218577

==== PAGE 1 ====

25/90169/B Page 1 of 5 PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No. : 25/90169/B Applicant : Anne-Marie O'Connell Proposal : Erection of five garages, garden equipment and tool stores, and bin store Site Address : Magnus Court And Godred Court Kings Reach Village Jurby Road Ramsey Isle Of Man Principal Planner: Chris Balmer Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 30.04.2025 __ 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. The use of the five garages, garden equipment and tool stores, and bin store hereby permitted shall be limited to Kings Reach Residents Association Limited and its residents, in the undertaking of activities for Kings Reach Village and shall not be used for any other commercial or business without a planning application first being submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Reason: The site is located in a Predominantly Residential area and the proposals/loss of parking have been judged on the basis of need of Kings Reach Village. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Overall, it is considered the proposal would have no significant impacts upon publicly or private amenities and would comply with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP 2016. Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawing all received on 13.01.2025.

==== PAGE 2 ====

25/90169/B Page 2 of 5 __ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No Objection Local Authority - No Objection It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties NOT should be given the Right to Appeal because: 21 Balleigh Park, Ramsey - Objection identifies land that is owned or occupied by the objector that would be impacted on, but such land is not within 20 metres of the site (and no Environmental Impact Assessment is required) (A10(2)(b)) __ Officer’s Report 1.0 SITE 1.1 The application site comprises a parcel of land within the Magnus Court and Godred Court, Kings Reach Village located to the northern side of Jurby Road within Ramsey. The residential complex Kings Reach Village accommodates apartments and was originally approved for sheltered housing (over 50's). 1.2 The site is currently used for the parking of vehicles (unmarked spaces) and is made up of hardstanding. Immediately adjacent to the site to the, is an existing detached garage block which accommodated 18 single garages. To the east of the site is the Cooyrt Balleigh Elderly Persons Housing Development. 2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of five garages, garden equipment and tool stores, and bin store within a single building to the east of the existing garage block. The proposal would have a total width of 22.8m, a depth of 4m and a roof ridge height of 4m. For comparison the nearby garage block as a width of 24.3m, a depth of 12m and a roof ridge of 6.2m. 3.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES 3.1 The Ramsey Local Plan designates the application site as being predominately residential. The site is not within a Conservation Area. Due to the zoning of the site and the proposed works the following policy is relevant in the determination of the application:- 3.2 General Policy 2 states: "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: (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; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      25/90169/B                                     Page  3  of  5

(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." 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There are no previous applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application. 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services make the following comments (20.03.2025): "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as there is enough parking and garage space within the site to cater for the demand on-site after removal of some site parking for the proposals." 5.2 Ramsey Commissioners comment (26.03.2025). "I am directed by the Ramsey Town Commissioners to request that you defer any decision on the above application until such time as the Commissioners have had the opportunity to fully consider the plans. The Board meet on Wednesday 16th April, 2025, following which I will contact you again." 5.2.1 No further comments have been received at the time of writing this report (25.04.2025). 5.2 The owner/occupier of 21 Balleigh Park, Ramsey objects commenting (07.04.2025): "...- Insufficient parking

• Unsightly Comment: The election of the garages removes 10+ parking spaces from the residents which presently only have 38 parking spaces. I do not know the exact amount of apartments that require parking on that side of the complex but I believe it's over 35. So this would reduce parking to 28 spaces" 5.2.1 Three photographs were also subsequently submitted (11.04.2025) indicating; "This building work has already been completed last week without planning being approved." This appears to relate to the proposed hardstanding to the rear of the existing garage block, which is proposed in this application. It should be noted that it is not considered the block paving is development or requires planning approval in this case. 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The principle issues is whether the proposal would fit within the street scene, whether the proposal would result in any potential adverse impacts upon neighbouring amenities and loss of parking provision. 6.2 While public views will be partially apparent from the estate road which serves the residential properties in the area, the proposal would not be a prominent feature, being set

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      25/90169/B                                     Page  4  of  5

behind the existing garage block and given its height and size. The character of the site which is a hardstanding area, is not especially attractive and the proposal building whilst increasing built form, would not appear out of keeping within this area. 6.3 The proposal given its size, height and distance from neighbouring residential properties is such there should be no significant impacts upon residential amenities to warrant a refusal. 6.4 The land where the proposed development is located is an area of hardstanding. There are no formal parking spaces laid out, although aerial imagery and photographs submitted by the applicants, do show some vehicles parked on this hardstanding to the east of the existing garage. It is also noted that the proposed "five garages" would not meeting current parking standards being only 3.7m x 2.8m. Therefore, the proposal would result in the loss of existing parking on the site, albeit not formally laid out as parking spaces. 6.5 Planning weight is attached that the applicants (Kings Reach Residents Association LTD) who are responsible for the overall complex surrounding the site. They have advised in their covering letter that; "We hope to build on the land rarely used, as we have more than required parking bays throughout our village. We need more secure storage areas for garden plant, tools and equipment." 6.6 There has also been no objection from any of the surrounding properties who would be directly impacted by any potential loss of parking to this development. Highways Services have also raised no objection to the potential of loss of parking. 6.7 Overall, it is considered the loss of this hardstanding for potential parking is acceptable and would not result in a significant impact to on street parking in the immediate area. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal would have no significant impacts upon publicly or private amenities and would comply with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP 2016. 7.2 It is therefore recommended that the application be approved. 8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 8.1 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). 8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria. 8.3 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. 8.4 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;

==== PAGE 5 ====

25/90169/B Page 5 of 5 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. 8.5 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 the 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, and/or rights to appeal. Decision Made : Permitted Date : 02.05.2025 Determining Officer Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management 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.