Loading document...
Application No.: 07/01918/B Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett ### Consultations {{table:185029}} ### Representations ### Planning Applicant: Mr & Mrs P Routledge Proposal: Alterations and extensions to dwelling (Amendments to PA's 06/00745B,06/02067B,06/02257B and 07/01758B) Site Address: The Arches Tower Road Spaldrick Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6PP **
The site represents the curtilage of an existing dwelling which is presently undergoing alterations and significant extensions (see below). The site lies between Tower Road to the south and a cul de sac running almost parallel with this to the north of the site. There are detached dwellings on either side of the site - Brackenbank to the west and Gorse Bank to the east.
The site lies within an area designated on the Port Erin Local Plan of 1989 as Predominantly Residential.
The site has been the subject of a number of applications in the recent past:
This latest application proposes alterations to the windows in the southern elevation, installing double doors with "Juliet" style balconies in place of the horizontally proportioned windows as existing, the installation of a solar panel on the eastern side of the southern roof pitch, a change to the roof shape of the first floor conservatory and erection of a new glazed annex at the western end of the southern elevation, the installation of a single, long window on the eastern end of the southern elevation in place of two windows and installation of a spiral staircase leading from the garden to the first floor on the rear elevation. The decking and structure will project no further towards Tower Road than does the building which already has approval.
Port Erin Commissioners object to the application on the basis that the development is considered over-intensive and they note that the proposal does not comply with the Fire Precaution Regulations 1996.
The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service recommend the installation of domestic smoke detection and refer to non-compliance with the Fire Precautions Regulations due to means of escape.
The occupant of Bradda Mooar on Tower Road objects to the application on the basis that the drawings do not show the measurements of the development or what has previously been proposed, the development breaches the established building line, the road is frequently blocked by builders' vehicles which also damage neighbouring property, the development would be over-intensive, the work is carried out seven days a week and that since works have commenced on site, neighbours have been inconvenienced.
The occupant of Brackenbank objects to the application on the basis that it exacerbates the existing problems of how the building has already been increased in size and massing, will affect her views, will be out of keeping with other existing properties in the streets cene and that the undertaking of the works to date have significantly inconvenienced those living close to the site and alongside the access roads.
The occupant of Baycliffe on Tower Road objects to the application on a similar basis to those points raised by others above and suggests that so many applications submitted in so short a period of time represents an abuse of the system. He specifically comments on the roof over the swimming pool and the pillars supporting it and suggests these are intrusive and out of keeping with the area.
The occupants of Tower House on Tower Road raise similar comments to the ones listed above and raise particular concern regarding the pillars supporting the decking and how close they will be relative to Tower Road. They also suggest that the position of the roadside boundary may by in dispute.
Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division indicate that they have no objection to the application.
The objections raised by neighbours of the site and users of Tower Road are reasonable and understandable. It is very confusing to have a series of applications submitted for a single property, particularly when each fails to show clearly what has previously been approved and clarifying exactly what is proposed in each application. It is also understandable that those who have been inconvenienced by builders' vehicles parked inconsiderately will feel strongly that development should be completed as soon as possible and without further disruption. However, the applicants are entitled to
submit as many applications as they wish providing that they do not propose development that is substantially the same as that which has been refused in the last 5 years.
The critical issues in this case are whether the changes proposed in this application make the property more intensive or intrusive compared with what already has approval and if so, whether this is to a point where the development is not acceptable. As such, it is relevant to compare the proposal with what was permitted under PA 06/2257. The changes to the main dwelling - the alterations to windows and introduction of Juliet balconies are arguably an improvement on the existing and approved building, and the addition of a solar panel should be encouraged unless there would be an adverse impact on the appearance of the property or the character of the area.
The plans for PA 06/2257 appear to show a discrepancy in terms of the distance from the building to Tower Road and the relationship between the road and the decking is shown differently in this application compared with all of the others. However, as drawn on the application drawings, the new decking is no closer to Tower Road than as approved in PA 06/2257 and the overhang balcony to the pool hall has been omitted, taking the decking containing the pool hall further back by 0.7m than as approved. Only two pillar supports are shown at the eastern end of the pool hall decking compared with three as shown in PA 06/2257 although there is a pillar support shown underneath the terrace to the west which was not shown on the previous plans.
Whilst there is sympathy with the neighbours who have experienced difficulties and inconvenience through the undertaking of the works and with the concern that the proposal should not become more intensive, the proposal would not extend the property any further towards Tower Road than has been approved and in the case of the balcony adjacent to the pool hall, this is to be reduced. The changes to the main building improve its appearance. As such, the application is recommended for approval.
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The occupants of Brackenbank, Baycliffe, Bradda Mooar and Tower House all live alongside either the site or the road serving the site and as such should be afforded party status.
The points raised by the Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service are the responsibility of the Building Regulations and as such this party should not be afforded party status in this instance.
In summary therefore the following parties are granted Interested Party Status:
The following parties are not therefore accorded Interested Party Status:
Decision Recommended by the Director of Planning and Building Control: Permitted
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This permission relates to the alterations and extensions shown in drawings S1, PA 1D, 2D, 3C,4E and 5 all received on 15th October, 2007.
N 1. PRIOR to the commencement of any works the applicant is advised to consult the Chief Fire Officer to ensure that adequate fire precautions are taken.
N 2. The Chief Fire Officer recommends the installation of mains wired interconnected domestic smoke detection.
| Application No: | 07/01918/B |
|---|---|
| Proposal: | Alterations and extensions to dwelling (Amendments to PA's 06/00745B,06/02067B,06/02257B and 07/01758B) |
| Address: | The Arches Tower Road Spaldrick Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6PP |
| Decision: | Permitted |
| Applicant: | Mr & Mrs P Routledge |
Isle of Man Government Reiltys Ellen Vennie
Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF. Tel: (01624) 685859 Fax: (01624) 685873 E-mail: [email protected] Chief Executive K A Kinrade
Please reply to the Chief Secretary Our ref: WEST/AP08/0013 Date: 18th January 2008
Marshall Cryer Architects Old School House Cronkbourne Braddan
letters sent to all parties as per Isle attached.
Dear Sirs,
The Minister of the Department of Local Government and the Environment has accepted an appeal against the decision taken in connection with the above application.
In accordance with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, the Minister requires that I forward this appeal to the Chief Secretary’s Office for referral to an independent person who will be appointed by the Council of Ministers. That person has certain specific functions to perform on behalf of the Minister, which, in summary, requires him to –
*An interested person is defined in accordance with Government Circular 1/06, and is granted rights of appeal. The Minister will then consider the report of the independent person before making his appeal determination. Following the Minister’s decision the Department will notify all parties accordingly.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown