Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00819/B Page 1 of 12
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/00819/B Applicant : Mr Matt Corcoran Proposal : Erection of First Floor Storage Units above Existing Garages Site Address : Heathfield Yard Patrick Street Peel Isle Of Man
Principal Planning Officer: Belinda Fettis Photo Taken : 29.10.2024 Site Visit : 29.10.2024 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 12.02.2025 __
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. No development shall commence until a sample panel of all external facing materials to be used has been erected on site and approved in writing by the Department. The approved sample panel shall be kept on site for reference until the development is completed. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area in accordance with General Policy 2.
C 3. The storage units as shown on the approved drawing no.04 Rev.B numbered 1 to 10 may only be used for personal storage of the person renting or leasing or owning that unit and not for any other purposes including commercial or as a workshop.
Reason: For clarity and to protect residential amenity and, in the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area in accordance with General Policy 2.
C 4. No advertisements shall be erected on the external walls and internal first floor walls without prior written approval following submission of an application.
Reason: To protect the character of the locality in accordance with General Policy 2.
N 1. The applicant's attention is drawn to the provisions of the Building Control Act 1991 which includes specific controls on, and requirements in connection with, demolition of buildings in
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00819/B Page 2 of 12
whole or in part. For further information contact the Building Control Section of the Planning and Building Control Division Tel. 685902.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Due to the existing built environment and natural surrounding topography the proposal would not cause adverse harm to views into and out of the Conservation Area. Therefore the proposal accords with Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policy 36 and is not contrary to Planning Policy Statement 1/01. Overall the proposal accords with aims and objectives of Strategic Policy 3, 4 and 5, Environment Policy 22, 36, 42, General Policy 2, Infrastructure Policy 4 and Transport Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
Approved Plans and details This decision relates to the following Plans, drawings and detail received on the 24th of July 2024; unless stated otherwise.
o Location Plan drawing no.1 o Survey Plan drawing no.01B o Existing plan and elevations Drawing no.02 Rev.A (02.10.2024) o Proposed site plan floor plan and elevations drawing no.03 Rev.A (02.10.2024) o Proposed first floor plan and elevations drawing no.04 Rev.B (07.02.2025) __
Interested Person Status
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions and they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are mentioned in Article 6(4):
Objects
__
Officer’s Report
THE PROPOSAL IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ALLOCATION, AND THERE IS AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, BUT IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
THE SITE 1.1. The application site relates to the area outlined in red on the Location Plan that is known as Heathfield Yard on the east side of Patrick Street.
1.2. The site comprises three terraced rows of 21 garages with block and render walls, corrugated gently sloped low roofs, guttering and up and over garage doors. Two have a different style. Some of the garages have permission for storage others for private vehicle parking.
1.3. The central parking and turning area is laid with compacted hardcore material similar to that along the access entrance to the site.
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00819/B Page 3 of 12
1.4. Because of the topography outside the site and the single storey construction, from within the site the rooftops and elevations of neighbouring dwellings and buildings can be seen to varying degrees.
1.5. Access to the site is over a strip of land from the local road (A27) just before Patrick Street becomes Glenfaba Road. The access land is not in the ownership of the applicant but the site has a right of way over the land; outlined in blue on the Location Plan. The access land is flanked by two storey buildings one of which has some off-road parking.
1.6. The northern boundary of the site abuts Heathfield House which is a large detached Georgian style dwelling bound by stone walls and mature vegetation; the site was historically part of Heathfield House.
1.7. Along the southern boundary is a cul-de-sac access road (C234) known as Roxwell Lane. The lane provides vehicular access to the rear gardens of dwellinghouses fronting onto West View and Patrick Street. In addition there are three dual pitch roof garages, one flat roofed garage and a pedestrian footway to West View. The footway also provides access to West View Park and Peel Playground. Roxwell Lane is a narrow road resulting in vehicles parking or travelling on the pavement when passing occurs.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1. The applicant seeks approval to construct storage units above the existing 10 garages that back onto the east boundary of the site abutting the footway to West View and the south boundary abutting Roxwell Lane.
2.2. The first floor would comprise 10 storage units accessed from a pedestrian door from Roxwell Lane.
2.3. The existing ridge height of the mono slope roof is around 3.8m. The proposed ridge height of the mono slope roof would be around 5.38m.
2.4. At present the garages are not visible from outside the site. Because the land levels outside the site vary, when completed the visible height increase will vary between 2.8m above street level at the junction of Roxwell Lane and the footway to West View, and 4.8m from street level further along the walkway.
2.5. Concerns raised and discussed with the applicant resulted in some changes which are contained in the following.
2.6. As a result of concerns regarding potential obstructions by vehicles causing excessive use of the access on Roxwell Lane, a pedestrian door accessed via a staircase from the within the yard has been added.
2.7. As a result of the additional first floor access to garage no.7 on the existing plan (no.02 Rev.A) is retained but becomes covered.
2.8. Surface water drainage contained within the site.
2.9. The proposed external materials are as follows and include amended detail for the walls and doors; removing some of the profile metal sheeting ;
o Roof: profile metal sheeting - anthracite grey with polycarbonate rooflights o Walls: Ground floor render to match existing / first floor Cedral Weatherboard Cladding timber effect - Black o Doors: metal faced composite security door - anthracite grey o External staircase - galvanised steel with anti-slip tread and risers
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00819/B Page 4 of 12
o Remove the painted blockwork on top of the sandstone wall; see agents letter dated 07.02.2025.
PLANNING POLICY Site Specific
3.1. There are no Public Rights of Way through or alongside the site.
3.2. The site is not in a flood zone nor at risk from surface water flooding however abutting the eastern boundary there is an area at high risk of surface water flooding.
3.3. The site is not in a Conservation Area however the northern boundary abuts the Peel Conservation Area.
3.4. There are no Registered Buildings or protected trees within or abutting the site.
3.5. On the Area Plan for the North & West, Draft Proposals Map 7, Peel Town Centre, the site is within an area identified as being 'Predominantly Residential'. The north-east corner of the site abuts land designated as 'Open Space for Particular Purposes'. This is the same designation as the adopted Peel Local Plan 1989. At the time of writing this report the Draft Proposals Map 7 has not been adopted therefore at this stage, the Peel Local Plan Order 1989 remains the correct land use designation.
Strategic Plan
3.6. Taking account of the above, within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered relevant in the determination of this application:
3.7. Strategic Policy 3 and Environment Policy 42 focus on the visual design of development and its impact upon the character and identity of its immediate locality.
3.8. Strategic Policy 4(b) protect and enhance urban landscape especially when adjacent to designations, such as Conservation Areas. Not lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance.
3.9. Strategic Policy 5 new development (including individual buildings) should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment.
3.10. Environment Policy 22 states that development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution.
3.11. Environment Policy 36 relates to development close to a Conservation Area. Development would not be permitted if it would have a detrimental impact upon the important views into and out of the Conservation Area.
3.12. General Policy 2: Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development accords with the criteria of the Policy:
(a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00819/B Page 5 of 12
(d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.
3.13. Infrastructure Policy 4: New development will not be permitted where it would have an unacceptable impact on surface water and groundwater quality in the public water supply.
3.14. Transport Policy 4 aims to ensure that new development is capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner.
OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1. Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man) - Policy CA/2, (Conservation Areas); "Where a development is proposed for land which although not within the boundaries of the conservation area would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area, such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a Conservation Area may be affected."
PLANNING HISTORY 5.1. The planning history considered materially relevant is provided below, the most recent first.
o 14/01295/B - Erection of eight garages - Refused 29.04.2015 then Permitted on Appeal: AP06/0008 - Appeal against the refusal for a Retrospective application for the erection of four lock up private storage units (Hearing) Appeal Dismissed Planning Application Approved 08.05.2006.
o AP07/0096 - Appeal against refusal of approval to discharge condition one of 05/00665/R to retain containers (Hearing) Appeal against refusal of approval to discharge condition one of 05/00665/R to retain containers. Appeal Dismissed Planning Application Approved 29.08.2007.
o 10/00092/B - Erection of five additional garages - Permitted.
o 07/02314/C - Change of use of garage 7 to private lock up storage unit and garage 14 for private vehicle use - Permitted.
o 07/02313/B - sought to vary condition one of PA07/00197/B and reposition containers along the eastern/south-eastern boundary wall to improve vehicular access. Refused and Refused at Appeal for the following reason, "The retention of the containers, which was the subject of two previous applications where both concluded that the containers must be removed from the site, would restrict the amount of space available for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles associated with the legitimate use of the existing units on site. In addition, the containers would, if used, generate a need for parking and manoeuvring space.
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00819/B Page 6 of 12
Finally, the position of the containers would restrict vehicular access to units 7, 8 and 9 within the yard," and the containers were required to be removed before 1st September 2008.
o 07/00197/B sought approval to discharge condition one of 05/00665/R to retain containers. Refused then Permitted on at Appeal with the following conditioned imposed: "On or before 1st December 2007, the existing five temporary metal storage containers in the yard shall be removed. Thereafter, the yard shall remain permanently open and shall not be used for storage of any permanent or temporary items or structures."
o 05/01273/R - retrospective approval for the renovation of existing workshops and garages to provide private lock-up storage units. Permitted.
o 05/00665/R - Retrospective application for the erection of four lock-up private storage units. Refused then Permitted at Appeal.
o 03/00283/B sought approval for the erection of a block of eight apartments with garaging to replace existing outbuildings. Refused for the following reasons: Reason 1: a) the lack of external space and the close proximity to the site boundaries; b) the proposed tandem parking arrangements and limited opportunity for the turning of vehicles considering the restricted size of the site and the lack of provision for on-site parking; c) the height and massing of the apartment block which would dominate the surrounding buildings to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area. Reason 2: There would be restricted visibility for residential traffic at the access onto Patrick Street; its use to serve the development would be contrary to the interests of road safety.
o 03/01453/B - Refurbishment of existing and erection of five additional garages on lock up garage site. Refused for the following reason: By virtue of the number of garages proposed and the restricted visibility available to vehicle drivers exiting the site onto Patrick Street, the proposed development would be contrary to the interests of road safety.
o 01/01571/B - approval for the change of use of yard for parking/storage depot. Refused for the following reason: On the grounds that the development as proposed would involve the regular movement of different types of vehicle into and out of the site and the restricted visibility for vehicles at the access onto Patrick Street would be contrary to the interests of road safety.
o 94/00698/C sought approval for the change of use to retail supply of building materials. Refused then Permitted at Appeal.
REPRESENTATIONS 6.1. Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
Local authority
6.2. Peel Town Commissioners - 13.08.2024 objections; o Concerned that as a result of the only access being on Roxwell Lane this had potential to cause congestion / blockage on Roxwell Lane which could also cause difficulties for pedestrians. o Questioned the stability of the boundary wall if built upon.
6.2.1 Following the applicant's submission of amendments the Commissioners were reconsulted on the 7th of October however at the time of writing this report no further comment has been received. As a result it is assumed that the amendments are satisfactory and no objections are outstanding.
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/00819/B Page 7 of 12
Statutory Bodies
6.3. Highway Services - o 16/08/2024 - acknowledged the previous approval (14/01295/B) but stated, 'there is an opportunity to reduce impact further.' Recommended pedestrian access to the first floor units from the within the application site. o 16.10.2024 - objection removed based on applicants' additional information submitted 02.10.2024 including the recommended access from within the application site. The proposal results in an intensification of use off the primary access but provides alternatives and there is no collision history; no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues.
6.4. Manx National Heritage - although consulted on the 29.07.2024, has not commented on this application at the time of drafting this report, and so it is assumed that there are no objections to the application.
6.5. Registered Buildings - although consulted on the 29.07.2024 and 07.10.2024, has not commented on this application at the time of drafting this report, and so it is assumed that there are no objections to the application.
6.6. DEFA Forestry Amenity and Lands were consulted on 29.07.2024 has not commented on this application at the time of drafting this report, and so it is assumed that there are no objections to the application.
6.7. Other comments received.
6.7.1. Owner/occupier of 56 Patrick Street - own the access land and object to the potential increased vehicle activity. o Generally there is a lack of available parking spaces nearby, particularly over weekends, therefore risk of too many parked vehicles on Roswell Lane. o Parking on Roswell Lane reduces capacity for 2 vehicles to pass, involves parking on the pavement to avoid completely blocking the lane and therefore causes problems s for pedestrians and other drivers accessing Roswell Lane.
ASSESSMENT 7.1. Principle 7.1.1. Broadly, Policies within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 support business development. Therefore regeneration or alterations to the site to improve business could be acceptable subject to other impacts.
7.1.2. In 2014 planning application no.14/01295/B for the erection of eight garages was refused but allowed at Appeal. The proposal involved raising the height of the development resulting in increased visibility from outside the site. At the time of the site visit the approved application had not been completed; the detached block of 3 garages within Heathfield Yard were constructed in 2015 however the construction of the 5 garages with access from Roxwell Lane had not commenced, and would not be constructed if this application is permitted.
7.1.3. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 was not adopted at the time of the appeal decision however the assessment process is the same.
7.1.4. The principle of increasing the height is considered to have been previously permitted.
7.1.5. The site has permissions for vehicle and non-vehicle storage and states that the proposal for more storage is to meet demand; citing less demand for garages. This is the reason why the permitted additional 8 garages approved in 2014 have not been constructed.
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/00819/B Page 8 of 12
7.1.6. Taking account of the Strategic Plan and previous permissions, it is considered that the principle is acceptable.
7.2. The site is not in a flood zone an area abutting the site is.
7.3. The site is not in a Conservation Area however the northern boundary abuts the Peel Conservation Area therefore protecting the Conservation Area is a material consideration, as are the views into and out of it in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 1/01.
7.4. Ownership of the land, and afforded rights of access, are not material considerations in determining this application, these are private matters between the applicant and the owner of the land. As such the comments received are noted but play no material part in the assessment and determination of this planning application.
7.5. Based on the above the key considerations in assessing this application are considered to be as follows. o Design and the Impact upon the Conservation Area o Impact upon transport network o Impact on surface water flooding o Impact upon residential amenity
7.6. Design and the Impact upon the Conservation Area
7.6.1. The area of Patrick Street included within the Peel CA is confined to properties on the west side of the street between its junction with Boilley Spittal to the north and the end property on the west side of the street. The exception is the inclusion of Heathfield House and its' curtilage on the east side of the street; it is at this point that the site abuts the CA.
7.6.2. A Conservation Area Appraisal does not exist for Peel and the Cullen of 1971 does not dwell on the CA. However Planning Policy Statement 1/01 is clear about the reasoning for including a building or an area within a CA. Therefore the fact that the only area on the east side of Patrick Street within the CA is that the impact of development within views of Heathfield House should afford great weight.
7.6.3. Travelling south along Patrick Street, as one approaches the application site, it becomes clear as to why only the west side of Patrick Street is included within the CA. That is because the built form on the east side is of modern mixed design. Heathfield House stands by virtue of its set back position, separated from the road by its' walled garden area and private driveway. None of the period terraces or school have front gardens.
7.6.4. Heathfield House is a large detached Georgian Style dwelling that has had additions to the side and rear out of main view. Therefore the impact of the visual is that of the grand period dwelling.
7.6.5. The period house is seen clearly visible within the CA from Patrick Street. It is clearly seen in views looking onto the CA from Roxwell Lane, from the footway between Patrick Street and West View, from West View across the play area. This is largely possible due to the low lying development within the application site. Views to the CA encompass the historic built form, mature trees and views to the hillside above the port.
7.6.6. In roofscape views of the town the relatively open site of Heathfield House grounds adjacent the play area and low lying development that is the site, is noticeable in the roofscape of the town in views from the hillside above the port.
==== PAGE 9 ====
24/00819/B Page 9 of 12
7.6.7. The question is whether the built design and scale of the proposal would harm these views of the CA or not. For approval the proposal must take account of Planning Policy Statement 1/01
7.6.8. At present from inside and outside the site, therefore views into and out of the Conservation Area, the sandstone wall on the boundaries of the site can be seen to varying degrees. The eastern boundary sandstone wall has had the addition of breeze block work added to it, which is unsightly and out of character.
7.6.9. For the most part the existing garages are lower than the wall which means they are only visible in certain views within the streetscene of Roxwell Lane, the footway, or in views into and out of the Conservation Area.
7.6.10. The proposed first floor extension above the existing garages would, by virtue of the increased height and external materials result in the new built form dominating the visual. This proposal would result in the height being higher than that approved under appeal.
7.6.11. The initial proposal included the use of corrugated metal sheeting on the roof and walls. This material is already used in roofs abutting the site therefore on the roof it was considered acceptable. However this material on the walls was considered inappropriate in this location; it would look out of character and unsightly, causing unacceptable harm to views into and out of the Conservation Area.
7.6.12. Options were discussed with the applicant resulting in the proposed material of timber effect Cedral Weatherboard Cladding in black on all the external walls at first floor level.
7.6.13. This material is used similarly within Peel therefore it is considered that the amended scheme would better account for and connect with other vernacular designs within Peel. As such the design would better connect with the urban character of Peel in accordance with Strategic Policy 4.
7.6.14. In assessing the impact of views into and out of the Conservation Area the following observations are made.
7.6.15. Looking onto the Conservation Area towards Patrick Street from West View, the visual is one of the sandstone wall and block work, existing trees, behind which there is a vernacular built landscape of walls and roofs of mixed materials and colours. Above all of these is the hillside above the quayside. The proposed first floor will be seen amongst the built landscape and should assimilate with the existing roofs that will be above the first floor. In addition removal of the block work and the Cedral cladding extending below the line of the wall should result in a respectful character of old and new. As such the proposal would bit adversely impact those views.
7.6.16. Looking out of the Conservation Area from Patrick Street towards West View the views of the first floor are limited due to existing buildings and mature trees along Patrick Street in the grounds of Heathfield House. Where seen in those views, the first floor will partly block distant views of built vernacular. Therefore the harm is not considered to be adverse.
7.6.17. Looking out from the gardens or side elevation windows of Heathfield House, the existing views are the rear elevations of dwellings fronting onto West View. The visual of the boarding on the first floor level is considered not to cause undue harm above that which exists.
7.6.18. Looking onto the Conservation Area from the dwellings whose gardens back onto Roxwell Lane and where garages exist, the visual is one of the sandstone wall, some of the garages beyond which is the side elevations of Heathfield House. The first floor proposal will block views of the garages and diminish views of Heathfield House. However because the
==== PAGE 10 ====
24/00819/B Page 10 of 12
ground level rises away from the site, some views of the roof and upper walls of Heathfield House will remain. The existing view will be lost but it is not considered to be of any notable merit to the Conservation Area, therefore some harm is caused but it would not adversely harm views into the Conservation Area.
7.7. Taking account of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 and Environment Policy 36, overall where the site is visible in views the level of harm is more or less dependent upon the location of the view. However it is considered that that the proposal will not cause adverse harm to views into or out of the Conservation Area.
7.8. Impact upon the transport network
7.8.1. Previous applications have considered in depth the potential impact of increased use of Heathfield Yard as a result of increased units being permitted. The loss of the ability to park cars along Roxwell Lane along with increased traffic along the Lane were of particular concern. Overall the impact was considered to be minimal and acceptable on account of the fact that it would be unusual if everyone arrived and departed from the site at once. Therefore congestion is unlikely. This application relates to storage rather than creating more garages, as such it is considered that the impact remains unlikely to cause congestion.
7.8.2. Highways did not objected but did ask the applicant to introduced an access from within the site which has been done in the form of a staircase to the first floor from within the yard. Therefore two options are provided, either park on Roxwell Lane to unload then move their car to within Heathfield Yard, or they could park in Heathfield Yard and access their unit via the staircase.
7.8.3. It is highly likely that anyone manoeuvring a large or heavy item is going to park on Roxwell Lane. However when smaller items are involved or simply to reorganise their unit, they are more likely to park in Heathfield Yard. 7.8.4. Undoubtedly not constructing the extra garage entrances onto Roxwell Lane is an improvement to the previously approved scheme and is welcomed. As such there is nothing within this proposal that would result in a reason for refusal on highway grounds.
7.9. Impact on surface water flooding
7.9.1. The proposal is unlikely to increase the risk from surface water flooding that abuts the eastern boundary because the footprint of development is not increased. Nevertheless new development is generally expected to take into consideration the surroundings and where possible make improvements to existing situations.
7.9.2. The increase in hard surface areas as a result of the extension is negligible. The roofs are proposed sloped downwards into the yard therefore it is unlikely that any surface water from the development would end up outside the site. Nevertheless the surface water from the roofs will be directed towards a new soakaway.
7.10. Impact upon residential amenity
7.10.1. Consideration of the impacts new development might have on residential amenity relates to all neighbouring properties whether they are dwellings or businesses.
7.10.2. In terms of traffic generation and general activity, previous applications have deliberated at length the potential harm caused by additional activity. Given that the approved garages fronting onto Roxwell Lane would not be constructed and access from within the yard is available for site users, the proposed impact of the activity is considered to be less than that which already has approval and in any event no worse. Therefore the proposal is considered to accord with Transport Policy 4.
==== PAGE 11 ====
24/00819/B Page 11 of 12
7.10.3. In respect of the workshop building on the south side of the entrance from Patrick Street, in the assessment of the approved 2010 application (10/00092/B) consideration was given to the potential loss of light to the first floor window located in the end elevation of the existing workshop; 'the workshop is not a residential property and the set back of the garage combined with its height would reduce the impact of the building upon the workshop. It is not judged that the impact of the development upon the light which reaches the workshop is sufficient to warrant the refusal of this application.' Considering this now, it is observed that as an east-south-east facing elevation the proposed first floor building will reduce the level of light through that window by virtue of its existence. However, as with the previous assessment, due to the separation and fact that it is not a habitable room, no adverse harm is observed, and certainly none to warrant refusal.
7.10.4. In respect of the workshop building on the north side of the entrance from Patrick Street, there are no windows on the east side elevation of the building. The first floor windows face towards the workshop on the south side of the entrance. Therefore it is considered that the proposal would have little affect if any on this workshop.
7.10.5. Turning to the nearest dwellinghouse residence, no.1 Glenfaba Road; beyond Roxwell Lane Patrick Street becomes Glenfaba Road. This dwelling is on the corner of Roxwell Lane and Glenfaba Road, the garden would be opposite the first floor extension. Existing views from the dwellinghouse are across the site towards the playing field and rooftops of houses in the distance. The first floor windows view will be impeded by the proposal, however from the garden it should make little difference to that which was approved. The garden is south facing and the site is separated by Roxwell Lane, therefore it is considered that there would be little or no harm caused to the ground floor habitable rooms or outdoor amenity space. Overall the impact upon the dwellinghouse is considered better than that of the approved garages had they been constructed.
7.10.6. To conclude, the proposal is considered to have less impact upon the amenity of neighbours than the already approved scheme. Repair and renovation of the sandstone wall, together with new Cedar cladding will tidy up the site, and block views of the garages on the north side of the site. Overall, no harmful impact on residential amenity is observed.
7.11. OTHER MATTERS 7.11.1. Concerns regarding the structural capability of the existing garages to allow a first floor addition is not a material consideration to the planning decision. However the matter was previously discussed with Building Control Officers who ascertained that a Building Control application would be required and the structural implications of the proposal would be assessed as part of that application.
CONCLUSION 8.1. Taking account of Planning Policy Statement 1/01, Strategic Policy 4(b) and Environment Policy 36, it is considered that whilst the proposal will be visible in some views into and out of the Conservation Area, on balance the proposal will not cause harm to those views or the Conservation Area to an unacceptable level.
8.2. Notwithstanding previous approvals for development that was thought to have the potential to cause harm to residential amenity, this proposal is considered to broadly accord with Strategic Policy 3, 4 and 5 and Environment Policy 22, 36 and 42 and General Policy 2 and, Infrastructure Policy 4 and, Transport Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. Therefore the proposal is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.
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:
==== PAGE 12 ====
24/00819/B Page 12 of 12
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: -- whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and -- whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status. __
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made: Permitted Date: 17.02.2025
Signed : B Fettis Presenting Officer
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal