Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/01461/B Page 1 of 10
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/01461/B Applicant : Imbari Ltd Proposal : Alterations and replacement roof, installation of dormer extensions Site Address : Dreeym Bradda West Road Spaldrick Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6PN
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendatio Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 03.03.2021 __
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 proposed windows for the new kitchen area on the first floor on the east elevation of the dwelling with views to Whindyke, the abutting dwelling on the north-east boundary shall be glazed with obscure glass to Pilkington Level 5 or equivalent and permanently retained as such.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers from overlooking and loss of privacy.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is considered that the planning application is in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the relevant sections of the Residential Design Guide 2019 and it is therefore recommended that the planning application be permitted.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the Site Photographs and Drawing Nos. 1905E/01, 19 1344/01, 19 1344/02, 19 1344/03, 19 1344/05, 19 1344/06, 19 1344/07, 19 1344/08, 19 1344/09, 19 1344/10, all received 17 December 2020. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/01461/B Page 2 of 10
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 mentioned in Article 6(4):
Whindyke, Bradda West Road, Spaldrick, Port Erin High Ridge, Bradda West Road, Spaldrick, Port Erin Aldrick, Bradda West Road, Spaldrick. Port Erin
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that although they have made written submissions, there comments are that there is no flood risk management interest:
Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS 3 REPRESENTATIONS (OBJECTIONS) HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE RECOMMENDED TO BE AFFORDED INTERESTED PAERSON STATUS AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a detached split level dwelling with accommodation in the roof. The dwelling, Dreeym, Bradda West Road, Spaldrick, sits in a manner that its front garden can be accessed by Bradda West Lane and the rear from Bradda West Road. A significant section of the dwelling which is situated along the central section of Bradda West Road is screened by the trees and shrubbery on the site; however, its location at the junction with the highway linking the southern section of Bradda West Road makes the front of its roof structure prominent within the street scene.
1.2 The street comprises a mix of single and two storey detached dwellings, with a significant proportion of them rendered and finished in a light colour, and many have chimneys. Most of the properties are modern, with a varied range of designs, themes and character that reflect their age.
1.3 The layout of the site is such that it sits 7m below the upper sections of Bradda West Road situated directly north-west of the rear garden. There is a 1.2m high fence and shrubbery that runs along the rear boundary and further conceals the site from this section of Bradda West Road.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal seeks planning approval for alterations and replacement roof, installation of dormer extensions.
2.2 The main aspects of the proposal are: i. Replacing the existing roof wit new raised pitch roof to 1m finished in dark blue/grey natural roof slates, or similar approved. Slates to be installed in strict accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. The works on the roof would also involve altering the hipped roof end on the east elevation to create a gable end.
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/01461/B Page 3 of 10
ii. Erecting a pitch roof 2m high over the existing sun room on the east elevation of the dwelling. Two rooflights 1m x1m would be installed over this new roof. This roof would replace the existing flat roof over the sun room. iii. Erecting a shed dormer on the rear roof plane. The shed dormer would be 8m long and would be 2.4m high from the eaves to where it meets the roof plane, offset about 200mm from the main roof eaves. Its sloping roof would also have four roof lights 1m x 1m over it. Three windows and a rear access door finished in dark grey, thermally broken, aluminium framed, double glazed units would be installed at the rear. iv. Erecting two pitch roofed dormers on the front roof plane of the dwelling. The first would be 2.9m wide and 1.8m high with its ridge set 200mm lower than the existing roof plane. The second dormer would be 6.5m wide and 2.2m high with its roof ridge on the same position as the main roof ridge. A 5.8m x 1m glazed balcony with 1m high balustrade would be erected in front of this dormer. Also, two 1m x 800mm roof lights would be installed over this dormer. Both dormers would have large sections of glazing on their front elevation. v. There would be other alterations of the elevations which would include narrowing the size of windows and increasing their depth; replacing the existing windows and doors to the basement and ground floor level with white, thermally broken, aluminium framed, double glazed units installed within the existing window/door openings; and changing the cladding on the existing first floor level gable walls to be finished externally in "Met-Seam MS460 VM Zinc Plus" or similar approved, metal standing seam cladding system. vi. Erection a 2.4mx 2m bridge that would link the first floor rear extension to the rear patio area by the garden room. A set of lag steps would connect the bridge to the rear patio area. vii. The widening of the access 2.3 The works would also involve internal alterations to increase the size of living spaces and improve functionality for the linked spaces.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated as 'Predominantly Residential' on the Area Plan for the South 2013 (Map 7) and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is not susceptible to flooding as indicated on the Isle of Man Indicative Flood Maps-River and Tidal Floods. As such, the following Strategic Plan policy is relevant:
3.2 General Policy 2 states in part: 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:
(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; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan and (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them.
3.2 It is also important to have regard to Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Strategic Plan:
"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."
3.3 The Department has published the Residential Design Guidance (July 2019) which provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/01461/B Page 4 of 10
how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property. This aims to "encourage creative, innovative and locally distinct designs" and which improves the quality of the built environment. Specific advice is given regarding the design of extensions, suggesting that "extensions should generally have the same roof pitch and shape as the existing dwelling and their height should be lower than that of the main building. Generally pitch roofs are the preferred roof type compared with flat roofs which are generally inappropriate forms of development, especially if publicly viewable, unless the existing property as a flat/low pitched roof design" (3.2.2)
3.4 Section 4.6 of the RDG 2019: Dormer Extensions
4.6.1 Dormer extensions are often problematic as they can adversely affect the character and appearance of both the individual property and the wider streetscene. Unless they are for non- habitable rooms such as bathrooms with obscured glazing, they can also create overlooking. They are unlikely to be supported where they are publically visible, unless they already form a positive characteristic of the property or streetscene.
4.6.2 There are various types, and applicants should consider which is most appropriate for their house. Traditional properties should avoid having flat roof dormers, as pitched roofed dormers may be more appropriate. Flat roofed dormers can appear as clumsy additions to a roof pitch if they are overly long or tall, or if they are as tall as the ridge. Therefore they are only generally appropriate on more modern properties (1960/70's bungalows) and/or properties where the area is characterised by houses with flat roofed dormers. Finishing the front and cheeks of the dormers in a tile or tile like material can reduce this impact.
4.6.3 The position within the roof plane, size and proportion are also important aspects to consider. The size of any dormer should be secondary to the size of the roof in which it will be positioned. Therefore, dormers that would be as wide as the house and run flush or close to the elevations/roof ridge of the house will not normally be supported.
4.6.4 There are various types, and applicants should consider which is most appropriate for their house. Traditional properties should avoid having flat roof dormers, as pitched roofed dormers may be more appropriate. Flat roofed dormers can appear as clumsy additions to a roof pitch if they are overly long or tall, or if they are as tall as the ridge. Therefore they are only generally appropriate on more modern properties (1960/70's bungalows) and/or properties where the area is characterised by houses with flat roofed dormers. Finishing the front and cheeks of the dormers in a tile or tile like material can reduce this impact.
4.6.5 The position within the roof plane, size and proportion are also important aspects to consider. The size of any dormer should be secondary to the size of the roof in which it will be positioned. Therefore, dormers that would be as wide as the house and run flush or close to the elevations/roof ridge of the house will not normally be supported.
3.5 Section 4.7: Roof terraces, Balconies, Decking and Patios 4.7.1 These can add a welcome amenity to a dwelling as long as the scale, design and materials complement the character of the property, whether it is traditional or modern.
4.7.2 In most instances, roof terraces on terraced or semi-detached properties are unlikely to be acceptable. For detached properties they can be acceptable where they are carefully designed to avoid unreasonable overlooking of neighbouring properties (including gardens). Large separation distances to neighbouring boundaries and habitable room windows will help to avoid such issues. Strategically placed solid screens/obscure glazed screens/slatted shutter screens may sometimes help where it is not otherwise possible to avoid overlooking. However, the use of such screens needs to be combined with careful design as such screening may result in a loss of light and/or be an overbearing and dominating feature to the outlook of the
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/01461/B Page 5 of 10
neighbouring properties/street scene. Balconies should not result in views into the rear windows of neighbouring properties at a distance of less than 20 metres.
4.7.3 Additional consideration should also be given to the potential visual impact upon the street scene and the individual dwelling. A projecting balcony can result in an alien and top heavy feature, particularly at first floor level or above. Thought should be given to minimising the visual impact of such an addition with regard to the size, projection and materials. Balconies should be designed to complement the proportions and character of the property and should be in line with windows on the original house.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site has been the subject of three previous planning applications, none of which is considered to be materially relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that there is 'No Highway Interest' in a letter dated 19 January 2021.
5.2 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division confirms that that there is 'No Flood Risk Management interest' in the letter dated 12 February 2021.
5.3 DEFA's Arboricultural Officer has made the following Comments Regarding the application in an email dated 8 March 2021:
Further to our telephone conversation earlier this morning I can confirm that I have reviewed this application and that the Agriculture and Lands Directorate do not object to the removal of 3 conifer shrubs at the front of the property.
5.4 There has been no written representation made regarding the current planning application by the Port Erin Commissioners at the time of writing this report, although they were consulted on 6 January 2021.
5.5 The Owners/occupiers of Aldrick, Bradda West Road, Spaldrick situated on the upper sections of Bradda West Road at the rear have made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 23 January 2021:
The proposed increase in roof height and rear dormer extension will almost entirely deprive the rear of the adjacent property, Whindyke, of natural light. Also, the raising of the roof height and rear dormer elevation will mean that the privacy of the ground floor living areas and bedroom at Aldrick and High Ridge, directly behind Dreeym, is severely compromised.
5.6 The Owners/occupiers of High Ridge, Bradda West Road, Spaldrick situated on the upper sections of Bradda West Road at the rear have made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 23 January 2021:
We object to the above planning application in respect of Dreeym for the following reasons which we consider to be material considerations.
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/01461/B Page 6 of 10
into our living area, bathrooms and garden and so amount to a significant and unacceptable loss of privacy and overlooking of our property.
The proposal to increase the roof house of Dreeym amounts to overshadowing and loss of outlook. High Ridge and Dreeym are separated by a narrow access road, properties are set into the hillside overlooking Port Erin bay in such a way that they do not cause overshadowing and loss of outlook to each other. The plan to significantly increase the height and the inclusion of rear dormer windows to Dreeym amount to a detrimental and unacceptable overshadowing and loss of outlook a particularly important consideration given the location of the properties.
To give permission for the proposed dormer windows would be inconsistent with the refusal of our application in 2015 to increase in the size of the dormer windows at High Ridge on the basis that they were not in keeping with other properties in the area.
The application involves the removal of 3 trees, a significant loss to the area.
5.7 The Owners/occupiers of Whindyke, Bradda West Road, Spaldrick, the abutting property to the northwest have made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 24 February 2021:
We own Whindyke on Bradda West Road which is the house adjacent to Dreeym House and we wish to comment on the proposed planning application as follows:
We think the front perspective of the plans are very appealing and certainly an improvement on the current dwelling. We notice from the plans that whilst the existing footprint has been maintained the new overhanging front roof will move forward approximately 60cm, however we dont feel that this is material or of concern.
Loss of Natural Light into the rear of our property: this is our key concern and our objection. The changes proposed on the East elevation drawings show that the overall height of the property will increase by circa 1m and with the inclusion of the rear dormer extension will mean that an area of approx. 6 m in length and 3 m in height will be added at the rear of the property. Similarly, the current extension already in existence is proposed to move from a flat roof to a new apex roof. Given the close proximity of the Dreeym property to ours. We feel that both of these changes will significantly impact the natural light into the rear of our property. This is of particular concern as our rear bedrooms are already at a slightly lower level than the Dreeym ground level and are only a single story (photo available if required).
Privacy: On the east elevation there is a new proposed window to be included on the new upper floor. This will have direct line of sight into our rear garden and we would request that this is frosted to retain our privacy.
5.7.1 In response to the request that frosted windows be installed on the first floor of the east elevation, the applicants have indicated via their agent that they would be willing to install an obscure glazed window on this window in an email dated 2 March 2021.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 There is a presumption in favour of the development as set out in GP2 and paragraph 8.12.1 subject to the works not having any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area or the living conditions of those in surrounding dwellings, and on highway safety. As such, these are the issues to be considered in this case.
6.2 Visual Impact 6.2.1 With regard to the proposed alterations, it is noted that the works will be visible from the street scene. However, these would be fitting additions to this modern dwelling which has a somewhat basic architecture as it would significantly improve its appearance as viewed from
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/01461/B Page 7 of 10
the streetscene. Moreover, the nature of the site topography and the presence of shrubs and tree clusters around most of its boundary which conceals most of the dwellings elevations from public view would ensure that the works are not prominent within the streetscene. It is also noted that the street scene comprises a mix of building designs, styles and property sizes which makes the proposed change fit seamlessly into 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 would be minimal and in accordance with General Policy 2.
6.2.2 Similarly, the roof extension follows the form of the existing roof as its pitch angle reflects that of the main roof; although the proposed roof would be about 1m higher to create sufficient head room for the dormer spaces. In addition, the roof ridge of the dormers (except the larger front dormer) are set lower than that of the main building to ensure that they remain subordinate to the main building. It is also considered that the choice of materials for the finishing of the extensions and alterations, although introducing some new elements, would be in keeping with the existing finish of the main dwelling; ensuring that they seamlessly integrate into the existing appearance.
6.2.3 In terms of the impact upon this modern property, the proportion, form, scale, design and finish of the extensions is such that the proposal would form an appropriate form of development as the alterations would improve the appearance of the dwelling considerably. Whilst it would have been more appropriate for the rear dormers to be pitched roof dormers, the shed dormers would reduce the impact of the proposal when viewed from the rear, in addition to reducing the potential for overbearing impacts on the neighbour and as such the design is considered acceptable. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would not have significant impacts upon the amenities of the existing property or the streetscene to warrant a refusal.
6.3 Impact on Neighbours
6.3.1 In assessing the potential impact on neighbours, the properties most likely to be impacted would be Whindyke to the immediate east, with the distance between both elevations approximately 5 metres and Broom Hill given that it would be situated downhill and at a position where there could be views from the new balcony to be created on the front elevation of the application dwelling. With domestic extensions, generally three areas of amenity are assessed; the impact on privacy (overlooking), light (shadowing) and outlook (overbearing). The general guidelines for assessing these are set out in the Residential Design Guidance (July 2019), and will be referred to where necessary.
6.3.2 Impacts on Whindyke 6.3.2.1 When considering the impacts on Whindyke, the key concern lies in the potential for loss of light and overlooking. This is hinged on the fact that the raising of the roof by 1m and the conversion of the hipped end of the roof abutting Whindyke to a gable end would bring the roof plane closer to the neighbouring dwelling. Albeit, this impact is diminished by the fact that the built form of the application dwelling (as proposed) which is on the same ground level as Whindyke would make it 7.1m tall (at the highest point), which would be 800mm lower than the new height of Whindyke as approved under PA 20/00018/B which is 7.9m tall and as such will not be able to have overbearing impacts on this neighbouring dwelling. In fact, the closest part of the roof extension which is the roof over the sun room would be 2m high (2.3m lower than the main roof ridge) and would be 2.5m from the south elevation of the neighbouring dwelling; thus maintaining the visual break and ensuring that the application dwelling still remains subdued within its grounds when compared to Whindyke.
6.3.2.2 Simply put, the fact that boundary between the application site and Whindyke is at 103m above sea level with the ground floor levels for both dwellings almost on approximately the same level (see survey map for guidance) suggests that even the addition of the 1m roof
==== PAGE 8 ====
20/01461/B Page 8 of 10
height and the change of the hipped roof to a gable end on the east elevation would still place the application site considerably lower than Whindyke and as such there would be no overbearing impacts on this neighbour as a result of the proposed scheme.
6.3.2.3 With regard to overlooking, the only element that would have introduced some form of overlooking here is the proposed narrow picture window to serve the new open plan kitchen area on the first floor with views to the side elevation of Whindyke. The applicants have however written in through their agent on 2 March 2021 to state that they are satisfied with a condition being imposed for obscure glazed window to be used here. There are also no windows on the southwest elevation of the neighbouring dwelling to be impacted by the development.
6.3.2.4 In view of the comments by the owners/occupants of Whindyke regarding loss of light, it is noted that the new gable end would be set 3.5m from the boundary and 5.1m from the external wall (on the southwest gable) of Whindyke; as such, the proposed development will not result in noticeable loss of light for this neighbouring dwelling. Whilst the roof plane would be brought closer resulting in some loss of light on a small section of the southwest gable, the fact that the application site is situated south-west of the neighbour and at an orientation where the raised roof and new gable would only be in the way of the neighbour at sunset makes any impacts negligible. Moreover, the sloping design of the rear dormer, as well as the positioning of the dormer 3.1m from the new gable end would further diminish the impact of shadowing as the shadow cast would be over the application site and not the neighbouring property. Besides, the key cause of the loss of light for Whindyke is the thick cluster of trees on the entire rear boundary of this neighbour which casts a continuous shade over large sections of the rear garden as it blocks the travel path of the sun from the east to the west. Granting the new gable end would cast some shadow over Whindyke during the summer months due to the increased period of daylight, this would only be over sections of the southwest gable which is already in a shade and would in no way exacerbate the loss of light currently experienced within the rear garden of Whindyke consequent on the positioning of the existing trees within the rear garden and as such it is not considered that any impact would be sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme.
6.3.3 Impact on Broom Hill 6.3.3.1 In terms of the Impact on Broom Hill, it is noted that there will be an increase in the amount of glazing on the front elevation as a result of the new dormers on the front elevation with possible views to this neighbouring property. The new balcony to serve the new lounge area on the first floor will also introduce additional elevated views as the topography places the application site on an elevated platform. This impact is however diminished by the 29.4m separating distance between the application site and the nearest window on Broom Hill, a distance which exceeds the 20m distance within which overlooking can occur. Whilst this element of the scheme will bring additional glazing and a new balcony slightly closer, it is not considered that this will be so significant a change in the living conditions of those in Broom Hill to warrant refusal of the application. Besides, the existing trees on the front boundary of the application site and Broom Hill would further screen views to this neighbouring dwelling and as such it is considered that any impacts on Broom Hill would be minimal.
6.3.4 Impact on High Ridge and Aldrick 6.3.4.1 With regard to impact on the neighbouring dwellings (High Ridge and Aldrick) to the rear, it is noted that the nearest windows on these dwellings to the near dormer windows at the rear of the application site would be 27m and 28m respectively and as such overlooking cannot result from these windows on these neighbours. As well, the new bridge to the rear garden would stretch 2.4m from the rear of the new dormers to the point where it meets the rear garden and drops in level thus maintaining a distance of 24.6m and 25.6m respectively from the nearest windows on High Ridge and Aldrick; a position that would not introduce any overlooking of the rooms within these dwellings.
==== PAGE 9 ====
20/01461/B Page 9 of 10
6.3.4.2 Whilst comments regarding the impact on front gardens are noted, the ground floor level of the application site is set at 103.7m above the mean sea level which would place it at a level 3.4m lower than the abutting highway at the rear (at 107.1m above mean sea level), not counting the 1.2m high timber fence and shrubbery on the rear boundary of the application site. This would place the ground floor level of the application site 4.6m below the level of the existing screens at the rear. Based on the forgoing, it is considered that the bridge at the rear and the rear windows, although positioned 15m from the front garden would have restricted views to these rear front gardens. This is hinged on the fact that the first floor level would be 2.3m above the ground level (2.3m below the top of the timber fence at the rear) and as such overlooking views cannot be obtained from these over the front gardens of High Ridge and Aldrick, given that the standing eye height for a human being is between 1.35 to 1.8m (positions that would be lower than 2.3m).
6.3.4.3 Another factor that bodes well for the application site is the fact that the front gardens of these neighbouring dwellings at the rear rise to about 2m from the level of the abutting highway, placing them on a further elevated site level than the application site. Moreover, there is a thick cluster of trees and shrubbery, as well as the pitch roof of the conservatory on the northeast boundary of the application site which further screens views to Aldrick. Besides, the raised site level of these neighbours affords them views over the rear garden of the application site from their front gardens, lounges and front dormers (in the case of High Ridge), a feature that is common within the locality and as such it is noted that it is these neighbours have the overlooking advantage over the application site, contrary to the assertions that have been made with regard to overlooking and overbearing impacts.
6.3.4.4 Overall, it is considered that the topography of the area, the existing boundary treatment and the distance between the rear extensions on the application site in relation to High Ridge and Aldrick would ensure that overlooking or overbearing impacts would not result from the proposed scheme.
6.4 The Loss of Trees/garden area 6.4.1 With respect to the impact of the proposal on trees within the application site, it is noted that the proposed scheme would involve the removal of three (3) shrubs within the site area to facilitate the widening of the access. However, it is not considered that the loss of shrubs would be sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme, especially when assessed within the context of the site as a significant number of the existing trees and shrubbery on the site would be retained. Besides, the removal of trees would create a better access for the site with improved visibility for vehicles exiting the site and as such it is considered that the improved highway safety would outweigh the loss of the trees. Moreover, DEFA's Arboricultural Officer has assessed the overall impact of the tree (shrub) removal and written in to indicate that he does not object to their removal; which is a clear indication that the removal is acceptable.
6.4.2 It is also considered that the widening of the existing driveway by 2.1m will have a negligible impact on the front garden as the expanded driveway will take up about 90sqm of the front garden which is less than 40 percent of the existing front garden, complying with paragraph 6.3.4 of the RDG 2019; which stipulates that "proposals which result in the loss of more than 50% of the existing front lawned/landscaped garden will not normally be supported, to ensure the character of the street scape is retained and avoid frontages of properties appearing as one large car parking area, detrimental to the appearance of the street scene and to the outlook of residents".
6.5 Impact on highway safety 6.5.1 The proposed alteration to the vehicular access is also relatively minor and should not unduly affect either the surrounding street scene or the character of the area. The removal of about 2.6m on the boundary wall with section of existing pier which forms part of an elevated planting bed will increase the width of the access, and as such represents an improvement to highway safety, since vehicular access to and from the site will be facilitated by the enhanced
==== PAGE 10 ====
20/01461/B Page 10 of 10
access; with better views to the highway when vehicles exit the site. It is also noted that the drop kerb would not be widened (as there is no indication from the available documents that it would be altered) and as such, there would be no changes the length of walkway on this side of the highway.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 In summary, the proposal meets the requirements of the aforementioned policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and is acceptable.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 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; (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.
8.2 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 __
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: 15.03.2021
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