Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/91163/B Page 1 of 12
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/91163/B Applicant : Mr And Mrs Martin Hall Proposal : Alterations to existing garage including first floor extension for storage above Site Address : Garage 2 Rear Of Reayrt Ny Baie Complex Albert Terrace Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 3LQ
Principal Planning Officer: Belinda Fettis Photo Taken : 29.10.2024 Site Visit : 29.10.2024 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 09.04.2025 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal would neither protect nor enhance the designation abutting the site and there is no public gain to outweigh the harm, therefore the proposal is contrary to the Town and Country Planning Act (1999).
R 2. By virtue of the height of the extension the proposal would introduce an obtrusion into the open space between the existing courtyard style setting. The disproportionate extension incorporating elements of domesticity considered beyond that necessary for storage above a garage would cause harm to the character of the locality and residential amenity. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy 4(a) and (b) and General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) and (m).
R 3. The proposal does not address concerns raised regarding vegetation and habitat nor does it provide bidodiversity gain therefore the proposal does not accord with General Policy 2 (d) and, Environment Policy 3, 4 and 5.
R 4. In general the proposal does not accord with General Policy 2(j) or Community Policy 7.
O 1. Isle of Man Wildlife Act 1990 Irrespective of the details contained within the planning application submission or the planning officers report the applicant should be aware of, and make any person undertaking work on their behalf aware of, their duty as stated in the Act to have regard to the environment as detailed in s36 of the Isle of Man Wildlife Act 1990 and those protected species listed in Schedule 5 and Schedule 7 of the Act.
It is an offence subject to penalties to, intentionally or recklessly remove damage or destroy protected species. __
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/91163/B Page 2 of 12
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria:
(b) and (c) 10 Auckland Grove Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 3JR and 3 Windsor Court Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 3JA
__
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The application site relates to the land delineated by the red line on the submitted survey drawing no.SM24/620/1. This plan incorporates a location plan.
1.2 The site comprises a single storey garage below a mono pitch roof and land to the side and rear. The materials on site are a mix of stone and smooth unpainted rendered walls and fibre cement corrugated roof. The garage has a vehicle entrance that is on the east elevation and on the south elevation there are two openings. The land at the side of the garage leads to the rear area. The site is enclosed by high walls for which the height varies on account that the land rises towards the rear west boundary; the garage is excavated into the land.
1.3 At the time of the site visit the garage was not in use for its purpose, it appeared abandoned. There were holes in the roof, debris inside the garage, existing openings were without any form of closure, the pedestrian access alongside the garage was covered with debris and vegetation, and the land to the rear was covered with what appeared to be naturalised vegetation of mixed species such as brambles.
1.4 The western boundary of the site abuts a residential property, no.10 Auckland Grove. The southern boundary abuts the adjacent single storey flat roof garage, the height of which is slightly higher than the application site. The adjacent land to the north and east is laid with tarmac comprising marked bays for parking, access lanes and there is a grass covered embankment to the north alongside the boundary with Auckland Grove in which there is a pedestrian access.
1.5 Beyond the open area of the garages and parking the site is surrounded by higher buildings of which varying distances from the site and heights due to surrounding topography. The land rises to the west therefore those buildings on Auckland Grove are on higher land. Opposite the garage door is the multi storey Reayrt ny Baie residential care home building with multiple windows facing the car park and the site. Other multi storey buildings have rear or side rear elevations facing the site, the nearest being Windsor Court and Auckland Grove Lane.
1.6 Access to the site can be achieved in a vehicle off Albert Terrace, down the south side of Reayrt ny Baie residential care home. Pedestrian access can also be achieved via the rear of Albert Terrace north of Reayrt ny Baie residential care home and Auckland Grove to the west.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/91163/B Page 3 of 12
2.1 Planning approval is sought to make alterations to the existing garage and construct a dual pitch roofed first floor extension above. In support of the proposal the applicant has submitted the following documents.
o Block Plan Drawing no.SM24/620/3
o Survey Drawing no.SM/24/620/1 (comprises Location Plan, existing floor & elevations)
o Planning Drawing no.SM24/620/2 (comprises proposed details)
2.1.2 The extension will be build up from the existing ground floor walls and a dual pitch blue/grey slate roof added, the walls will be finished with dark grey/black cedaral weatherboard. Render where it exists at ground floor will be replaced or made good.
2.1.3 On the ground floor a w.c. room and store will be constructed underneath the new staircase to the first floor. Natural light at ground floor level will be achieved through 3 small windows on the rear elevation. Natural light at first floor level will be achieved through six roof lights and two patio style door windows in the front and rear gable end.
2.1.4 A new metal roller shutter door will replace the existing garage entrance.
2.1.5 The existing height, measured from drawing no.SM24/620/1, is approximately 3.8m to the ridge of the mono pitch roof and 2.5m to the eaves; lowest part of the mono pitch roof.
2.1.6 The proposed height, measured from drawing no.SM24/620/2, is approximately 6.4m to the ridge and 4.8m to the eaves.
2.1.7 A soakaway is proposed within the area on plan labelled as 'garden'.
2.2 In response to public comments submitted to the planning department the applicant submitted a statement on the 11th of November 2024 which included photographs and states the inclusion of an amended drawing numbered SM24/620/2A showing the location of the neighbours high level windows and separation distance. This plan was not included and despite being emailed on the 25th of March 2024, to date no response has been received nor the aforementioned drawing. Nevertheless the submitted plans, photographs and site visit are considered sufficient to determine this application.
The statement can be read in full online, below is a brief summary. o The extension is proposed on the existing footprint. o The proposed first floor is not a full second storey because it will onl be 1.8m in height with a ridge height of 3.4m above floor level. The ridge height is lower than the high level windows facing the site in Auckland Grove. o At the rear of the site there is a high masonry wall above which the extension would protrude around 450mm. Together with the separation distance there would be no harm. o No natural light would be lost. o Point 2 of the comments mentions windows, there are no windows at first floor level. The doors are proposed for access use to load and unload and to provide natural light and ventilation. o Point 3 of the comments relates to trees. There are no trees on site, the form has been completed correctly. o Overlooking already exists in this location because of the Reayrt ny Baie residential care home. o The scheme would restore the existing unsightly derelict garage therefore improve the visual amenity of the street.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/91163/B Page 4 of 12
3.1 Site Specific 3.1.1 The site lies within the settlement boundary for Douglas in a 'Predominantly Residential' area as shown on inset Map 5 "Douglas Town Centre" in the Area Plan for the East (2020).
3.1.2 The site is not located within a Conservation Area however the east elevation abuts the Windsor Road Conservation Area.
3.1.3 There are no Registered Buildings or Registered Trees on or around the site.
3.1.4 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 (the policies can be read in full online):
3.2 Strategic Plan
3.2.1 Strategic Policy 1: (a) - optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant and or unused buildings and reusing scarce indigenous building materials. (b) - efficient use of sites taking into account open space. Open space is defined in Appendix 1: any land, weather in enclosed or not, on which there are no buildings or on which not more than 5% is covered with buildings.
3.2.2 Strategic Policy 2: development primarily within existing towns and villages.
3.2.3 Strategic Policy 4(a) and (b) - protect or enhance the setting of Conservation Areas, and the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas.
3.2.4 Strategic Policy 5 - new development (including individual buildings) should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment.
3.2.5 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 meets the criteria set out in the Policy (a) to (n) of which the following are considered most relevant:
(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;
(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; 33
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/91163/B Page 5 of 12
(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. "
3.2.6 Environment Policy 4: Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect: (a) species and habitats of international importance:
(i) protected species of international importance or their habitats;
3.2.7 Environment Policy 5: In exceptional circumstances where development is allowed which could adversely affect a site recognised under Environmental Policy 4, conditions will be imposed and/or Planning Agreements sought to:
(a) minimise disturbance;
(b) conserve and manage its ecological interest as far as possible; and
(c) where damage is unavoidable, provide new or replacement habitats so that the loss to the total ecological resource is mitigated.
3.2.8 Environment Policy 22: 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. Environment Policy 24 (second Policy ENV 24 in the IomSP): "Pollution-sensitive development will only be allowed to be located close to sources of pollution where appropriate measures can be taken to safeguard amenity."
3.2.9 Community Policy 7 - The design including extensions of existing buildings should as far as is reasonably practical, pay due regard to best practice to design out criminal and anti-social behaviour.
3.2.10 Community Policy 11 - prevention of outbreak and spread of fire.
3.2.11 Infrastructure Policy 5 - water conservation and management measures
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Legislation 4.1.1 The site abuts the Windsor Road Conservation Area therefore Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) states, "(4) Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act".
4.2 Policy/Strategy/Guidance
4.2.1 Planning Policy Statement 1/ 01,
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/91163/B Page 6 of 12
o Conservation Areas CA/1 Identification of Special Character, [... ] "The presence and form of hard and soft landscaping;" [...] "The quality of enclosure, spaces between buildings and vistas along streets;" [...]
o Conservation Areas CA/2 Special Planning Considerations, [... ] "Where development is proposed for land which Volvo 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."
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY
24/00320/A Approval in Principle for demolition of existing garage and erection of new detached dwelling. Refused.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 Below is a summary of all responses to consultations. Comments can be viewed in full on the Government website by entering the planning application number.
6.2 Statutory Highways: No objection.
6.3 Local Authority: Douglas Borough Council have not objected provided that the development does not impede existing bin and recycling storage arrangements.
6.4 Residents: Residents from Windsor Court and Auckland Grove have objected; o The garage is behind my house and the extension will introducew windows facing my bedroom and bathroom impacting upon my privacy. o Concerned about loss of light impact to habitable rooms and garden space. o Extension would be intrusive o First floor window facing the car park possibly used by a cherry picker but no reason for the rear first floor window which would overlook us. o Excessive volume for storage. o Application doesn't acknowledge the proximity of trees; DEFA response from previous application included. o Concerned about noise from the site.
7.0 ASSESSMENT -
7.1 Although the description of the previous application for development on the site was different, the proposal involved incresing the height of the existing building therefore elements of the reasons for refusal of planning application (PA) 24/00320/A are considered to be a material consideration.
7.1.1 The relevant extracted text is as follows. "(1) The proposed development of the site via the erection of a dwelling is unacceptable because it would result in a cramped form of development, that would appear incongruous on this side of the access road, and which would out of keeping with the adjoin 4-storey residential development at the Reayrt Ny Baie complex opposite the site approx. [...]. This is contrary to [...] the provisions of General Policy 2 (b), (c) and (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016."
7.1.2 Reason (2) and (3) of the refusal relate to harm to residential amenity caused by proposed the introduction of overlooking as a result of the habitable room windows. This application is not for a dwelling therefore these reasons are not materially relevant.
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/91163/B Page 7 of 12
7.2 The key considerations for this assessment are whether the reasons for refusal that are not purely dwelling related have been overcome. As such the key points are considered as follows.
7.3 - The principle of development; 7.4 - Impact on the streetscene, 7.5 - Impact on neighbouring amenity (overlooking, loss of light and over bearing) 7.6 - Impact on highway safety; 7.7 - Biodiversity 7.8 - Flooding / Contamination 7.9 - Conservation Areas- Statutory Test 7.10 - Other 7.11 Planning Balance
7.3 The principle of development
7.3.1 The application site is shown in the Area Plan for the East (2020) as being in a 'Predominantly Residential' area, and as such there is a presumption in favour of residential development. The building as exists does not have a use but it is stated that and its appearance suggest that it has been used as a garage; there is no previous history to suggest otherwise or that it was not associated with a dwellinghouse. The applicant's address is not nearby therefore the garage is unlikely to be used for domestic purposes as generally associated with a domestic garage, however once renovated it could be utilised by a nearby resident. There is no evidence to suggest that the garage has been used for purposes other than domestic, and the proposal seeks storage above the garage. The principle of the proposal is considered acceptable in accordance with the area plan therefore according with Strategic Policy 2 and General Policy 2.
7.4 Impact on the streetscene
7.4.1 The urban built landscape as exists is courtyard like in so much as the site and its setting are surrounded by tall facades either as a result of the building or the topography. Therefore the built form overlooks the site. On the lanes and the pedestrian paths the only buildings in the open space are the two detached single storey garages.
7.4.2 Entering the site from the Conservation Area via the north or the east access points, there is a 'corridor' feeling which dissolves as the user enters the parking area. Entering the site from the west, the car park is at a lower level and so the user can see over the top of the two garage buildings and across the open space of the car park. The grassed area, the trees and the car parking bays are clear to all entering the area and looking onto it.
7.4.3 The scale of the building is reduced from that which was refused. However the single storey extension would nevertherless protrude above the existing single storey garages and would therefore become prominent in the otherwise open area.
7.4.4 The proposed extension would build up from the site by almost 3m (from 3.8m to 6.4m) for the length of the building, approximately 8.5m. By virtue of height and the length of the extension it would introduce a built form where presently there is none and so create an obstruction of views across the site.
7.4.5 Within this built up urban landscape, the open space in the setting of the site is an important part of the local character because it provides space between the otherwise confined built forms. To reduce that open space would be harmful to the urban landscape characteristic. This would be particularly noticeable when entering from the west and east, and for residencies looking onto the site.
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/91163/B Page 8 of 12
7.4.6 It is considered that although this proposal is smaller than the building refused, it would still appear isolated in the context of its surroundings. Therefore the proposed development has not removed reason (1) of the refusal under PA 24/00320/A.
7.4.7 General Policy 2 comprises the criteria by which the design and the impact on the street can be assessed. It is considered that the proposal would not accord with (b) (c) and (g) because the scale would adversely affect the open space and therefore the character of the locality and as a result the amenity of residents abutting the open space and users of the setting.
7.5 - Impact on neighbouring amenity (overlooking, loss of light and over bearing)
7.5.1 The existing urban built form around the site is such that all windows facing onto the car park area look across and over the site into the open space that comprises some soft landscaping within the car park. The relatively unobstructed views provide natural surveillance to the site.
7.5.2 Any extension above the garages would, by virtue of the increased height, lessen the openness of the site. This would be most notable to occupants of rooms in the residential care home (Reayrt Ny Baie complex), Windsor Court and Auckland Grove and Auckland Grove Lane. However it would also be noticeable to other users of the site. Due to the close proximity of residencies the first floor addition would introduce overbearing to varying degrees for occupants in habitable rooms and users of the site. There are no special circumstances or public gain that outweigh the harm of reduced openness in this location.
7.5.3 In respect of overlooking, the refusal for PA 24/00320/A covered in detail the distances between properties, window to window relationships and overlooking harm generated by the proposed three storey building. This application proposes a single storey extension for use as storage with no habitable accommodation, therefore there would be no adverse harm in the traditional sense. However it is acknowledged that the patio style doors in each gable would afford views into and out of neighbouring amenity areas and so introduce the feeling of overlooking where none exists. Therefore the level of harm is assessed as follows.
7.5.4 Irrespective of the proposed use, the patio style doors in the front gable would introduce a direct line of sight from the first floor room to habitable rooms opposite in the Reayrt Ny Baie complex. The planning department cannot condition whether someone stands at a window or not, or where they look, therefore the patio doors introduce the opportunity for harmful unacceptable overlooking. Had the application been considered otherwise acceptable an amended drawing would have been sought to remove the front gable opening.
7.5.5 In respect of the rear patio doors no direct window to window impact was observed on site. However the proposal would introduce views and the feeling of overlooking towards private amenity space. Given that the room is proposed for storage the patio doors with no steps to the 'garden' area appear unnecessary for the purpose of storage. Had the application been considered otherwise acceptable an amended drawing would have been sought to remove the patio doors.
7.5.6 There are no side openings proposed therefore in respect of overlooking the harm to Windsor Court is removed.
7.5.7 Overall, as submitted the proposal does not take into account the impact on the residential amenity of no.10 Auckland Grove and various windows serving apartments in the Reayrt Ny Baie complex. Therefore the proposal does not accord with General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g).
7.6 Impact on highway safety
==== PAGE 9 ====
24/91163/B Page 9 of 12
7.6.1 The function of the building is proposed unchanged with the addition of storage. General Policy 2 (parking and highway), there are no harmful impacts observed in respect of (h) because parking is retained without impeding other users of the car park.
7.7 Impact on Biodiversity
7.7.1 In respect of the rear 'garden' area paragraph 6.14 ((V) Impact on Biodiversity) of the refused application, (24/00320/A), is considered relevant. "The Ecosystems Policy Team's comments are noted. From the Case Officer's site visit on has commented advising that there are trees on 1/8/24, it was noted that there are no trees on the site. The nearest tree to the site is a Rowan tree located on the adjoining car park area which in part overhangs the site. It is likely that this tree would be compromised and require removal in order to facilitate the development. It is not a specimen tree, although it is sited on third party land. A Sycamore tree is located on the adjoining garage site, although its crown spread does not overhang the application site. It too is not a specimen tree, although it would not necessarily require removal to facilitate the development of the site with a dwelling. In the event of an approval being granted, the provision of Swift boxes could be conditioned. This would accord with the provisions of the provisions of Environment Policy 3; and, Environment Policy 4 c) of the IOMSP 2016."
7.7.2 Despite the previous comments, this proposal does not include Swift boxes, nor does it take account of the vegetation on site or adjacent overhanging trees. Although not an ecologist, based on previous experience with ecologists, I am of the opinion that the level of undisturbed vegetation would provide potential for foraging and nesting birds and or invertebrates, as would the open derelict building. Therefore the proposal should include an proportionate ecology assessment and if signs of use are found, mitigation measures undertaken.
7.7.3 Without further detail it is not possible to say whether any protected species would be harmed as a result of the proposal. However from the site visit and information provided it is considered that the proposal does not accord with General Policy 2 (d) or Environment Policy 3, 4 and 5.
7.7.4 If the site is cleared prior to further applications, the applicant should be mindful of each persons responsibilities under the Isle of Man Wildlife Act 1990.
7.8 flooding / contamination
7.8.1 The site is not in a flood zone nor is it close to any recorded surface water. Nevertheless the proposal includes provision of a new soakaway within the 'garden' area to manage the additional surface water within the site generated by the extension. Therefore no harm or concerns are observed or raised in respect of General Policy 2(l).
7.8.2 It is unclear whether the proposal would accord with Infrastructure Policy 5 to conserve and manage water. However as this is not a residential unit proposal and is solely for storage above a garage, further details have not been pursued.
7.9 Conservation Areas- Statutory Test
7.9.1 The proposal abuts an area of the Conservation Area that is not prominent by virtue of the fact that it is enclosed by buildings shielding the site from wider general public views. Although not a reason for refusal in the previous application further consideration of development in the area has led to wider consideration and the opinion that because the site abuts the Windsor Road Conservation Area and views into and out of it occur, Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) is relevant.
==== PAGE 10 ====
24/91163/B Page 10 of 12
7.9.2 It is considered that increasing the height of the single storey building would detract from the open space and so cause harm to the locality. The level of harm would not adversely detract from the character of the designation overall, but it would not protect or enhance the designation in this location of the Conservation Area. No public gain is proposed or observed to outweigh the harm. Therefore, the proposal is considered contrary to s18(4) of the Act and, Strategic Policy 4(a) and (b).
7.10 Other
7.10.1 Douglas Borough Council raised no objection provided the proposal did not interfere with existing waste collection. No details are provided as to the location of waste bins however these could be accommodated within the site. The proposal is recommended for refusal therefore the detail has not been pursued.
7.10.2 In respect of General Policy 2, because of the proposed use, energy consumption is likely to be low however energy gain (n) could be included in the design however, this has not been pursued due to the recommendation for refusal. The proposal would not prejudice other development (k).
7.10.3 In respect of construction, from the information available at the time of this report being written there is no information regarding potential contamination likely to occur as a result of the construction or the use. As the proposal relates to storage above an existing garage it is not considered necessary to further examine the requirements of General Policy 2 (i).
7.10.4 In respect of the proposed toilet, none is shown to exist and no details are available as to whether or not the site is connected to the sewers or a water supply. Therefore it is not possible to assess whether the proposal meets General Policy 2(j).
7.10.5 The unobstructed views across the car park offer lines of sight for natural surveillance of criminality and anti-social behaviour. The height of the building would block existing views across the open space therefore reducing the natural surveillance. Therefore the proposal does not accord with General Policy 2(j) and Community Policy 7.
7.10.6 In respect of Community Policy 11, during construction of the extension compliance with building regulations including those relevant to storage above a garage will have to be implemented. Measures to protect the building from an outbreak and spread of fire should be looked at that stage. This application is recommended for refusal therefore this has not been explored further.
7.11 Assessment of Planning Balance
7.11.1 As identified within this report the proposal is acceptable in principal but there are elements of harm, therefore the balance in assessment is whether the harmful elements warrant refusal.
7.11.2 The harmful elements of overlooking could be addressed through amendments to the scheme therefore these are no reasons to refuse this application.
7.11.3 The external material finishes proposed are acceptable and would protect the character of the Conservation Area therefore the materials are acceptable.
7.11.4 Having explored the area on foot, the open space is considered an important part of the urban setting for all users; the residential elements overlooking and abutting it, pedestrians
==== PAGE 11 ====
24/91163/B Page 11 of 12
walking through and those parking their car. In addition the open space provides a welcome addition to the edge of the Conservation Area in the urban setting.
7.11.5 The design of the extension per se is acceptable in another location, however in this location the increased height of the single storey building would break up and reduce the openness of the area which would harm the character of the sites setting.
7.11.6 In applying s18(4) of the Act, the proposal would cause harm to the character of the locality, it would neither protect nor enhance the designation which the site abuts and there is no public gain to outweigh the harm.
8.0 CONCLUSION
8.1 To conclude, no concerns or objections are raised or observed in respect of (h) (i) (l) (n) or (k). It is unclear whether the proposal meets (d) and (j) and the proposal would not accord with (b) (c) (g) (m) of General Policy 2.
8.2 Returning to paragraph 7.1.1 of this report and reason (1) for refusal of PA 24/00320/A, it is considered that the extension would be uncharacteristic of the open space surrounded by higher buildings and appear incongruous in the locality.
8.3 The proposal does not provide any public gain that would outweigh the harm subsequently caused to the open space that is partly within the Windsor Road Conservation Area.
8.4 The proposal does not accord with General Policy 2 (b), (c) and (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016."
Reasons for refusal (1) The proposal would neither protect nor enhance the designation abutting the site and there is no public gain to outweigh the harm, therefore the proposal is contrary to the Town and Country Planning Act (1999).
(2) By virtue of the height of the extension the proposal would harm the character of the locality and design elements would harm residential amenity. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy 4(a) and (b) and General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) and (m).
(3) The proposal does not address concerns raised regarding vegetation and habitat nor does it provide bidodiversity gain therefore the proposal does not accord with General Policy 2 (d) and, Environment Policy 3, 4 and 5.
(4) In general the proposal does not accord with General Policy 2(j) or Community Policy 7.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE
9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: applicant (in all cases); a Local Authority; o Government Department; o Manx Utilities; and o Manx National Heritage
==== PAGE 12 ====
24/91163/B Page 12 of 12
that submit a relevant objection; and any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.
9.5 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 the Right to Appeal.
__
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner 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 and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 14.04.2025
Determining Officer Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
Principal Planner
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