Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/00036/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/00036/B Applicant : Mr David Salkeld Proposal : Variation of Condition 1 of PA 21/00238/B, Erection of a replacement dwelling, to increase the period of permission by one year Site Address : Perk Cottage Knock Froy Road Santon Isle Of Man IM4 1JD
Planning Officer: Mrs Vanessa Porter Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 27.02.2023 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The use hereby approved shall be for a limited period of 1 year from the date of this approval and on (or before) the expiry of this approval the use shall be discontinued and the temporary building removed from the site.
Reason: The development has only been found to be acceptable on a short term basis because it meets a specific need.
C 2. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the construction of the proposed dwelling. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
REASON: the landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Since the initial approval there have been no material planning changes which have arisen. The Area Plan for the East and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 have not been superseded and therefore continue to comprise the Development Plan. The policies contained therein have not been the subject of appeal decisions or decisions related to planning applications that indicate a different approach to those policies should be taken.
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/00036/B Page 2 of 5
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received on 16th January 2023; o Site Plan o Drawing No. 1329.21 o Drawing No. 1329.20 Rev 1 o Planning Statement __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE DEVELOPMENT COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing single storey dwelling situated on the northern side of Knock Froy Road which leads from the A5 Castletown Road past Knock Froy motocross track to Knock Froy Farm. The area has a number of dwellings within it, the most noticeable being Cronk Froy and High Bank both of which are new dwellings replacing earlier, smaller ones. Green Hedges is a modern bungalow which sits across the lane from the application property.
1.2 Knock Froy Lane is narrow and largely single vehicle width.
1.3 Perk Cottage, the application property is visible from the A5 as one proceeds uphill from The Forge, across the field where the gable and part of the front of the property is visible.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the variation of Condition 1 of PA21/00238/B by extending the approval for a further one year,
2.2 The proposal for PA21/00238/B was as follows:
"2.1 Proposed is the variation of the condition attached to 17/00214/B for the erection of a replacement dwelling to allow a further two years to commence the approved development. The applicant advises on the form that they have been unable to commence work within the required period due to ongoing work and unforeseen issues to provide alternative accommodation prior to the demolition of the existing dwelling and not helped by COVID.
2.2 The application, 17/00214/B is due to expire on 08.05.21. That proposed the replacement of the existing dwelling with a new, two storey residence. This dwelling is identical to that approved under 17/00214/B and similar to an earlier refused application (16/00886/B) other than for the fact that: the front and rear elevations are 1m longer (now just under 13m) the rear extension projects out 2m less (now 4m) the dwelling is partially on the footprint of the existing the extension of the residential curtilage is reduced by 7m in depth the porch has been reduced in depth and the proposed property moved correspondingly further forward on the site planting is proposed at the northern boundary of silver birch, mountain ash and alder with fuchsia in between.
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/00036/B Page 3 of 5
2.3 The existing dwelling was described in the most recent application modest and with a floor area of 92 sq m. The proposed dwelling is 2m higher and has a floor area of 262 sq m, an increase of 184%. It is the same design and general layout as was previously proposed but 32 sq m smaller.
2.4 The new curtilage will not be bounded by any landscaping although there is some now proposed to the north and there will be around 5.5m between the rear of the property and the rear boundary (an increase of 2.5m from the initial proposal), 5.7m between the side of the house and the side boundary to the north. The new house is set back slightly (3.3m) from the position of the existing cottage in order to provide manoeuvring space for the vehicles entering and leaving the site. The existing single garage is to be retained to the south of the new house.
2.5 The applicant provided supporting information, explaining how the previous application would have allowed the applicant to remain in the existing cottage whilst the new house was being built, and comments that any views of the property are from "a considerable distance back" and on a fast stretch of road and the substantial new dwellings, High Bank and Cronk Froy are visible behind. He also draws attention to the two new sizeable dwellings built on the site of the Lancashire Hotel and at Bay View on the Old Castletown Road all of which are more visible than Perk Cottage or its replacement."
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There have been several applications upon the site of which the following are relevant in the assessment of this application, PA16/00886/B - Erection of replacement dwelling - Refused PA17/00214/B - Erection of replacement dwelling - Approved PA17/00871/B - Alterations, driveway extension and erection of a replacement detached garage with ancillary living accommodation above - Permitted PA19/00475/C - Temporary use of adjoining field as a camp site with associated toilets and parking for the duration of the week before the TT festival until a week after the IOM Festival of Motorcycling - Refused PA21/00238/B - Variation of condition 1 of PA 17/00214/B, Erection of a replacement dwelling, to increase the period of permission by two years - Permitted
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site is with an area of "not designated for development" within the Area Plan for the East. The site is not located within a Conservation Area nor is it within a flood risk zone.
4.2 As per the previous applications, the proposal is assessed under Housing Policy 14 which states, ""Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91 (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in generally, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.
Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling which involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design and or siting, there would be less visual impact."
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/00036/B Page 4 of 5
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services have considered the application and state, "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking." (01.02.23)
5.2 No comments have been received by Santon Parish Commissioners at the time of writing this report.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The application is to vary a condition that seeks to restrict the time limit for the implementation of the application. This would have the effect of adding an additional year onto the time in which the permission would be implemented.
6.2 The main issue in the assessment of this application is whether there have been any material changes, in planning terms, since the application was last approved; for example policy changes, a change to the land use designation, new or altered legislation, or site circumstances that would lead to a different decision being made. Essentially, there has been no change in the circumstance or policy, however it is warranted to look at the history of the previously approved planning application, PA 21/00238/B, which is the application the variation of condition is on.
6.3 Since the initial approval there have been no material planning changes which have arisen. The Area Plan for the East has not been superseded and therefore continues to comprise the Development Plan. The policies contained therein have not been the subject of appeal decisions or decisions related to planning applications that indicate a different approach to those policies should be taken. No new legislation has been brought into force and no objections have been received.
6.4 The reasoning for the time period of all applications is to ensure planning applications cannot have everlasting permissions, and either the applicant needs to commence development or seek a variation of condition to extend the period be submitted. This process to potentially extend the original period is to re-assess whether there have been any changes in local plan/planning policies and/or any other material planning matters. As indicated above there have been none since the last approval.
CONCLUSION 7.1 Since the initial approval there have been no material planning changes which have arisen. The Area Plan for the East and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 have not been superseded and therefore continue to comprise the Development Plan. The policies contained therein have not been the subject of appeal decisions or decisions related to planning applications that indicate a different approach to those policies should be taken. It is recommended that planning permission be approved.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/00036/B Page 5 of 5
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 in Article 6(4) 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: 13.03.2023
Signed : C BALMER 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