Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/00654/B Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/00654/B Applicant : Mr James Brookman Proposal : Erection of single storey side extension, Loft conversion, associated external remodelling and landscaping Site Address : 15 Third Avenue Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 6AL
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 12.09.2023 Site Visit : 12.09.2023 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 02.02.2024 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Prior to the installation of external finishes and materials, a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, windows, doors and external walls, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
C 3. Notwithstanding the details that have been submitted, a detailed landscaping plan shall be submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed within three months of this approval.
The landscape plan shall include details of hard surfacing materials, planting plans (at a scale not less than 1:100), written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken and schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers / densities and a programme for the implementation, completion and subsequent management of the proposed landscaping.
No Wildlife Act 1990 Schedule 8 non-native invasive plant species, or cherry laurel, Rugosa rose or buddleia are to be planted on site.
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/00654/B Page 2 of 11
Any proposed planting should be in accordance with details contained within a Planting Palette provided as part of the plan.
The hard surfacing details shall include details of planters and samples showing the texture and colour of the materials to be used.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and shall be retained as such thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that the development achieves a high standard of design, layout and amenity and makes provision for hard and soft landscaping which contributes to the creation of a high quality environment.
N 1. FOR YOUR INFORMATION Please be aware that a ban on the installation of fossil fuel heating systems in any new building(s) and or extension(s), will come into force on 1st January 2025.
You therefore are encouraged to ensure that your proposed development includes alternatives to fossil fuel heating systems if you believe that such works will not be completed by that date.
To this end, if you propose an alternative, such as air source or ground source heat pump(s), or any other heating system that would require planning approval, the details of this should be addressed now. This may require you to resubmit your planning application to accommodate the alternative permitted heating system proposed.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposals accord with General Policy 2, Strategic Policies 1 and 3, and Transport Policies 6 and 7 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016, and the principles of the Residential Design Guidance 2021, as the proposal would not harm the use and enjoyment of the application site, neighbouring properties, and the character of the area.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the submitted documents, Correspondence, and drawings received 30 May 2023, 8 August 2023, 13 September 2023, 9 January 2024, 29 January 2024, and 2 February 2024. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
12 Second Avenue, Douglas; 13 Third Avenue, Douglas; 17 Third Avenue, Douglas;
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/00654/B Page 3 of 11
matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
14 Third Avenue, Douglas; 16 Third Avenue, Douglas; 'Kionslieu', 20 Third Avenue, Douglas;
as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND THERE ARE MORE THAN 4 OBJECTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 15 Third Avenue, Douglas, which is a two storey detached property sited on the south western side of Third Avenue in Douglas that ends in a cul de sac. The application is bounded by a stone wall to the front which only opens up at the vehicular access, a low masonry wall on the northern, and fencing on the western boundary. A perforated masonry wall and fencing form the boundary with 'Step A Side', 13 Third Avenue, Douglas, to the south east boundary. Mature hedging also bounds most of the site boundary with neighbouring property, although there are gaps along the hedging.
1.2 The existing dwelling is finished in a pebble dash render, although the front elevation has a combination of pebble dash render, smooth cement render and stone cladding finish. The dwelling has a pitched roof which slopes to the sides as the dwelling has a prominent gable front elevation and is finished in Double Roman concrete tiles. There is an integral garage which has a flat roof over and wraps round part of the north elevation. The dwelling also has a flat roofed living roof extension which projects onto the rear garden.
1.3 The street scene is varied in its current context and comprises of a mix of two storey detached dwellings, with a significant proportion of them rendered and finished in a light colour, although the mix of materials include pebble dash render, Sand and cement render, stone wall cladding, red brick cladding, and tile shingle cladding. There is a balance between modern and traditional properties within the street scene, with a varied range of designs, finishing, themes, and character that reflect their age.
1.4 The dwellings at the end of the close (Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20) do not have similar front building lines as the other dwellings within the cul de sac as they are set further back from the main road and project further into their rear gardens, placing their rear elevation further back. There is also no uniform built density for the dwelling plots here.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The planning application seeks approval for the erection of single storey side extension, Loft conversion, associated external remodelling and landscaping.
2.2 The proposed works would comprise the following: 2.2.1 Erection of a single storey side extension to the southern elevation of the dwelling that would house an open plan living/kitchen/dining area. The front of the extension would be 5.5m wide, the rear 4.9m wide, while the length would be 16.1m long. The extension would be 4.6m
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/00654/B Page 4 of 11
tall to the roof ridge and 3.2m to the eaves. The living/kitchen/dining extension element would have a flat roofed lanterns over its hipped roof.
2.2.2 The finishing of the side (south) elevation of the extension will be in painted render with quoins at the ends, while the front and rear elevations (which forms part of a wraparound roof system) would be finished in horizontal clapper board cladding (white) with painted architrave detailing window and door surrounds as the main dwelling. Its roof would be finished in will be finished in Double Roman concert tiles with matching ridge tiles (grey).
2.2.3 The works would also include external alterations to the main dwelling through cladding of its external walls in in horizontal clapper board cladding (white) with painted architrave detailing window and door surrounds, the inclusion of timber painted columns (white), natural stone dry laid with quoins to be retained (natural green slates). The roofing over the main dwelling will be finished in Double Roman concert tiles with matching ridge tiles (grey). The garage roofing and side extension will be in natural slate. All windows would be UPVC casement windows. Front door would be painted hardwood with partial glazing and side lights (black), while the patio and French doors will be fully glazed UPVC units. Garage door is to be painted hardwood.
2.3 Additional works would include: i. Installation of five new roof lights over the main roof of the dwelling (two on the northern roof plane and three on the southern roof plane). This can be installed as permitted development due to their size and number. ii. Introduction of a new chimney stack on the north elevation of the dwelling. This chimney stack will sit lower than the roof ridge of the main dwelling. iii. Closing up the first floor window on the north elevation. iv. Installing a new arched gable window on the second floor rear (west) elevation of the dwelling, and a new circular gable window on the second floor front (East) elevation. v. A new side door with lights and two full height windows would be installed on the ground floor north elevation of the dwelling. vi. Landscaping of the site, including creating a new area of outdoor terrace that would be set 20mm lower that the finished floor height for the ground floor and lower than the rear garden area.
2.4 No trees would be removed to facilitate the development. The applicants have also indicated on the application form that there would be no site level changes. The number of parking spaces beside the garage provision will remain unchanged (2 spaces).
2.5 The applicants have provided a number of supporting information (Cover Letter, Response to Planning Comments, Deign Commentary, and Covering Emails) which sets out the site context, context of locality, describes the proposal and gives detail of potential site constraints, provides details of corrections and clarifications, and concludes by stating that development of this site is appropriate for the size of the plot, noting that privacy issues have been addressed and improved upon, that the design of the extension is responsive to site constraints, responding to these through positioning, floor levels and roof forms, while elevating the dwelling to meet current living requirements. It further confirms that the material finishes reflect the street scene, with the reuse of existing materials and resources on site, whilst stating that being predominantly finished in white, the dwelling would not be so different as to stand out. Further to the above, it states that the introduction of roof canopies directly reflects those in the vicinity, and that the proposed cladding, remodelling and modernisation would significantly contribute to improvements in thermal properties and environmental credentials in line with current policy. The proposed landscaping would further add to the local amenity and surrounding established gardens to the benefit of immediate neighbours and surrounding area. These also address the material context and building lines within the immediate street scene of Third Avenue.
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/00654/B Page 5 of 11
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific 3.1.1 The application site is located within an area identified as being Predominantly Residential on the Area Plan for the East (Map 4 - Douglas), and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site has low likelihood of flood risks, there are no registered trees on the site, and the site is not within a registered tree area. As such, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant:
3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016) a. General Policy 2 - 'Development Control' considerations. b. Paragraph 8.12.1 - General presumption in favour of extensions to existing properties (excluding Conservation Areas or Registered Buildings). c. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources. d. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to safeguard character of existing towns and villages. e. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact. f. Environment Policy 4 - protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites). g. Environment Policy 42 - character and need to adhere to local distinctiveness. h. Transport Policy 7 and Appendix A.7.6 - Parking Provisions i. Community Policy 7 - Designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour j. Community Policy 10 - Proper access for firefighting appliances k. Community Policy 11 - Prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire
4.0 OTHER MATTERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) also contains guidance in Sections 2.0 on sustainable construction, Section 3.1 on Local Distinctiveness, 4.0 on Householder Extensions, while Section 7.0 deals with Impact on Neighbouring Properties.
4.2 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025 seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary. Section 21 deals with Habitat loss actions through promoting a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and to ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications considered relevant to the determination of the current application.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking. The Applicant is advised to consider installing an electric vehicle charging point to aid net zero objectives (14 June 2023/8 August 2023/18 September 2023/10 January 2024/30 January 2024).
6.2 Douglas Borough Council have no objections to the application (18 August 2023/29 September 2023/19 January 2023). They state that the development must not prohibit the refuse bins from being removed from the highway to be stored within the curtilage of the property between refuse collections.
6.3 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Drainage have stated that allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. They advise
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/00654/B Page 6 of 11
the applicant to be aware of and demonstrate compliance with the above clauses (12 January 2024).
6.4 The DEFA The Ecosystem Policy Team notes that an area of hedge will need to be removed to facilitate the new extension, but have no objection as the proposed landscaping, including replacement hedging, is to be undertaken as per the Proposed Site Plan (Drw. No. P9002 Rev02). They however, request that the landscaping be secured by a condition should approval be grated. They further note that no landscaping species details have been provided, and request a condition for no landscaping to be undertaken with Wildlife Act 1990 Schedule 8 Part II invasive plant species, or cherry laurel, Rugosa rose or buddleia (25 January 2024).
6.5 The owners/occupiers of the following properties object to the application: a. 12 Second Avenue (5 June 2023); b. 13 Third Avenue (30 June 2023/29 August 2023/23 January 2023); c. 14 Third Avenue (1 July 2023); d. 16 Third Avenue (28 June 2023/31 August 2023); e. 17 Third Avenue (17 June 2023/31 August 2023/29 January 2023) and f. 'Kionslieu', 20 Third Avenue (18 June 2023).
6.5.1 They object to the application on the following grounds: o Overlooking from balcony/veranda/terrace. o Potential damage to existing boundary treatment (fencing). o Potential overbearing impacts/and overshadowing. o The cladding described in the proposal is inappropriate for Third Avenue, and does not blend with the styles of properties found (render, pebbledash, brick). o The design of the proposed extensions are out of keeping with the character and appearance of the Avenue. No property on this Avenue has roof dormer windows, balconies or columns. o The increase in square meterage (67.5%), does not seem in proportion with the plot size and seems excessive. The size of the proposed works appear disproportionate to the original building. o Loss of view. o Refer to contents within deeds regarding restrictions on properties within Third Avenue. o Significant Loss of garden area which contributes to the amenity of the area. o They refer to recent approval at 14 Third Avenue and note that the design of this application did not affect the front elevation. Whilst noting that the size of the extension was significant, they consider that the applicants considered neighbours before deciding on key elements. o They refer to intervisibility and consider that existing hedging and fencing on boundary limits its occurrence. o They refer to shed/decking/ structures alongside boundary of application site which may be capable of being undertaken without planning approval under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012, but not clarified within the current scheme. o They refer to the position of the building with regard to building lines and potential overbearing impact.
6.4 Following review of the comments made by the neighbours, the applicants have submitted amended plans which they consider would address the concerns. They have also provided an agents response which addresses some of the issues raised. This list has been amended to only relate to the matters that are still relevant to the scheme now amended, as references to Juliet balcony, garage, dormers, and window situated on the northern side elevation of number 13 Third Avenue have been removed. o They state that the scale on the existing / proposed elevations has been amended to 1:50. o The boundary remains unchanged and does not form part of the application, the nature of the boundary has been noted.
==== PAGE 7 ====
23/00654/B Page 7 of 11
They state that the extension in its proposed form, would be no less impactful than a permitted development extension on the rear elevation which would extend beyond the line of the proposed extension at a maximum height of 4metres, albeit further from the boundary.
They state that the clapper board/weather board finish would have a nominal impact visually, as the property would appear white in nature not dissimilar to any white rendered finish.
o They conclude by stating that the proposed extension and finished dwelling is appropriate for the size of the plots previously established. Privacy issues continue to have been addressed. The design of the extension is responsive to site constraints, responding to these through positioning, floor levels and roof forms, while elevating the dwelling to meet current living requirements. The material finishes reflect the street scene, with the reuse of existing materials and resources on site. Predominantly finished in white the dwelling would not be so different as to stand out. The proposed cladding, remodelling and modernisation would significantly contribute to improvements in thermal properties and environmental credentials in line with current policy. Proposed landscaping would further add to the local amenity and surrounding established gardens to the benefit of immediate neighbours and surrounding area.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The key issues to considerer in the assessment of this planning application are; a. the impact of the proposed extensions and alterations on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and streetscene; b. whether there would be any impacts on neighbouring living conditions as a result of the development; and c. Highway Safety/parking impacts.
7.2 VISUAL IMPACT (GP2, STP 3, EP 42 & RDG 2021) 7.2.1 With regard to the proposed alterations, it is noted that a significant proportion of the works will be visible from the street scene, and have varying degrees of impact on the appearance of the dwelling and street scene.
7.2.2 The works to convert the existing garage, change the existing window and door styles, integrate a hip roof over the existing garage, , include a new chimney, as well as erect a new living room/kitchen/dining extension although changing the appearance of the existing dwelling to more reflect a Georgian style dwelling is considered to sit well with the site and street scene which is considerably varied with no established pattern or architectural style, and as such is considered acceptable. From review of the current appearance of the dwelling on site and the works that have been proposed, it would be difficult to argue that the appearance of the dwelling has not improved over the existing.
7.2.3 It is also considered that the nature of the site topography and the presence of shrubs and tree clusters around its boundary, as well as the size and scale of neighbouring dwellings would enable the dwelling to sit well within the site and immediate vicinity. It should be noted that the street scene comprises a mix of building designs, styles and property sizes (most of which are large relative to their site area) which makes the proposed change fit seamlessly into
==== PAGE 8 ====
23/00654/B Page 8 of 11
the existing street scene which is diverse in its current state; without a dominant architectural style. Overall, any impact on the character and appearance of the area and the site itself as a result of the elements of the proposal that have been mentioned above would be minimal and in accordance with General Policy 2.
7.2.4 With regard to the landscaping works, it is considered that the visual aspects of the site and surroundings would be improved, and the new and additional plantings would improve the biodiversity of the site. In this regard, the proposals are seen to be acceptable and accord with the objectives of Policies General Policy 2 (b & f) in seeking to improve the natural environment.
7.2.5 The comments which refer to the density of development within the site and its impact on the character of the area is noted. However, the total foot print of the dwelling after the works would constitute a built development of about 240.83sqm which would make up about 32.2 Percent of the total plot area which measures about 748sqm, and this is not considered to be at variance with the general character of the locality when the proportion of built development relative to the total plot area is factored in for every suite in the immediate vicinity.
7.2.6 Accordingly, whilst the side extension, window alterations and door replacement, and other alterations to the appearance of the dwelling, as well as the landscaping works would alter the appearance of the site and dwelling, it is considered that the proposed works would improve the appearance of the dwelling and site, and in turn the character and appearance of the area which is varied in its current context, and as such compliant with General Policy 2 (b & c) and Strategic Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan.
7.3 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURS (GP 2 & RDG 2021) 7.3.1 In considering potential impacts on neighbouring amenity, it is considered that the dwellings most likely to be impacted would be No.13 to the south, No. 17 to the north, and No.12 Second Avenue to the west. It is not considered that the works would have any impacts on No. 14 Second Avenue which is also situated west due to the distance of the works from this dwelling, and the nature of its boundary treatment comprising mature trees and hedges, which completely screens views into its rear garden.
7.3.2 Impacts on No. 13 Third Avenue 7.3.2.1 The proposed side extension which rises to about 4.6m (1m than the previously proposed 5.7m height) at the section adjacent to No. 13 Third Avenue, and would be positioned about 2.1m from the side elevation of the neighbouring property. However, its front elevation would be set back by about 4.4m from the position of the front elevation of this neighbouring dwelling (4.4m behind the previous position which was to be at par with the neighbour), and would be considerably away from the window on the north elevation of this neighbour. As such, any overshadowing impacts on this window which is meant to provide light to this part of No. 13 has been overcome.
7.3.2.2 The proximity of the side extension being set at 2.1m from No. 13 is also noted. However, given that the proposed extension would be positioned north of the neighbouring dwelling, where overshadowing is expected to be diminished given that the impact of overshadowing will increase if the new extension is to the south of a neighbouring property as the sun's orientation is east to west (See section 7.3 of the Residential Design Guide that deals with Loss of Light/Overshadowing).
7.3.2.3 With regard to overbearing impacts, it is considered that the extension is positioned close to a boundary with mature hedges which rise to about 3m and as such would serve to diminish any concerns in terms of overbearing impacts as the plantings here would soften the impact of the proposed development. Besides, the eaves of the extension would be set at 3.2m
==== PAGE 9 ====
23/00654/B Page 9 of 11
(only slightly taller than the mature hedges on the boundary), with the roof leaning away from No. 13, which would further diminish any concerns in terms of overbearing impacts.
7.3.2.4 The additional comments made by the occupants of No. 13 which refer to the proximity of the extension to the boundary by No. 13, and the extension of the impact of the extension further into their garden area is noted, and this would have been a concern if the proposed side extension where to be a two storey extension, but the proposed side extension would be single storey and positioned north of the neighbouring dwelling where there exists mature hedging as has already been noted to diminish any concerns. It is also considered that the proposed proximity would not be an aberration in the locality given the proximity of other dwellings within the street scene which also involves two storey element unlike the application site. Currently No. 13 has a two storey element which sits 2.6m from No. 11. Also, No. 7 sits 2.7m from No. 5, while No. 12 sits 2.8m from No.10. Given that the proposed works would only consist of a single storey extension being built closer to a two storey section of the abutting dwelling, it is not considered that this would exacerbate any concerns or be at variance with the character or appearance of Third Avenue.
7.3.2.5 The positioning of part of the side extension further into the rea garden is also not considered to be a concern as the works would only sit 2.4m further of the existing building extent on the south elevation, particularly as it is already established that Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18 and 20 site further back of the established rear building line for the other dwelling on Third Avenue. As such, it is not considered that the works which would only marginally extend the rear elevation on the south elevation would be at variance with the established building layout at this part of the cul de sac. 7.3.2.4 Based on the foregoing, it is not considered that any impacts in terms of loss of light and overbearing impacts would be sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme, given the prevailing site character and context.
7.3.3 Impacts on No. 12 Second Avenue 7.3.3.1 In terms of impacts on No. 12 Second Avenue, the key concern is the potential overlooking form the proposed arched gable window on the second floor rear (west) elevation of the dwelling. With regard to this concerns, the applicants have provided a Design Commentary (See page 5) which clearly shows that the existing vegetation would prevent overlooking of the rear garden of this property. The existing separating distance of 28m from the rear elevation of No. 12 Second Avenue would also ensure that there are no impacts in terms of overlooking into windows, although the existing vegetation would also further diminish this concern.
7.3.3.2 It is also considered that the floor level of the proposed garden terrace (which could be carried out as permitted development) would not impact on this neighbouring dwelling being situated within the garden and forms part of the garden features, and as it would be set lower than the general garden ground level, ground level of dwelling and level of existing terrace at the rear of the dwelling. It is also positioned about 18m from the rear of No. 12 Second Avenue where any noise impacts would not be significant, with the existing hedging also serving as sound buffers.
7.3.4 Impacts on No. 17 Third Avenue 7.2.4.1 In terms of impacts on No. 17, it is not considered that the raised garage roof would create any concerns with regard to loss of light or overbearing impacts given that the existing mature trees and hedging on the boundary would provide screening for the development with little or no views afforded the development when viewed from No 17.
7.2.4.2 Likewise, it is not considered that any overlooking would result for No. 17 as the existing window on the first floor north elevation of the application site would be closed up. Also, the Juliet balcony which was previously proposed on the west elevation, with potential to impact parts of the rear garden of No. 17 has been excluded from the proposal, so this concern
==== PAGE 10 ====
23/00654/B Page 10 of 11
no longer exists. Moreover, the new rooflights to be proposed on the northern roof plane would be at a position and angle that would not result in overlooking concerns, although it is noted that these could be installed under Permitted Development and as such are not a concern with the current proposal.
7.4 IMPACTS ON PARKING AND HIGHWAY SAFETY (TP7 & GP2) 7.4.1 The double garage which currently exists at the property would be retained, and there would be no changes to the vehicular access to the site. In addition, the site layout would be altered to provide allowance for more off road parking on site with more allowance afforded for pedestrian movements on site. Vehicles would also be able to leave the site in forward gear which would be an improvement over the existing, thus resulting in improved parking and highway safety for the site.
7.4.2 Likewise, Highway Services have assessed the proposal and find it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking, and raise no objection to the proposal. Therefore, it is considered that this element of the scheme complies with the requirements of the aforementioned policies.
7.5 OTHER MATTERS 7.5.1 Deeds and Covenants 7.5.1.1 The issue of Covenants or details contained within Deeds are civil legal issues which have been raised by the neighbours are matters that lie outside the scope of the planning application as land ownership is a civil matter and would hold no weight in the assessment of a planning application. Any determination under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 can neither create nor detract from land ownerships, any right of way, or other civil legal rights and obligations as may exist between the parties. Considering these bear no weight in a planning decision, the application has been assessed with respect to the aforementioned Strategic Plan policies which set the benchmark for assessing proposed developments, with no reference made to the stated deeds and covenants.
7.5.2 Other Works under Permitted Development 7.5.1.2 The site plan shows other works such as erection of a shed, terrace, and other structures on the site which the agent states would be carried out as permitted development. As these works are not proposed to be carried out within the current scheme, they fall outside the scope of the current application and as such are not assessed as part of the current proposal. Moreover, no details regarding height, position of floor levels and general appearance/eternal finish has been submitted on these within the scheme, beside their possible locations on the site. Any of such works would be the subject of the Town and Country Planning Permitted Development Order and subject to the conditions therein.
7.5.1.3 The matters related to loss of view, property boundaries and general construction impacts (including construction impacts on boundary treatment), bear no weight as material planning considerations and as such cannot be considered in the assessment of this planning application.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Overall, it is considered that the design, highway impacts and visual impacts are acceptable, and the proposal would not result in significant harm to public or private amenity. The application is, therefore, 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: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
==== PAGE 11 ====
23/00654/B Page 11 of 11
(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: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status.
9.3 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 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.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 12.02.2024
Signed : P VISIGAH Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal