187012

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      20/00394/MCH                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 20/00394/MCH Applicant : Haven Homes Ltd Proposal : Minor changes application for PA 15/00167B involving the increasing the width of the highway immediately adjacent and serving plot 56 to 63 inclusive Site Address : Fields 134081, 134083, 134084 & Croftbank Land Off Clifton Drive Ramsey Isle Of Man

Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 30.06.2020 __

Notes for Approval

All proposed changes are accepted, including the open space as set out on plan 070.05 Rev A

Plans/Drawings/Information;

The application relates to table detailing open space calculations and drawing numbers (all date stamped and received 17/04/2020 unless stated): 000 (Location Plan) 070.01 (Site Plan as approved - extract) 070.02 (Site Plan - proposed change) 070.03 (Proposed Landscaping Plan as approved - extract) 070.04 (Proposed Landscaping Plan - proposed change) 070.05 (Extent of POS as changed - REV A) - received 26/06/20

__

Officer’s Report

Requirement Source Analysis Pass 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 applications in relation to 15/00167/B. Yes Must relate to a grant of planning approval in respect of a building 21/2)(a) Relates to 15/00167/B. Yes Must specify what minor changes are being sought and why the 21(2)(b) The agent provides a full explanation on the application form Yes

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      20/00394/MCH                                     Page  2  of  4

applicant considers them to be of a minor nature and the reasons why. The proposal is to increase the width of highway adjacent to and serving plots 56-63 from 4.8m to 6m wide in order to provide adequate manoeuvring space in line with the Manual for Manx Roads which did not exist at the time of the original application. Cannot increase the number of dwellings or buildings for which planning approval has been granted 21(2)(c)(i) The original application was for 66 dwellings. On review of the site plan submitted for the MCH application it appears that 3 dwellings original approved at the site of ‘Crofton’ have been omitted, although these could be constructed at any time given the extent approval of 15/00167/B. The proposal as is stands does not increase the number of dwellings or buildings.

Yes Cannot increase the net external footprint of a building for which planning approval has been granted 21(2)(c)(ii) The proposal relates only to modifications to the highway width and central roundabout radius to accommodate the increased road width. No buildings or dwellings are identified as being increased as part of the minor change application.

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) The red line remains consistent with the original approval 15/00167/B Yes Cannot make material changes to the vehicular access arrangements for which planning approval has been granted 21(2)(c)(iv) The vehicular access remains the same as originally approved, the current proposal seeks to modify an internal road width only.

Yes Cannot alter the conditions (if any) which have been imposed 21(2)(c)(v) There are 3 conditions as part of the original approval that relate to highway matters such as pedestrian access, visibility splays and parking and turning areas however there are none specific to the current proposal and none considered to be affected as a result of the MCH.

Yes Cannot be made where the parent approval is less than 21 days old, subject to an undetermined appeal or has expired 21(2)(d) The original application 15/00167/B was approved on 18th April 2016. Yes Requirement Source Analysis Pass 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 22(3)(a&c) Provided. Not identified in any MU flood risk map as such a flood risk assessment not required Yes

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      20/00394/MCH                                     Page  3  of  4

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. Document specified on form but not in Schedule 1 22(3)(b) N/A

Yes Fee 22(3)(4) Dealt with at application validation

Yes Such further info as Department may request prior to determination 22(6) Additional/revised information on public open space provided as requested Yes Requirement Source Analysis Pass Determination Must not significantly increase the size or scale of the development in question 23(1)(a) The proposal does not increase the size or scale of the original development.

Yes Must not significantly change the nature of the development in question 23(1)(b) The proposal remains for a new residential estate. Yes 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) The MCH relates to a specific internal road modification only and it is not considered to have any material wider impacts. However the increase in width of the turning circle road results in the consequential reduction of the central roundabout radius which currently contributes to the public space calculation.

Alternative provision is proposed which provides sufficient total of POS. As a general point, in terms of usability/design there are potential concerns over what was proposed both originally and now (given advice since published in the Residential Design Guide). However, in this particular instance, it is not considered that what is proposed is materially worse than what was previously approved.

Yes Must not result in new or increased adverse impacts on adjoining or neighbouring properties having a significant or disproportionate 23(1)(d) The changes are contained within the site and not expected to result in any neighbouring impact or any significant or disproportionate Yes

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      20/00394/MCH                                     Page  4  of  4

impact on the environment (irrespective of whether such impacts might be outweighed by other considerations) impacts on the wider environment.

Must not be more than minor and to be of a magnitude to warrant a new application 23(1)(e) Given the scale of the original approved development the proposed increase to an internal estate road and the consequential reduction of the roundabout radius from 9m to 7.8m is likely to have an overall negligible impact in terms of general and visual amenity and is expected to benefit highway users and safety.

The issue in relation to POS has been addressed (See above) and the changes predominantly relate to internal layout, so it is considered that in this instance they could be considered minor.

Yes Must not otherwise fundamentally change the basis on which the grant was originally made. 23(1)(e) See above Yes If it does not do any of the above, it must then be considered - is the application considered acceptable in all other respects? 23(2) See above Yes Notice of Decision Set out whether all, some or no changes are accepted (And which is which) 24(2)(a) All proposed changes are accepted. For any elements refused, the reasons for that. 24(2)(b) N/A __

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Director of Planning and Building Control in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 01/07/20

Determining officer Signed : J CHANCE

Jennifer Chance

Director of Planning and Building Control

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 online services/customers and archive records.