Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00332/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 24/00332/B Applicant : Andrew Feeney Proposal : Erection of three mobile huts to be used as changing cubicles Site Address : Temp Beach Changing Shelters Mooragh Promenade Ramsey Isle Of Man
Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level :
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 08.05.2024 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. The huts hereby approved shall not be positioned within 5m of the access steps to the beach.
Reason: in the interest of highway safety for visibility purposes between pedestrian and cyclists on the promenade.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed works are acceptable in principle and have an acceptable visual impact complying with General Policy 2 (b, c, g) and Recreation Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. In terms of highway safety subject to a suitably worded condition for the huts being positioned 5m from the access steps they are considered to have acceptable highway safety impact in line with GP2 (h and i). In terms of flood risk, although recognised as being within a flood risk area the applicant has provided a FRA, the units are not permanent buildings and would not be at such an unacceptable risk to flooding also given they're to be positioned beyond the sea wall. The applicants have indicated the intention to remove them during the winter months which would be in their best interest to help safeguard the longevity of the units, while DOIFRM have requested a condition it is considered somewhat unreasonable in this specific case minded of the foregoing and therefore the proposal is not considered to be at odds with Environmental Policies 10 and 13 of IOM Strategic Plan 2016.
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00332/B Page 2 of 5
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following: o dwg 2020-065-001 Location Plan o dwg 2020-065-002 Site Plan o dwg 2020-065-003 Hut Details o dwg 2020-065-004 Plans and Elevations o Existing photograph o Proposed Photo Montage o Flood Risk Assessment - All date received 15/03/2024 __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
Department of Infrastructure - Flood Risk Management __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION DOES NOT REQUIRE GOING BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE GIVEN IT DUPLICATES A SIMILAR SCHEME ALREADY APPROVED UNDER 20/00310/B AND THERE BEING NO MORE THAN RELATIVELY MINOR DIFFERENCES AS PER SECTION 2(1) OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE STANDING ORDERS NO. 2023_02.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is a small section of Mooragh Promenade which forms part of the walkway which is within Ramsey. The area is currently hard surfaced (concrete) with the sea wall immediately to the east with the beach and sea beyond.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of three mobile huts to be used for changing cubicles. The huts would be connected to each other and have an overall width of 3.8m, a depth of 1.8m and a maximum height of 2.75m o their peaks. The hut are proposed to be constructed and finished in timber.
2.2 The proposals are to enable person wishing to swim in the sea to change before or after or when using the beach. They are available for public use. The applicants are Ramsey Commissioners.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The same scheme for three mobile changing huts was approved under PA 20/00331/B. This was approved with just the standard 4 year condition.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is designated as Area C (Residential/Office use) under the Ramsey Local Plan Order 1998. There are no policies within the Ramey Local Plan which are specifically relevant in the case of this proposal. The site is not within a Conservation Area but is recognised as being at high tidal flood risk.
4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, General Policy 2 contains the general standards towards acceptable development and Environment Policies 10 and 13 cover flood risk impacts.
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00332/B Page 3 of 5
While not specifically designated as "Open Space" on the local Plan, the nature of the use of the promenade is akin to such and so it would be relevant to have regard to the following: 4.3 Recreation Policy 2 states: "Development which would adversely affect, or result in the loss of Open Space or a recreation facility that is or has the potential to be, of recreational or amenity value to the community will not be permitted except in the following circumstances: (a) where alternative provision of equivalent community benefit and of equivalent or better accessibility is made available; and (b) where there would be an overall community gain from the development, and the particular loss of the open space or recreation facility would have no significant unacceptable effect on local open space or recreation provision or on the character or amenity of the area."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners - no comments received although recognised that they are the applicant in this case (08/05/2024).
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do not oppose subject to condition (02/24/2024) no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, providing the huts are positioned no less than 5m from the pedestrian entrance to the beach (for visibility purposes between pedestrian-cyclists on the promenade) - this should be conditioned on permission.
5.3 Department of Infrastructure Flood Risk Management - Do not oppose subject to condition (03/04/2024) The temporary swim changing huts should be removed during the winter months to avoid being washed away and safe use instructions posted.
5.4 No comments received from neighbouring properties, and comments were also sought from Manx Utilities but nothing received as of 08/05/2024.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The principal issues to consider in the assessment of the application are; the principle of developing the site; the impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene; highway safety and whether there would be any flood risk impact. A significant material consideration in the assessment is the previous approval of a duplicate scheme under 20/00310/B.
THE PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPING THE SITE 6.2 The previous officer for 20/00310/B considered that the site being on the public promenade walkway was more akin to being 'open space' rather than the Ramsey Local Plan designation of residential/office development and thus did not need to follow the design brief for that area and so having public huts available on the public walk way was considered acceptable in principle and fitting with the actual use of the promenade, beach and sea by the public. They recognised that although the huts would take up part of the walk way, it was to be a very small section and the overall proposal would offer community gain in line with Recreation Policy 2 and was acceptable. There have been no policies changes since the original approval and these conclusions in terms of the principle are accepted and concurred with.
THE IMPACT UPON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE STREET SCENE 6.3 The previous officer concluded that the huts would be visible when passing the site but given their size are unlikely to become prominent features in the street scene recognising that there are already existing shelters along the Promenade and the changing huts would not appear out of keeping. There have been no policy changes in this respect and these conclusion in terms of visual impact are concurred with.
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00332/B Page 4 of 5
HIGHWAY SAFETY 6.4 The huts are to be fixed in place and sitting directly along the walkway edge nearest the sea wall and their doors are to be inward opening. The promenade is around 8m in width and so there remains ample space even with the huts in situ and the inward opening doors help to ensure no passers-by are impacted in their use by doors opening over the walkway.
6.5 DOI Highway Services has commented on the application indicating that there would be no significant highway impacts but seek that a condition to have the huts positioned at least 5m from the access steps down to the beach for visibility purposes between pedestrians and cyclists on the promenade. Looking at the plans submitted by the applicant there is a lack of clarity on the distance from these steps as they're not shown on the plans and while the photomontages show a fairly substantial gap because these not provided to scale the exact measurement cannot be determined. Nevertheless it would not be unreasonable or unacceptable in this case to action a condition suitably worded to ensure that a gap of at least 5m remains between the steps and the changing huts in order to best safeguard both users of the steps and the promenade.
FLOOD RISK 6.6 The nature of the changing huts requires them being in close proximity to the beach and sea and so it is naturally expected that here would be some potential flood risk due to proximity and which is the case here for tidal flood risk. However the siting along the walk and beyond the sea wall helps to minimise that flood risk.
6.7 DOIFRM have stated that they do not oppose subject to condition that the huts be removed during the winter months to avoid being washed away and that safe use instructions posted for users. The applicants are Ramsey Town Commissioners and they have already indicated that the intention would be to have the huts removed in the winter months and stored in a secure location. The assessment of the huts as listed above is on an all year round basis and has been concluded not to have any unacceptable principle, visual or highway safety impacts. Use of the huts is likely to be reflective of the seasons and weather dependant. While weather is likely to be worse in the winter months, flood risk could be at any time of the year and so it would be difficult to differentiate and it is considered that it would be unreasonable to action a condition requiring their specific timing of removal. Of course it would always be in the applicant's own best interest to have the huts removed in periods of bad or severe weather to ensure their longevity and to best avoid any risk to the public, it would also be in their best interest to provide user instructions although again it is not considered reasonable to action this by condition but rather an advisory note added.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 There have been no policies changes since the original approval 20/00310/B and so it would be somewhat unreasonable to reach a different conclusion in respect of the principle for changing huts now. There have however been updated comments from DOI Highway Services and DOIFRM as part of this application process and these comments have been addressed within section 6.0 of this report.
7.2 Based on the above assessment it is concluded that the proposed works are still acceptable in principle and they have an acceptable visual impact complying with General Policy 2 (b, c, g) and Recreation Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. In terms of highway safety and flood risk, the proposals subject to a suitably worded condition for the huts being positioned 5m from the access steps is considered to have acceptable highway safety impact in line with GP2 (h and i), and although recognised as being within a flood risk area the applicant has provided a FRA, the units are not permanent buildings and would not be an unacceptable risk to flooding. The applicants have positioned the huts beyond the sea wall and have indicated the intention to remove them during the winter months which would be in their best interest to help safeguard the longevity of the units, while DOIFRM have requested a condition it is considered somewhat unreasonable in this specific case minded of the foregoing.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00332/B Page 5 of 5
The proposal is not considered to be at odds with Environmental Policies 10 and 13 of IOM Strategic Plan 2016.
7.3 An advisory note in respect of the applicant considering including user instructions for the huts will be added to the decision.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 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.
8.2 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 o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should 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 : Permitted Date : 10.05.2024
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