of 1.2m and the third 3.1m (serves
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00670/MCH Page 6 of 7
a stairway). The previous approval ground floor windows had a width of 0.55m and a height of 0.7m. From a design/visual point of view the alterations are minor, they are an improvement and fit better with the main dwelling. The issue is whether they would have a potential to increase overlooking of the properties to the west of the site (opposite of road). Further, would the neighbouring apartment owners/occupiers to the proposed new windows feel disadvantaged that they did not have the opportunity to comment. In this case it is felt while the impact would not be significantly greater than what was approved originally; in this case it is considered the change is too great to be approved under this application.
It should be noted that the lower ground floor windows would not be apparent from public views or have views of neighbouring properties given they are below road level and behind the front boundary wall. Therefore these raise no concerns.
However, for the above reason Item 6 should be REFUSED.
o Item 7 - First floor windows to side extension (north elevation), will be the same size and style compared to previous approval where they differed in size; Comment - This would be an improvement over the original scheme and would have no impact upon public or private amenities. APPROVE
o Item 8 - Existing pedestrian gate to front elevation increased in size by 10cm; Comment - Would have no impact upon public or private amenities. APPROVE
o Item 9 - Installation of chimney stack incorporating a flue to north elevation of approved extension; This would be an improvement over the original scheme and would have no impact upon public or private amenities. APPROVE
o Item 10 - A outside lean-to roofed structure (bicycle store) behind front boundary wall and below road level; This would not be apparent from public views given it is located below and behind the front boundary wall. It would have no impact upon public or private amenities. APPROVE
o Item 11 - installation of a pedestrian door to north elevation boundary wall; Comment - Would have no impact upon public or private amenities. APPROVE
o Item 12 - Rear elevation (east) of approved extension alterations, removal of approved external staircase and replaced with a Juliet Balcony and change to window design. Comment - The approved scheme included four large windows at first floor and ground floor with an external staircase to the rear. The proposal to remove the staircase, installation of a Juliet balcony and a re-arrangement of the first floor windows; is considered acceptable and a betterment to the design. The balcony given its limited rear projection; given this section of the side extension/balcony is setback from the rear wall of the main dwelling and the distance to neighbouring property (The Nook) of approximately 19+m; and the orientation is such there are no/very limited direct views towards this neighbouring house; the proposal would have no impact upon public or private amenities. APPROVE __
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 : Split Decision
Date : 05.08.2021
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/00670/MCH Page 7 of 7
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal