Loading document...
Paul Allanson Dreem Faaie Main Road St Johns IM4 3LS
In pursuance of powers granted under the above Act and Order the Department of Infrastructure determined to APPROVE a planning application by Paul Allanson, Ref 13/00511/B, for the extension and alterations to dwelling (including amendments to previous applications) at Ashleigh Ballacraine St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3LS subject to compliance with the following condition(s):
The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of two years from the date of this notice.
The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in full accordance with the following plans ALLA LP/13 and ALLA SP/13 received 29th April 2013 and PALL-FR/A13, PALL-GE/A13, PALL-FF/A13, and PALL-GF/A13 received on 2nd September 2013.
Prior to the occupation of the dwelling the ground floor high level kitchen window shall be fitted with an opening restrictor and obscure glazing both of which shall be retained thereafter.
Date of Issue: 13th November 2013
M Gallagher
Director of Planning and Building Control
This decision was made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority delegated to it.
This permission refers only to that required under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005.
Any appeal against this decision must be in writing and must be received by this Department within 21 days of the date of this notice.
An appeal form and guidance notes are available from either the Planning Office, Tel 685950, or to download from the Department's website http://www.gov.im/categories/planning-and-building-control/planning-development-control/planning-decisions-and-powers-of-appeal/.
Please note that a copy of the Officer's report which led to the decision, together with correspondence relative to the application, are available for inspection at the Department.
The proposed development must not be commenced until either:
Whichever is the later.
If no appeal is lodged within 21 days of the date of issue overleaf, and this decision becomes final, the Department's public reference copy (counter copy) of the planning application may be collected by the applicant or their agent from Murray House.
Please note that if the counter copy of the application is not collected within THIRTY DAYS following the last date on which a planning appeal can be made it will be destroyed without further notice.
Department of Infrastructure, Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF
Tel (01624 685950) email; [email protected]
13/00511/B
| Application No. : | 13 / 00511 / B | | :-- | :-- | | Applicant : | Paul Allanson | | Proposal : | Extension and alterations to dwelling (including amendments to | | | previous applications) | | Site Address : | Ashleigh | | | Ballacraine | | | St Johns | | | Isle Of Man | | | IM4 3LS |
Case Officer : Miss Laura Davy Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION AT THE REQUEST OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL.
1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Ashleigh, Main Road, St Johns which is a detached dwelling situated to the southern side of the highway. To the south and to the west of the application site is Allanson Nursery. The access to the site is via Allanson Nursery. To the eastern side of the application site is a semi-detached property "2 The Willows". 1.2 The application site has had a previous approval for extensions and alterations and also for the erection of a conservatory off the rear elevation. Works are nearly finalised on the property however some works relate partly to one approval, and others to another approval but there is not one set of approved plans showing the final layout.
2.1 The application seeks approval for the extension and alteration to the dwelling (including amendments to the previous applications) to represent the final product. 2.2 The plans show a single storey rear extension linking onto a two storey extension. There is a conservatory to the rear and a porch to the front. 2.3 The proposal also includes the installation of windows in the gable end of the original dwelling. The windows have been the subject of a previous application; the windows now proposed do differ from those which were previously refused. 2.4 This application has been submitted as there are a number of differences from the previous application, these are as follows:
The first floor gable end window is in the same position as approved (smaller and higher than the one which was previously refused), but this room is now usable as there is no longer to be a void above the kitchen.
There is to be a high level window in the kitchen (smaller than the one which was previously refused)
The conservatory which was previously approved but was not shown on the original application.
3.1 The following previous applications are considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application:
PA 11/01574/B Alterations and extensions to dwelling - approved PA 12/01466/B Erection of a conservatory to rear elevation of dwelling - approved PA 12/01543/B Alterations and extensions to dwelling (amendments to PA 11/01574/B) (Retrospective) - refused. This application was refused for the following reasons: R1. The proposed window at first floor in the gable end elevation and the high level window in the single storey extension would result in an unacceptable increase in overlooking of the neighbouring property "2 The Willows" which would adversely affect the privacy of the occupants of the property which would be contrary to General Policy 2 (g) and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
4.1 The application site is within an area recognised as "Predominantly Residential" identified on the St Johns Local Plan 1999. Planning Circular 6/99 which constitutes the written statement to be read in conjunction with the local plan, contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application.
"With the exception of appropriate extensions and alterations to existing property which will generally be acceptable, outside of development areas 1,2,4,5 and 6 new residential development will only be approved where this complies with Planning Circulars 1/88, 3/88 and 3/89."
"No residential development will be permitted where this would adversely affect the existing historic setting of Tynwald Hill and its associated open spaces." 4.4 It is also appropriate to consider General Policy 2 and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007).
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 the 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; 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. 4.6 Paragraph 8.12.1
As a general policy, in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general.
5.1 German Commissioners has not commented 5.2 The owners/occupiers of 2 The Willows, Ballacraine, St Johns have made a number of written objections. In summary they feel that the two windows would invade their private space and take away their privacy by way of overlooking, they also have concerns regarding smells from the kitchen window. They do not feel that the reduction in size of the window makes a difference as it still looks directly into the garden. They feel that because the window can be accessed this makes the size irrelevant. They did not object to the original plans, but the installation of the two windows is different from the original plans and that when originally proposed the first floor window was not going to serve a room but be above a void. They also note that the gable end of the original property never had any windows and given that there are so many windows in the extension they question the need for the two windows in the gable end.
6.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of extension and alterations to the property. The main issues to consider in the assessment of the application are the impacts upon the character and appearance of the property and street scene in general and the impacts upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties. 6.2 The proposed extension represents a significant addition to the existing dwelling and a significant increase in the overall level of built development on the application site. This however is not a reason for refusal as the site is located within a predominantly residential area, therefore a presumption in favour of development. 6.3 The proposed extensions would be of a traditional design and would incorporate the original building into the design. Whilst the extension would be larger than the original dwelling the design works well and would fit comfortably within the street scene. It is considered that the addition of the extension would not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene. 6.4 In terms of the impact upon the neighbouring properties there are three specific parts which need to be considered, this is the conservatory, the first floor window in the gable end and the high level window in the kitchen. 6.5 The conservatory is approximately 3.6 m from the shared boundary, there was originally planting between the application property 2 The Willows, this has since been removed, there is now a fence between the properties, it is considered that the fence provides sufficient
screening between the properties to prevent overlooking. There have been trees planted on the boundary which would also provide screening if the fence were to be removed. 6.6 The first floor window would be in the same position and would be the same size as what was previously approved however the room would be useable as the void would no longer be there. 6.7 PA 12/01543/B was refused as the gable end first floor window and high level kitchen window would have resulted in an increase in overlooking of the neighbouring property "2 The Willows". 6.8 Proposed now are similar extensions however the windows would be slightly different from those which were previously refused. The first floor gable end window would be smaller and would be slightly higher than the one which was refused. The high level kitchen window would be half the size and would be finished with obscure glazing. 6.9 The neighbouring property 2 The Willows have made a number of comments and still feel that they would be overlooked from the first floor window. In summary they indicate that there is no way of screening this window and feel that it is intrusive and deprives them of their privacy. 6.10 The first floor window that is in situ is the one which was originally approved under PA 11/01574/B, having carried out a site visit and looked from this window, the view is very limited and it is very difficult to look into the neighbouring property's garden due to its size and the depth of the walls. It is felt that the position and size of the window overcomes the issues raised in PA 12/1543/B. 6.11 As mentioned the owners/occupiers of 2 The Willows still have concerns, a site visit was carried out to view the application site from the rear garden of 2 The Willows. The first floor window is much smaller than what was previously refused, however it is still in view from the rear garden of the neighbouring property. The neighbours are concerned with the perception and actual overlooking. There are however a number of windows in 1 The Willows which have an outlook onto the garden of 2 The Willows and the fields beyond. 6.12 Whilst the neighbour's concerns are appreciated, the reduction in size of the window has reduced the ability to overlook the garden and anyone in that room would not have passing glances of the neighbour's garden, they would need to make a deliberate effort to stand and look out of it. This is a situation not dissimilar to the relationship of rear windows and neighbours gardens in residential areas. Consequently it is considered that this alone would not result in such a level of overlooking as to warrant refusal of the application. However, the relationship of the new window to the neighbour's garden does differ from the norm in that the garden of the neighbour wraps around the rear of the house quite tightly and thus the window does not look out onto its own garden, but only that of the neighbours. Consequently there is a greater perception of overlooking. Given that there was no window here before, the introduction of a new window does result in a loss of amenity. Whether that loss is so great to warrant refusal is finely balanced, however, the window has clearly upset the neighbours who feel less able to comfortably use their rear garden. Given that the room is served by another window it is conisdered to be unwarranted. 6.13 The high level kitchen window would be half the size of the previously refused kitchen window, the proposed window would measure 0.75 \mathrm{~m} \times 0.67 \mathrm{~m} and would be glazed using obscure glass. It would not be at a level that those using the room could reasonably look into the neighbouring property's garden. Given that the window is at a high level the window would not result in actual overlooking and the roof of the neighbouring property's shed is visible through this window.
6.14 Whilst the kitchen window is at a high level and the neighbouring property's shed is currently in front of the window, the shed is a moveable structure and if it were to be moved this window would be adjacent to the neighbouring property's boundary. It is considered that if the shed were to be moved the window would result in a perception of overlooking which would be adjacent to the private amenity space of 2 The Willows. 6.15 On balance it is considered that both the first floor window and ground floor window would have an unacceptable impact upon the neighbouring property and is recommended for refusal.
7.1 The local authority, German Commissioners is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status. 7.2 The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance. 7.3 The owners/occupiers of 2 The Willows are considered to have sufficient interest and are afforded party status.
The Planning Committee felt that the application was acceptable and approved the application subject to the following conditions:
C1. The development hereby permitted shall be commencedbefore the expiration of two years from the date of this notice.
C2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in full accordance with the following plans ALLA LP/13 received 29th April 2013 and PALL-FR/A13, PALL-GE/A13, PALL-FF/A13, PALL-GF/A13, ALLA SP/13 received on 2nd September 2013.
C 3. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling the ground floor high level kitchen window shall be fitted with an opening restrictor and obscure glazing both of which shall be retained thereafter.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of 21.10.2013
Recommendation:
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of two years from the date of this notice.
C 2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in full accordance with the following plans ALLA LP/13 and ALLA SP/13 received 29th April 2013 and PALL-FR/A13, PALLGE/A13, PALL-FF/A13, and PALL-GF/A13 received on 2nd September 2013.
C 3. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling the ground floor high level kitchen window shall be fitted with an opening restrictor and obscure glazing both of which shall be retained thereafter.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : \qquad Committee Meeting Date :
Signed : \qquad Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
YES/NO
| Application No.: | 13 / 00511 / B | | :-- | :-- | | Applicant: | Paul Allanson | | Proposal : | Extension and alterations to dwelling (including amendments to | | | previous applications) | | Site Address : | Ashleigh | | | Ballacraine | | | St Johns | | | Isle Of Man | | | IM4 3LS |
Case Officer : Miss Laura Davy Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION AT THE REQUEST OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL.
1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Ashleigh, Main Road, St Johns which is a detached dwelling situated to the southern side of the highway. To the south and to the west of the application site is Allanson Nursery. The access to the site is via Allanson Nursery. To the eastern side of the application site is a semi-detached property "2 The Willows". 1.2 The application site has had a previous approval for extensions and alterations and also for the erection of a conservatory off the rear elevation. Works are nearly finalised on the property however some works relate partly to one approval, and others to another approval but there is not one set of approved plans showing the final layout..
2.1 The application seeks approval for the extension and alteration to the dwelling (including amendments to the previous applications) to represent the final product. 2.2 The plans show a single storey rear extension linking onto a two storey extension. There is a conservatory to the rear and a porch to the front. 2.3 The proposal also includes the installation of windows in the gable end of the original dwelling. The windows have been the subject of a previous application; the windows now proposed do differ from those which were previously refused. 2.4 This application has been submitted as there are a number of differences from the previous application, these are as follows:
3.1 The following previous applications are considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application:
PA 11/01574/B Alterations and extensions to dwelling - approved PA 12/01466/B Erection of a conservatory to rear elevation of dwelling - approved PA 12/01543/B Alterations and extensions to dwelling (amendments to PA 11/01574/B) (Retrospective) - refused. This application was refused for the following reasons: R1. The proposed window at first floor in the gable end elevation and the high level window in the single storey extension would result in an unacceptable increase in overlooking of the neighbouring property " 2 The Willows" which would adversely affect the privacy of the occupants of the property which would be contrary to General Policy 2 (g) and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
4.1 The application site is within an area recognised as "Predominantly Residential" identified on the St Johns Local Plan 1999. Planning Circular 6/99 which constitutes the written statement to be read in conjunction with the local plan, contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application.
"With the exception of appropriate extensions and alterations to existing property which will generally be acceptable, outside of development areas 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 new residential development will only be approved where this complies with Planning Circulars 1/88, 3/88 and 3/89."
"No residential development will be permitted where this would adversely affect the existing historic setting of Tynwald Hill and its associated open spaces." 4.4 It is also appropriate to consider General Policy 2 and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007).
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 the 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; 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;
I) 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.
As a general policy, in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general.
5.1 German Commissioners has not commented 5.2 The owners/occupiers of 2 The Willows, Ballacraine, St Johns have made a number of written objections. In summary they feel that the two windows would invade their private space and take away their privacy by way of overlooking, they also have concerns regarding smells from the kitchen window. They do not feel that the reduction in size of the window makes a difference as it still looks directly into the garden. They feel that because the window can be accessed this makes the size irrelevant. They did not object to the original plans, but the installation of the two windows is different from the original plans and that when originally proposed the first floor window was not going to serve a room but be above a void. They also note that the gable end of the original property never had any windows and given that there are so many windows in the extension they question the need for the two windows in the gable end.
6.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of extension and alterations to the property. The main issues to consider in the assessment of the application are the impacts upon the character and appearance of the property and street scene in general and the impacts upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties. 6.2 The proposed extension represents a significant addition to the existing dwelling and a significant increase in the overall level of built development on the application site. This however is not a reason for refusal as the site is located within a predominantly residential area, therefore a presumption in favour of development. 6.3 The proposed extensions would be of a traditional design and would incorporate the original building into the design. Whilst the extension would be larger than the original dwelling the design works well and would fit comfortably within the street scene. It is considered that the addition of the extension would not have an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the street scene. 6.4 In terms of the impact upon the neighbouring properties there are three specific parts which need to be considered, this is the conservatory, the first floor window in the gable end and the high level window in the kitchen. 6.5 The conservatory is approximately 3.6 m from the shared boundary, there was originally planting between the application property 2 The Willows, this has since been removed, there is now a fence between the properties, it is considered that the fence provides sufficient screening between the properties to prevent overlooking. There have been trees planted on the boundary which would also provide screening if the fence were to be removed. 6.6 The first floor window would be in the same position and would be the same size as what was previously approved however the room would be useable as the void would no longer be there.
6.7 PA 12/01543/B was refused as the gable end first floor window and high level kitchen window would have resulted in an increase in overlooking of the neighbouring property "2 The Willows". 6.8 Proposed now are similar extensions however the windows would be slightly different from those which were previously refused. The first floor gable end window would be smaller and would be slightly higher than the one which was refused. The high level kitchen window would be half the size and would be finished with obscure glazing. 6.9 The neighbouring property 2 The Willows have made a number of comments and still feel that they would be overlooked from the first floor window. In summary they indicate that there is no way of screening this window and feel that it is intrusive and deprives them of their privacy. 6.10 The first floor window that is in situ is the one which was originally approved under PA 11/01574/B, having carried out a site visit and looked from this window, the view is very limited and it is very difficult to look into the neighbouring property's garden due to its size and the depth of the walls. It is felt that the position and size of the window overcomes the issues raised in PA 12/1543/B. 6.11 As mentioned the owners/occupiers of 2 The Willows still have concerns, a site visit was carried out to view the application site from the rear garden of 2 The Willows. The first floor window is much smaller than what was previously refused, however it is still in view from the rear garden of the neighbouring property. The neighbours are concerned with the perception and actual overlooking. There are however a number of windows in 1 The Willows which have an outlook onto the garden of 2 The Willows and the fields beyond. 6.12 Whilst the neighbour's concerns are appreciated, the reduction in size of the window has reduced the ability to overlook the garden and anyone in that room would not have passing glances of the neighbour's garden, they would need to make a deliberate effort to stand and look out of it. This is a situation not dissimilar to the relationship of rear windows and neighbours gardens in residential areas. Consequently it is considered that this alone would not result in such a level of overlooking as to warrant refusal of the application. However, the relationship of the new window to the neighbour's garden does differ from the norm in that the garden of the neighbour wraps around the rear of the house quite tightly and thus the window does not look out onto its own garden, but only that of the neighbours. Consequently there is a greater perception of overlooking. Given that there was no window here before, the introduction of a new window does result in a loss of amenity. Whether that loss is so great to warrant refusal is finely balanced, however, the window has clearly upset the neighbours who feel less able to comfortably use their rear garden. Given that the room is served by another window it is conisdered to be unwarranted. 6.13 The high level kitchen window would be half the size of the previously refused kitchen window, the proposed window would measure 0.75 \mathrm{~m} \times 0.67 \mathrm{~m} and would be glazed using obscure glass. It would not be at a level that those using the room could reasonably look into the neighbouring property's garden. Given that the window is at a high level the window would not result in actual overlooking and the roof of the neighbouring property's shed is visible through this window. 6.14 Whilst the kitchen window is at a high level and the neighbouring property's shed is currently in front of the window, the shed is a moveable structure and if it were to be moved this window would be adjacent to the neighbouring property's boundary. It is considered that if the shed were to be moved the window would result in a perception of overlooking which would be adjacent to the private amenity space of 2 The Willows.
6.15 On balance it is considered that both the first floor window and ground floor window would have an unacceptable impact upon the neighbouring property and is recommended for refusal.
7.0 PARTY STATUS 7.1 The local authority, German Commissioners is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status. 7.2 The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance. 7.3 The owners/occupiers of 2 The Willows are considered to have sufficient interest and are afforded party status.
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: \quad 21.10 .2013
R 1 . The proposed window at first floor in the gable end elevation and the high level window in the single storey extension would result in an unacceptable increase in overlooking of the neighbouring property "2 The Willows" which would adversely affect the privacy of the occupants of the property which would be contrary to General Policy 2 (g) and Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : ..Appraised Committee Meeting Date : 11/11/13
Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate
PA13/00511/B Paul Allanson
Replacement of kitchen window with a smaller window (retrospective), Ashleigh Ballacraine St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3LS Planning Officer:
Planning history and constraint detail extracted from the planning database for this site, collated for the benefit of the Planning Officer on 02.05.2013, includes;
Dev Control Polygons: Reference Number: 99/00634/B Status: Refused on Review Proposal: Change of use to create wholesale and retail nursery with alterations to vehicular access, Dreem Faaie and fields 2865, 2928 and 2929, Peel Road, St Johns, German. Reference Number: 03/01704/B Status: Permitted Proposal: Erection of two additional growing tunnels Reference Number: 02/01568/B Status: Permitted Proposal: Erection of three additional growing tunnels Reference Number: 05/01857/B Status: Permitted Proposal: Erection of an additional growing tunnel with a exterior green net cover Reference Number: 01/00004/B Status: Permitted on Review Proposal: Creation of wholesale and retail nursery Reference Number: 13/00511/B Status: Pending Consideration Proposal: Replacement of kitchen window with a smaller window (retrospective) Reference Number: 07/01266/B Status: Permitted Proposal: Erection of an additional polytunnel and greenhouse Reference Number: 05/02061/B Status: Permitted Proposal: Erection of three display and shelter tunnels Reference Number: 99/00635/B Status: Refused on Review Proposal: Erection of greenhouse, agricultural building and growing tunnels, land at Dreem Faaie, fields 2865, 2928 and 2929, Peel Road, St Johns, German. Reference Number: 09/01167/B Status: Permitted Proposal: Erection of polytunnels Reference Number: 99/01325/B Status: Refused on Review Proposal: Creation of wholesale and retail nursery with alterations to vehicular access and erection of associated buildings Reference Number: 12/01543/B Status: Refused Proposal: Alterations and extensions to dwelling (amendments to PA 11/01574/B) (Retrospective) Reference Number: 11/01574/B
Status: Permitted Proposal: Alterations and extensions to dwelling Reference Number: 04/01567/B Status: Permitted Proposal: Erection of three additional growing tunnels Reference Number: 04/01451/B Status: Permitted Proposal: Addition of two lean to structures on approved building, a secure storage area and nursery office. Reference Number: 12/01466/B Status: Permitted Proposal: Erection of a conservatory to rear elevation of dwelling Reference Number: 10/00261/B Status: Permitted Proposal: Erection of two polytunnels BC Case Polygon: Reference Number: 12/07100/DEX BC Case Status: Building Work Started Proposal: Proposed two storey side extension to existing cottage and internal alterations
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
