Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00050/B Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 24/00050/B Applicant : Tracey Bell Proposal : Proposed new dwelling to be created on vacant plot Site Address : Land Adjoining 44 Victoria Road Douglas Isle Of Man
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 01.05.2024 Site Visit : 01.05.2024 Expected Decision Level :
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 24.05.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. Due to the overall height, width and form of the proposed dwelling, together with its proximity to the existing dwellings at Nos. 44 and 46 Victoria Road, it is considered that the proposal would disrupt the general rhythm of the overall group of buildings, and result in an incongruous built development within an area comprising mainly traditional dwellings, and it is not considered that the new dwelling represents and innovative/modern introduction reflective of its time as required by Paragraph 6.8.3 of the Area Plan for the East. The proposal is, therefore, considered to result in detrimental impacts on the character and appearance, and the context of this part of Victoria Road, contrary to Environment Policy 42, General Policy 2 (b, c and g), and Strategic Policy 3(b) of the Strategic Plan.
R 2. The parking and access arrangements as proposed would create an adverse impact on the existing highway, as the visibility in both directions would be below the acceptable standards, having obstructions set at 1.6m and 2.2m on either side, which would make it difficult for vehicles to exit the site in a safe and appropriate manner, contrary to the principles of General Policy 2(h and I) and Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
R 3. The scheme as proposed would result in vehicles projecting onto the adjoining public footway, and the visibility is such that would increase the potential for increased conflict and risk to pedestrians. This would be contrary to Transport policies 6 and General Policy 2 (h) of the Strategic Plan 2016.
R 4. The proposed first floor terrace and second floor balcony on the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling, by virtue of their proximity to the neighbouring dwellings and boundary, and height above the ground level, would result in unacceptable levels of actual and perceived overlooking from the proposal site into the neighbouring rear gardens. Likewise, the proposed
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00050/B Page 2 of 10
side windows, by virtue of their size and proximity of neighbouring windows on the side elevations hold the potential for significant overlooking of living spaces, to the detriment of their residential amenity. In this respect, the proposed development is considered to be unacceptable when assessed against General Policy 2 (g) and the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide 2021. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site comprises part of the residential curtilage of No.44 Victoria Road, which is located on the southern side of Victoria Road. To the south west of the application site is a three storey semi-detached property at No.44 Victoria Road. To the north east of the application site is No.46 Victoria Road.
1.2 The site is set at street level on the front where the hardstanding is used as a car park, but slopes towards the rear of the site which is covered in shrubbery and wild plants, most of which has now been cleared. The rear gardens of the properties here are set at the lower section, set about 1m below the floor level of the buildings.
1.3 A stone wall runs along most of its boundary with No. 44, and the rear boundary which adjoins the properties on Castlemona Avenue. The boundary with No 46 is comprised mainly on a timber fence linked to an area of wild shrubbery at the rear section.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for erection of new dwelling to be created on vacant plot. The new dwelling would be set over four floors, and would have an open plan kitchen, dining and lounge, a utility room, store and stairs on the lower ground floor; a bedroom, study, WC, hall, terrace and garage on the ground floor; two ensuite bedrooms and terrace on the first floor, while the second floor would house a bedroom, large changing room and bathroom. The building would be laid out such that it would have split levels.
2.2 The building would be finished in a hipped roof (material not stated), with the external walls of the entire building finished in smooth render painted white. Windows and doors are to be powder coated Aluminium in RAL 7016 Anthracite Grey, while terraces are to have toughened glass panels with marine grade stainless steel handrails. Balcony on second floor to be powder coated Aluminium balcony/terrace trims to be RAL 7016 Anthracite Grey.
2.3 Two parking spaces would be created in front of the property, but these are below the standard stipulated in the Manual for Manx Roads, being 5m long from the edge of the footway. The scheme also provides a garage but this is also below the standard stipulated in the Manual for Manx Roads as it is about 5m long.
2.4 The scheme would not result in the removal of any trees on site, and no landscaping details have been provided. Run off and foul sewage would be discharged to existing systems.
2.5 The application is also supported by a Planning Statement and Knotweed Inspection and Treatment Quote.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific:
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00050/B Page 3 of 10
3.1.1 The site is situated within an area zoned as Mixed Use on the Area plan for the East (Map 4), and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is not prone to flood risks, there are no registered trees on site and the site is not within a registered tree area
3.2 Area: Area Plan for the East 3.2.1 Given the location of the site and the nature of the proposed development, the following parts of the Area Plan for the East Written Statement are considered relevant:
3.2.2 Section 6.6: Principles of good design 6.6.1 In the Strategic Plan, Strategic Policy 5 states that 'New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island'.
6.6.2 A positive contribution means making places which are attractive and safe areas to live, work and invest in. In order to achieve this, it is essential that detailed design proposals be based around an understanding of constraints and opportunities of the site and that the proposal responds positively to local context, in terms of its scale, form, layout, materials, colouring, fenestration and architectural detailing.
6.6.3 This, in turn, depends on good understanding of the local character of the individual settlements in the East. Local character is defined by the natural and physical features of an area, including its topography, the pattern of streets and public spaces, the street scene, the density of development, the scale and form of buildings and the materials used in construction.
6.6.4 Housing developments have been criticised in recent decades for their uniform and standardised appearance. In order to avoid creating homogeneous and sterile neighbourhoods, developers will be encouraged to incorporate a mix of property types of a varying scale, utilising a range of complementary materials wherever possible.
6.6.5 Similarly, the layout of development should encourage integration with surrounding areas and not be inward facing. Regarding extensions, it is recognised that the use of alternative materials and detailing in extensions and alterations can, in some case, enhance the character of an existing building and/or the surrounding area.
6.6.6 The layout, orientation and design of buildings can reduce the need for energy consumption by maximising the potential to secure the benefits energy provides e.g. heating, lighting and cooling, through alternative means. Where layout, orientation and design is not constrained or dictated by other factors i.e. by the character of the surrounding area or the juxtaposition of adjacent buildings, applicants for planning approval will be encouraged to demonstrate how the design of the development has reduced the need for energy consumption.
3.2.3 Urban Environment Proposal 3: "Development proposals must make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Traditional or contemporary approaches may be appropriate, depending upon the nature of the proposal and the context of the surrounding area."
3.3 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016) 3.3.1 Relevant Strategic Plan Policies: a. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. b. Environment Policy 4 - Protects ecology and biodiversity/important habitats. c. Environment Policy 42 - new development should be designed to take into account the character and identity of the area. d. Housing Policy 1 - Refers to housing needs which includes enabling 5,100 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2011 to 2026.
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00050/B Page 4 of 10
e. Housing Policy 4 - New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. f. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources. g. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages. h. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to respect the character of our towns and villages. i. Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas. j. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact. k. Strategic Policy 10 - development should promote integrated journeys, minimise car use and facilitate other modes of travel. l. Spatial Policy 5 - new development will be in defined settlements only or in the countryside only in accordance with GP3. m. Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes important for new development. n. Transport Policy 4 - New and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan. o. Transport Policy 7 - Parking considerations/standards for development. p. Community Policies 7, 10 and 11 provide guidance in respect of minimising criminal activity and reducing spread of fire, while Infrastructure Policy 5 deals with methods for water conservation.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Residential Design Guide (2021) 4.1.1 This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.
4.2 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025) 4.2.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.
4.3 Manual for Manx Roads (2021) 4.3.1 Quality Standards (Table C.2) o Driveway parking space in front of garage: Minimum Length - 6.0m, Minimum width - 2.6m, Minimum Width if drive way provides pedestrian access - 3.4m. 4.3.2 Garages (Table C.3) o Standard Single: Length - 6.0m, Width -3.0m, Min Door width - 2.4m.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The following previous application is considered relevant:
5.2 PA 08/00039/B for Erection of block of four apartments with parking and garage (comprising an amendment to the development refused under 07/00881/B) - Refused. This application was refused at Appeal for the following reasons:
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00050/B Page 5 of 10
2. The car parking provision would be insufficient to comply with the required standards, and insofar as it is at the rear, would adversely affect the living conditions of existing residents living either side of the site.
5.3 PA 07/00881/B - Erection of block of four apartments with parking and garage - refused on 6 December 2007. The reason for refusal was as follows:
The proposed development would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the development has not be [sic] designed to take account of the existing character and identity of buildings in which the development will join onto and will be an incongruous addition to the pair of semi-detached properties, to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality.
The proposed development would be contrary to Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that: i) the proposed car parking provision is inadequate in number to serve the needs of the existing flats of No.44 and the proposed flats and will result in further on-street parking in the area, which will lead to noise and general disturbance to local residents;
ii) the proposed access will have inadequate visibility splays to allow safe egress from the site onto the public highway of Victoria Road and therefore would be detrimental to highway safety.
5.4 05/1069/A - Approval in principle to demolish existing property and erect a four storey block of eight apartments with associated parking to rear - refused on review 29 September 2005. The reason for refusal was as follows:
There is in the submitted application insufficient information to enable a full and proper assessment of a. the access and egress arrangements; b. the drainage proposals; and c. the impact on the street scene.
In any case, it is clear that there would be unreasonable and adverse impact on the enjoyment of adjoining residential buildings and gardens.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DOI Highways have made the following comments regarding the application (26 January 2024): o There must be at least 6m between the garage and the back of the footway as per Manual for Manx Roads dimensions (page 174). o The garage should be at least 6m in length internally to accommodate a vehicle and cycle parking. o The proposed site layout plan should be amended to take account of the above.
6.2 The DEFA Biodiversity have made the following comments regarding the application: 6.2.1 Comments received 6 February 2024: o They have no objections to the principle of this vacant plot being used for residential development. They note that aerial photographs and site photographs show that a substantial amount of vegetation clearance, including tree removal, has taken place in the rear of the plot since August 2022, presumably to facilitate the placement of a new dwelling. o They state that despite the clearance of vegetation, no soft landscaping plans have been provided which show how the impacts of the vegetation clearance are to be mitigated,
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00050/B Page 6 of 10
and state that without replacement landscaping and/or other mitigation measures, this application would be contrary to Strategic Policy 4 (b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. o They request that that a condition is secured on approval for no development to commence unless a soft landscaping plan has been submitted to the Department and agreed in writing. o They request that Mitigation planting should include new tree and hedge planting, and that a large proportion of this is done along the eastern edge of the garden, to connect to and bolster the broadleaved woodland which is outside of the red line boundary. o They also recommended a bat brick and a swift brick are installed, to provide additional ecological mitigation.
6.2.2 Comments received 28 February 2024: o They state that there is an infestation of Wildlife Act 1990 Schedule 8 invasive non- native Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica syn. Fallopia japonica) on site. o They request that an eradication plan and responsible construction methodology incorporating use of protective fencing and construction exclusion areas, to ensure that it is not unintentionally spread by any construction works, will need to be put in place. o They request that a condition is secured for no construction works to commence unless a Japanese knotweed avoidance and eradication plan, has been submitted to the Department and approved in writing.
6.2.3 Comments received 16 May 2024: o They state that the Quest Landscape Services methodology for treatment contained in their quote seems appropriate. However, still believe that measures are required, in the form of construction exclusion areas, to ensure that the construction works do not result in the reckless spread of Japanese knotweed. o They request that a condition is imposed to ensure that no construction works to commence unless details of a Japanese knotweed construction exclusion area has been submitted to the Department and approved in writing. 6.3 Douglas Borough Council have stated that they have no objection to the principal of development on this site on the condition that there is adequate bin and recycling storage within the curtilage of the property, and that the development allows for both refuse and recycling bins to be removed from the highway after collection (2 February 2024).
6.4 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to be considered in the assessment of the current application are: i. Principle of developing the site for the proposed use; ii. The potential visual impact on the site, street scene and townscape; iii. Impacts on Parking and Highway Safety; iv. The potential impact on neighbouring properties; and v. Ecological Impacts.
7.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT (STP 1, SP2, HP4, & HP 6) 7.2.1 In assessing the principle of the proposed development, it is considered that the site is zoned as Mixed Use, which implies that the use of the site for residential purposes would be compatible with adjoining uses and conform to the general use of the area.
7.2.2 The site is also within the settlement boundary and adjacent to and surrounded by existing residential dwellings; conditions which would ensure that residential development here broadly aligns with Strategic Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4. Whilst there is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed, it is considered that the principle of utilising the
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/00050/B Page 7 of 10
site for residential development would be complimentary to the dominant residential use within the locality.
7.2.3 It is vital to note that the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 seeks to locate new housing and employment close to existing public transport facilities and routes, or where public transport facilities are, or can be improved, thereby reducing the need to use private cars and encouraging alternative means of transport, and it is considered that the site would meet this goal given that it sits along an existing routes within Douglas. While this does not signify a presumption in favour for all forms of housing development, it points to the fact the proposal would generally accord with the Strategic Plan goals for new housing on the Island. Therefore, in terms of the acceptability of the use of the site for residential development it is concluded that the proposal basically accords with the goals of Strategic Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
7.2.4 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that as the application aligns with the zoning of the area within the Area Plan for the East, and the development of the site for residential purposes would be acceptable in principle. It is, however, worth noting that the factors highlighted above do not in any way denote automatic approval for residential use of the site, given that the development of the site would have to be appropriate for the existing site character, character of locality and not result in adverse impacts on other attributes of the site, such as biodiversity, access and highway issues, and neighbouring amenity. Therefore, it still remains necessary to assess the proposed development against other relevant planning policies and the physical constraints of the application site.
7.3 VISUAL IMPACT - DESIGN AND FINISH (GP 2, STP 3, EP 42, Section 6.6 of TAPE, & RDG 2021) 7.3.1 In assessing the visual impacts of the proposed development, it is noted that the Area Plan for the East 2020 (TAPE2020) includes a list of principles of good design at section 6.6 which reinforces Strategic Planning policies in the need for development to make a positive contribution to the environment. It stipulates that detailed design proposals should respond positively to local context and character, taking into account scale, form, layout, materials, colouring, fenestration and architectural detailing, as well as physical features including topography, pattern of streets, street scene and density of development.
7.3.2 With regard to the design and finish of the proposed dwelling, it is considered that the submitted drawings have specified the material finishes, although no details of the roof finish is provided. It is also accepted that there is a mix of palette of materials in this area and render would not be uncommon. However, the immediate area, particularly the adjoining properties are traditional properties, bearing traditional features such as gable chimney stacks (which are a key feature of the immediate locality), hood mouldings, cornice mouldings, and sliding sash windows; features which the new dwelling does not bear as it seeks to replicate a modern approach. The scheme is also not a reflection of a modern/innovative dwelling which could be judged acceptable as a true representation of its time as required by Paragraph 6.8.3 of the Area Plan for the East. Granting the scheme would integrate glazed balconies and full height windows which are features of modern dwellings, these would be at the rear, and as such do not in any way contribute to the appearance of the immediate street scene, with the design to the front offering an uncharacteristic and uninspiring bland hipped roofed infill building to the predominantly traditional street scene.
7.3.3 Likewise, the buildings bulk and massing is in no way similar to those in the immediate locality which are wider, and this would make the building stand out as an incongruous addition to the immediate street scene, drawing negative attention to it rather than positive, and as such would be contrary to Environment Policy 42 and Strategic Policy 3 (b).
7.3.4 Based on the foregoing, it is not considered that the scheme as propose would respect the character of the existing site and immediate locality.
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/00050/B Page 8 of 10
7.4 PARKING AND HIGHWAY SAFETY (GP2, TP4 and TP7) 7.4.1 In terms of parking provisions for the scheme, it is noted that all the parking provisions are below the required standard as they would all be at least 1m shorter than the standard stipulated in the Manual for Manx Roads (parking in front of garage and within garage are only 5m long instead of 6m). This would mean that vehicles parked in front of the garage would more likely be projecting onto sections of the adjoining highway, thus, it is not considered that the needs of pedestrians who would use the footways have been given similar weight as vehicle users (transport Policy 6). The fact that all the parking provisions are below the required size standards also means that appropriate parking provisions have not been provided in accordance with appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan, even though the number provided appears to be above the minimum two space per dwelling requirement.
7.4.2 Likewise, the site layout is such that there are no turning spaces within the site so vehicles would have to back out onto the highway or reverse before backing into the parking spaces; a condition that is likely to be detrimental to highway safety, given that the site is situated along a busy highway.
7.4.3 With regard to the visibility when exiting the site onto Victoria Road, it is considered that this is partly constrained by the 1.4m high wall on the site boundary with 44 Victoria Road, and the about 2.2m tall pier with bevelled cap which sits on the side of No. 46 Victoria Road. The wall features would limit views for drivers exiting the site and make it difficult for drivers to see approaching pedestrians and vehicles when existing in a forward direction, and this is further exacerbated by the fact that the highway is a major artery liking Douglas with Onchan. Moreover, DOI Highways have expressed concerns with the site layout, which does not make adequate provisions to accommodate vehicles due to its length. As such, it is considered that the scheme as proposed would fail to comply with policy GP2 (h & i), and Transport Policies 4, 6, and 7 of the Strategic Plan.
7.5 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITY (GP 2, EP 22, and RDG 2021) 7.5.1 In terms of potential impacts on neighbouring amenity, it is considered that the introduction of the glazed terraces and balcony at the rear of the dwelling, together with the fact that the proposed dwelling would sit further of the rear elevation of the adjoining neighbours would increase the potential for overlooking of the neighbouring rear gardens, which is the main amenity space provision for these properties given the very narrow front garden spaces available to these dwellings.
7.5.2 It must be noted that these terraces and balcony would enable views over the existing boundary treatment on these properties such that almost all of the garden spaces available to these properties would be significantly overlooked, such that the scheme would result in significant harm to the amenity of these neighbouring properties, contrary to General Policy 2 (g) and the principles advocated by the Residential Design Guide 2021.
7.5.3 Further to the above, the proposal proposes windows to the side elevation which would offer views into existing windows on both adjoining properties. Whilst it is noted that most of the windows would be offering views from hallways which are not living habitable rooms, and which would diminish the overlooking concerns, it is not clear whether the overlooked rooms would be habitable rooms, and the proximity is considerably close such that there would be clear views into the neighbouring living spaces, given the separating distances of about 1.6m on the boundary with No. 44 and 2.3m on the boundary with No.46. It is also noted that the study at the ground floor of the new dwelling would have a window on the west elevation that directly overlooks a habitable room on the ground floor of No.44.
7.5.4 Overall, it is considered that the level and scale of development proposed here are judged to result in significant levels of overlooking, and would harm the neighbouring amenity
==== PAGE 9 ====
24/00050/B Page 9 of 10
of the neighbours at Nos. 44 and 46 Victoria Road, contrary to General Policy 2 (g) and the principles advocated by the Residential Design Guide 2021.
7.6 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS (GP2 & EP4) 7.6.1 In terms of the ecological impacts of the proposed development, it is considered that the works have already resulted in the removal and destruction of habitats that once existed on site to enable the erection of the new dwelling, without an assessment of the ecology within this part of the site or carrying out appropriate measures to ensure their replacement within the site (ecological mitigation measures). This would be contrary to the requirements of General Policy 2 (d and f), which seeks to ensure that developments protect locally important habitats on site, in addition to incorporating existing landscape features.
7.6.2 Whilst it could be argued that the vegetation could be removed without the need for a planning application, it would be difficult to detach the significant vegetation removal from the proposed development. Besides, actions taken to remove the existing vegetation hold the potential to exacerbate the growth of Japanese Knotweed which usually spreads with disturbance to its root system, stems or crowns, and inadequate information has been provided with the scheme to clearly show the parts of the site that have been affected and how exclusions would be created to ensure that the proposed development does not facilitate its spread to adjoining sites, with the only information provided being a Quotation of works.
7.6.3 Moreover, the DEFA Biodiversity Team have raised concerns with the approach to biodiversity within the scheme, whilst also suggesting conditions which could be imposed to ensure that the resulting ecological impacts are mitigated. As the ecological concerns could be addressed via conditions, it is felt that the concerns in terms of biodiversity impacts are not sufficient to warrant refusal of the proposal, should approval be grated for the proposal, although these weigh against the proposal.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Overall, whilst the site is within an area designated as Mixed Use on the Area Plan for the East, where residential development would be acceptable in principle, this proposal does not overcome the previous reasons for refusal of residential development of the site, such as adverse visual impacts (character and appearance), substandard parking provisions, inadequate visibility splays, and impacts on neighbouring residential amenity, and it is therefore recommended that the application be refused for the reasons stated in the assessment section of this report.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
9.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
==== PAGE 10 ====
24/00050/B Page 10 of 10
o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status
9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Acting 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 : Refused Date : 28.05.2024
Determining officer Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan
Acting 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