**Document:** Officer Planning Report Recommendations **Application:** 10/01808/B — Erection of a detached dwelling **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2011-02-15 **Parish:** Rushen **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/251-rushen-land-adj-to-cherry-orchard-dwelling/documents/1160697 --- # Officer Planning Report Recommendations ## Planning Report And Recommendations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Considerations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Written Representations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Consultations [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Officer's Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND THERE IS AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ### The Site The site represents an undeveloped plot situated at the south western end of Close Famman. The plot is one of two which were approved in 2004 along with an apartment which now sits to the rear, accessed from Station Road. The apartment building is a one and a half storey structure and the approved bungalows single storey with accommodation in the attic illuminated by rooflights. The properties in Close Famman are truly single storey with shallow pitched roofs other than Lower Rowany House which is an old farmhouse around which Close Famman has built up. The adjoining site is 14m wide, the application site 11m wide, both as originally approved, and both accessed from Close Famman. ### Planning Status The site lies within an area of Tourism on the Port Erin Local Plan of 1991 and on the draft Southern Area Plan which was published on 23rd October, 2009 as Residential, acknowledging the approved apartments and bungalows. ## Planning History The following applications have been submitted in respect of all of the land between Close Famman and Station Road: PA 87/4780 - approval in principle for erection of 2 bungalows - permitted PA 88/0996 - erection of dwelling - permitted PA 92/0199 - approval in principle for construction of tavern and restaurant - refused PA 03/1272 - erection of two apartment blocks ( 8 apartments in total) - refused PA 04/1128 - erection of four apartments and two bungalows - the bungalows were permitted and the apartments refused on appeal The following applications were submitted in respect of the part of the site on the Station Road side: PA 06/1489 - erection of two storey building with three apartments - permitted on appeal PA 10/0549 - erection of garage alongside the apartment - refused The adjoining site has been the subject of a recent application, PA 10/1121 which proposed the erection of a dwelling. The plot dimensions were the same as that originally approved, the dwelling was slightly larger than approved - 0.3 m higher, 1.8 m wider and 0.3 m deeper. The property now incorporated a garage and had three dormer windows in the front pitch and a single dormer, two small rooflights and two much larger rooflights ( 2 m long and 850 mm wide) in the rear. The distance between the rear of the apartment and the proposed dormer is approximately 20 m . The apartment building has rooflights in the rear pitch and patio doors and windows in the rear elevation wall. ### The Proposal Proposed now is the erection of a dwelling. The dwelling is 8.5 m wide compared with 9.6 m as approved previously and 9.5 m deep compared with 9.3 m shown previously. The dwelling is now set back from the side boundary with the Cherry Orchard Hotel, by 2 m whereas previously it was to be built on the boundary. The dwelling is to have dormer accommodation and is to be 6.3 m in height compared with 6 m as approved previously. The dormer window in the rear will serve a bathroom and will be approximately 20 m from the apartment to the rear. The two dormers in the front will have a small rooflight in between them and on the rear will be another rooflight and a solar panel. The dwelling does not have an integral garage, nor is there room for one but there is to be on site parking on the driveway for two vehicles side by side. The driveway as shown is just 4.8 m long but there is space for it to be slightly longer before affecting the siting of the dwelling. This application was approved. ### Planning Policies The relevant Strategic Plan policy is General Policy 2 which states: General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them; c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) does not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j)can be provided with all necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; I) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption." ## Representations Port Erin Commissioners indicate that they consider the proposal to be over-development of the site. The owner of 43, Station Road considers that if either of the plots (the application plot or the one alongside) have anything other than true bungalows, these would represent over-development of the site and potential overlooking of their property. The highways authority sought a deferral pending information regarding visibility splays. There is no proposal for walling or front boundary treatment: a wall up to 1 m could be built under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 and to the south of the plot is the end of the cul de sac for which there is no requirement for a visibility splay. Following clarification of this, the Highways and Traffic Division indicates that it has no objection to the application. ### Assessment The proposed dwelling is similar to that approved recently on plot A and as such the proposed dwelling will sit comfortably in the streetscene. The dwelling will sit further from the boundary than as approved and as such will give the impression of a more spacious arrangement. The dwelling proposed makes good use of the site without being over-intensive or adversely affecting the amenities of those in adjoining properties. There will be some 15 m at an oblique angle between the rear of the proposed dwelling from which there would be no perceivable overlooking: in any case the approved dwelling on the adjacent plot will be between the proposed dwelling and 43, Station Road which is not adjacent to the application site. ### Party Status The local authority is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d), considered an "interested person" and as such should be afforded party status. The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance. 43, Station Road is not immediately adjacent to the application site and is not directly affected by the proposal and as such the owner should not be afforded party status in this instance. ## Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 19.01.2011 ### Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal ### C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal - : 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 erection of a dwelling as shown in drawings 01 and 02 both received on 8th December, 2010. I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Authority in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005 Decision Made : Authority Meeting Date : Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Authority an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/251-rushen-land-adj-to-cherry-orchard-dwelling/documents/1160697*