DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 20/00475/MCH Applicant: Peter Kenneth Sharples Proposal: Minor changes application for PA 19/00337/B involving alterations to construction and roof materials Site Address: Villa Rhencullen Rhencullen Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 2HA Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.07.2020 _________________________________________________________________ Notes for Approval The proposal results in a different construction technique, alterations to external finishes, open sides where there were previously walls, windows and doors where there were previously no openings and is a slightly different shape. Cumulatively, the nature number of changes relative to the size/nature of the original approval is considered to go beyond a minor change, and so warrant consideration by way of a full application. Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the application form, location plan, carport specification, drawing no. 19 1303 03, 50174 section and plan all date stamped as having been received 23.03.20

_____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

1. Pre-Amble 0.1 Approval 19/00337/B is for Alterations and erection of extension to replace existing conservatory and erection of detached garage. This Minor Change application seeks to amend it. The following extracts from the officer’s report are noted.

Description of Development (in part)

•  The garage would be constructed with a pitched roof and would accommodate a garage and two car ports to accommodate three cars.
•  The garage and car port will be located on the western corner of the site and will be 10.6 metres by 6.0 metres. The building height is 4.3 metres and the highest point (from the base of the building to the top of the roof pitch)

•  The extended drive way will be 6 metres wide and 14.275 meter long, covering an area of 85.65sq.metres.
•  The proposed garage will be built in single concrete block and piers to be finished externally to match the existing dwelling on the site. The proposed car ports are to be built in traditional oak frame comprising of vertical posts and A-frame trusses. The walls will be finished externally in open jointed high quality vertical timber cladding to be left untreated and to weather naturally. Windows will also be built to match the existing window units on site.

Representations (in part)

 The Owner of Thie Cullyn, Cloudy Lane, Rhencullen, the abutting property to the south west of Villa Rhencullen have stated that they have no objection to the application provided the application does not involve the creating of vehicular access on to Cloudy Lane; a situation that they feel will create difficulties with significantly restricted visibility splays to the entrance to Cloudy Lane.

Assessment (in part)

•  Considering the proposed development, it should be noted that the garage does not undermine the character of the vicinity, as it is designed to mirror the prevailing design within the curtilage.
•  Although the proposed garage, and the proposed construction work to convert the conservatory to a utility room are located on the western section of the site, and as such is hidden form the sight of the neighbours who are only located on the eastern corner of the property, there is the possibility of the work on site affecting the neighbouring properties who are 16.4 metres and 4 metres away from the construction area, respectively.

|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)|No previous Minor Change Application|Yes| |Must relate to a grant of planning approval in respect of a building|21/2)(a)|Approval 19/00337/B is for Alterations and erection of extension to replace existing conservatory and erection of detached garage.|Yes/No| |Must specify what minor changes are being sought and why the applicant considers them to be of a minor nature|21(2)(b)|The application form indicates that the construction materials are to be changed from blockwork to timber cladding with unchanged dimensions. Roof to be bitumen shingles (the approved details refer to dark blue/grey natural slate or similar). The footprint on the plans appears to be slightly smaller and also the roof pitch to be shallower with overall reduction in height. A door is now shown in one side elevation and two windows in the other. These are shown blank in the approved. The window in the rear of he approved is omitted in the proposed. The rear elevation of the approved is solid, this is now proposed to be open for two thirds|Yes|

| | |of the building. The form could have been more complete, but on balance this in itself is not considered unacceptable in light of the plans also submitted.| | |---|---|---|---| |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 increase|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 change|Yes| |Cannot alter the conditions (if any) which have been imposed|21(2)(c)(v)|No change|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)|No concerns|Yes| |Requirement|Source|Analysis|Pass| |Application Content|Application Content|Application Content|Application Content| |Application Form|22(3)(a)|Provided|Yes| |Information in Schedule 1:<br><br> Site location plan (including flood risk assessment)<br> The planning approval that is the subject of the application<br> The changes to that approval which are being applied for<br> An explanation as to why those changes are being applied for;<br> (if relevant) the site plan, and the plans, elevations and sections of the proposed buildings and structures amended to indicate the changes.<br>|22(3)(a&c)|Provided|Yes| |Document specified on form but not in Schedule 1|22(3)(b)|N/A|Yes| |Fee|22(3)(4)|Provided|Yes| |Such further info as Department may request prior to determination|22(6)|N/A|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)|No concerns|Yes| |Must not significantly change the nature of the development in question|23(1)(b)|The proposal is still for a garage, but there are concerns (see below). In relation to this criteria alone, it is considered acceptable.|Yes| |Requirement|Source|Analysis|Pass| |Must not result in an approval which,|23(1)(c)|The visual impact and potential impact on|No|

|at the time of approval, complied with a Development Plan, National Policy Directive or a Planning Policy Statement, ceasing to do so| |neighbours may be different – see below. Given the level of differences it is not considered possible to reach a positive judgement on the basis of a minor change application.| | |---|---|---|---| |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)|See above|No| |Must not be more than minor and to be of a magnitude to warrant a new application|23(1)(e)|The proposal results in a different construction technique, alterations to external finishes, open sides where there were previously walls, windows and doors where there were previously no openings and is a slightly different shape. Cumulatively, the nature number of changes relative to the size/nature of the original approval is considered to go beyond a minor change.|No| |Must not otherwise fundamentally change the basis on which the grant was originally made.|23(1)(e)|See above|No| |If it does not do any of the above, must then be considered. – is the application considered acceptable?|23(2)|Level of change too great – should be assessed by way of full application|No| |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 refused|All refused| |For any elements refused, the reasons for that.|24(2)(b)|The proposal results in a different construction technique, alterations to external finishes, open sides where there were previously walls, windows and doors where there were previously no openings and is a slightly different shape. Cumulatively, the nature number of changes relative to the size/nature of the original approval is considered to go beyond a minor change, and so warrant consideration by way of a full application.|The proposal results in a different construction technique, alterations to external finishes, open sides where there were previously walls, windows and doors where there were previously no openings and is a slightly different shape. Cumulatively, the nature number of changes relative to the size/nature of the original approval is considered to go beyond a minor change, and so warrant consideration by way of a full application.|

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 : Refused Date : 16.07.20 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.