DEC DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 20/00156/MCH Applicant: Mrs Rosemary Glassey Proposal: Minor changes application for PA 19/00815/B involving window / door alteration and blocking up of front elevation garage door Site Address: Ballasalla Airport Garage Douglas Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 2AN Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 03.09.2020 _________________________________________________________________ Notes for Approval Approval is hereby given for all of the changes proposed. Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following drawings all date stamped and received 20/08/2020: - Sheet 1 - Existing - Sheet 2 - Proposed - Sheet3 - Existing and Proposed Garage - DWG 1 - visual - DWG 2 - visual - DWG 3 - visual ___________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

|Requirement|Source|Analysis|Pass| |---|---|---|---| |Basis of Application|Basis of Application|Basis of Application|Basis of Application| |Only one minor changes application may be made in respect of any particular grant of planning approval.|21(1)|There have been no other minor changes in relation to 19/00815/B|YES| |Must relate to a grant of planning approval in respect of a building|21/2)(a)|19/00815/B was approved for the installation of cladding to entrance façade, removal of an attached single garage to the side to improve vehicular access into rear and provide additional parking and installation of industrial equipment to rear elevation.|YES|

| | | | | |---|---|---|---| |Must specify what minor changes are being sought and why the applicant considers them to be of a minor nature|21(2)(b)|Proposal seeks to; • block up the existing front elevation garage door • replace the front elevation door and window entrance with a window only, • clad front elevation in Pooil Vaaish Black Limestone • replace one of the existing side elevation windows with a new entrance door. • Replacement of a rear windows into a garage door to providing access into the garage space. Changes will encourage customers to use a side entrance away from the ‘Spar’ forecourt to improve the safety of pedestrians and relocation of the garage door will reduce potential for vehicles to park blocking its access.|YES| |Cannot increase the number of dwellings or buildings for which planning approval has been granted|21(2)(c)(i)|No change|YES| |Cannot increase the net external footprint of a building for which planning approval has been granted|21(2)(c)(ii)|No change|YES| |Cannot 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)(iii)|No change|YES| |Cannot make material changes to the vehicular access arrangements for which planning approval has been granted|21(2)(c)(iv)|No changes proposed to vehicular access off main road|YES| |Cannot alter the conditions (if any) which have been imposed|21(2)(c)(v)|The original application was approved with the standard 4 year condition and three others relating to the need for noise levels of equipment being provided prior to their operation (C2), that the retractable bollards shown in the submission must be installed prior to coming into operation of the use (C3),|YES|

| | |and that the stone processing operations shall only take place in the area annotated ‘warehouse’ along with any external equipment approved through condition 2, and that no approval is granted to any change of use to the remaining buildings on the site (the fuel filling station and associated shop and offices) shown on the submitted plans (C4). The current application proposes physical changes to the external elevations only and does not affect the conditions.| | |---|---|---|---| |Cannot be made where the parent approval is less than 21 days old, subject to an undetermined appeal or has expired|21(2)(d)|19/00815/B was approved on 5th September 2019|YES| |Requirement|Source|Analysis|Pass| |Application Content|Application Content|Application Content|Application Content| |Application Form|22(3)(a)|Provided|YES| |Information in Schedule 1: • Site location plan (including flood risk assessment) • The planning approval that is the subject of the application • The changes to that approval which are being applied for • An explanation as to why those changes are being applied for; • (if relevant) the site plan, and the plans, elevations and sections of the proposed buildings and structures amended to indicate the changes. |22(3)(a&c)|Site and location plan provided Not in flood risk area Has reference parent approval 19/00815/B Has set out changes in supporting statement Has provided relevant plans and elevations Has provided visual illustrations (not to scale)| | |Document specified on form but not in Schedule 1|22(3)(b)|Proposed illustrative visuals provided|YES| |Fee|22(3)(4)|Dealt with at validation|YES| |Such further info as Department may request prior to determination|22(6)|It is not considered that any further information is required|YES| |Requirement|Source|Analysis|Pass| |Determination|Determination|Determination|Determination| |Must not significantly increase the size or scale of the development in question|23(1)(a)|The proposal does not result in any changes to the footprint size or scale of the development.|YES| |Must not significantly change the nature of the development in question|23(1)(b)|19/00815/B was approved for the demolition of a garage,|YES|

| | |installation of front elevation cladding, installation of bollards and the external siting of equipment. The current proposal now seeks additional changes to the external elevations, it could be argued that this increases the nature of the application, however when viewed in context with the overall approval it is not considered to significantly change the nature of development.| | |---|---|---|---| |Requirement|Source|Analysis|Pass| |Must 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|23(1)(c)|External finishes can impact on whether or not a proposal is visually acceptable, in this case 19/00815/B was considered against General Policy 2 and the cladding likely to improve the overall appearance and welcomed, and the removal of the side garage not to result in any adverse visual impacts. In this case the removal of the front garage door and its recladding over and the alteration of the front entrance door to a window are both considered to be visually acceptable in respect of GP2. The installation of a garage door towards the rear and the replacement of a side elevation window with a new entrance door are also considered to be visually acceptable On this basis of visual acceptability the proposal still complies with General Policy 2.|YES| |Must 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)|23(1)(d)|It is not considered that there are any new or increased adverse impacts and there are no significant impacts on the environment.|YES| |Must not be more than minor and to be of a magnitude to warrant a new application|23(1)(e)|It is considered acceptable in this regard|YES| |Must not otherwise fundamentally change the basis on which the grant was originally made.|23(1)(e)|It is considered acceptable in this regard|YES| |If it does not do any of the above, must then be considered. – is the application considered acceptable?|23(2)|Analysis has been given as to the acceptability of the proposals in relation to General Policy 2|YES|

| | |and is considered acceptable.| | |---|---|---|---| |Notice of Decision|Notice of Decision|Notice of Decision|Notice of Decision| |Set out whether all, some or no changes are accepted (And which is which)|24(2)(a)|All proposed changes recommended for approval|All proposed changes recommended for approval| |For any elements refused, the reasons for that.|24(2)(b)|N/A|N/A|

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.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 4/9/20 Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the assessment and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our onlineservices/customers and archive records.

DEC DEC Officer Report

Source & Provenance