187336

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      20/00593/MCH                                     Page  1  of  4

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 20/00593/MCH Applicant : Mr Dan Jespersen Proposal : Minor changes application for PA 18/00266/B involving the addition of two columns to support first floor balcony and changes to balustrading Site Address : Waverley Spaldrick Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6PD

Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 17.07.2020 __

Notes for Approval

Approval is sought to add two columns to the balcony and to have a stone balustrade rather than modern SS and glass balustrading. These would be in a prominent position on the front elevation of the building. The value of the row of properties is in part due to the matching details. The previous approval alters this in relation to the glass balcony. The proposed stone balcony arguably blends in more, and so is a potentially reduced impact. The introduction of pillars is an additional and potentially negative impact. Overall it may be that the net impact of the proposal on the streetscene (and proposed Conservation Area) is reduced, however this would be a balanced judgement and certainly the impact on the area would be materially different. On balance it is therefore considered that given the nature/level of change, it should be assessed by way of full planning application.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This decision relates to application form, drawing 17/2646/05, 2004/PL1000, 2004/PL1001 Rev A date stamped as having been received 21.06.20 __

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) No previous Yes Must relate to a grant of planning approval in respect of a building 21/2)(a) PA 18/00266/B Conversion of former guest house to create a residential dwelling Yes Must specify what minor changes are being sought and why the 21(2)(b) Set out on application form and plan - Approval is sought to add two Yes

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      20/00593/MCH                                     Page  2  of  4

applicant considers them to be of a minor nature columns to the balcony and to have a stone balustrade rather than modern SS and glass balustrading. 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 concerns 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 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) 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 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) Overall the proposal is still for conversion and provision of balcony, so broadly acceptable - although some concerns (see below)

Yes

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      20/00593/MCH                                     Page  3  of  4

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) Officer’s report for original application stated,

“The works will generally renovate the property, reinstating much of the original features such as the sliding sashes. Those works which bring new elements to the property

• the balcony, rooflights, changed gable window and removal of the rear annex will have little visual impact due to their position, the first floor balcony having the most impact. However, given the glazed screen and the angled nature of it, this is not considered to be objectionable”.

Approval is sought to add two columns to the balcony and to have a stone balustrade rather than modern SS and glass balustrading. These would be in a prominent position on the front elevation of the building. The value of the row of properties is in part due to the matching details. The previous approval alters this in relation to the glass balcony. The proposed stone balcony arguably blends in more, and so is a potentially reduced impact. The introduction of pillars is an additional and potentially negative impact. Overall it may be that the net impact of the proposal on the streetscene (and proposed Conservation Area) is reduced, however this would be a balanced judgement and certainly the impact on the area would be materially different. On balance it is therefore considered that given the nature/level of change, it should be assessed by way of full planning application.

Discussion with the Registered Buildings Officer (17.07.20) indicate that the approved scheme does impact on the symmetry of the buildings, and proposed revised design for the balcony may in itself be preferable.

However, the columns are a negative element and so the impact would be materially different. No Must not result in new or increased adverse impacts on adjoining or neighbouring properties having a significant or disproportionate impact on the environment 23(1)(d) See above No

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      20/00593/MCH                                     Page  4  of  4

(irrespective of whether such impacts might be outweighed by other considerations) Must not be more than minor and to be of a magnitude to warrant a new application 23(1)(e) See above 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) See above No Notice of Decision Set out whether all, some or no changes are accepted (And which is which) 24(2)(a) Application is refused For any elements refused, the reasons for that. 24(2)(b) As per report (23(1)(c))

See on-line __

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 :

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.