**Document:** Officer Planning Report Recommendations **Application:** 04/01660/B — Construction of new dwelling on plot 2 **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2005-02-04 **Parish:** Malew **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/76675-malew-plot-2-dwelling/documents/1421674 --- # Officer Planning Report Recommendations ## Planning Report And Recommendations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Considerations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Written Representations We have received 9 private representations for this application. ### Consultations [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Policy ### Officer’s Report The site represents the curtilage of an as yet undeveloped plot situated in the development located to the north west of Fuchsia Grove and Birch Grove in the Silverburn Estate and south west of Silverburn Drive. The new development was approved after a long and controversial planning history, under PA 02/0712 on appeal. In his report, the Inspector made various comments including "In all of these circumstances I cannot accept that there have been any matters raised that would constitute reasonable grounds upon which to resist the current proposals on access or highway grounds. Indeed the witness for the DOT states that the proposals provided "perfect visibility". The suggested conditions would ensure that the access and layout are carried out in a satisfactory manner". He also commented that "Those changes did include the ability to provide protection from flooding in the past. That provision is more than the applicants are required to provide in a planning scheme. It would be unreasonable for example to expect a developer to try to remedy an existing deficiency in flood protection. However, I have assessed the scheme to see if it would make matters worse for existing residents as that would be a proper reason for opposing any scheme". He goes on to say that he is satisfied from the evidence that he had received that "the proposed flood alleviation scheme would not make matters worse for properties upstream or downstream. It could improve the situation for some properties." He also urges DOT to quickly prepare a scheme for the protection of properties downstream, regardless of the application proposal although it may be beneficial for these works to be undertaken at the same time as those in respect of the application proposal. He states that it is essential that the flood protection measures are regularly maintained. He clarifies that the Land Drainage Act needs to be satisfied separate from the planning procedure. With respect to the houses themselves, the Inspector commented that "provided that the height of the dwellings was not excessive and did still retain the appearance of single storey structure as well as there being no overlooking of existing dwellings", he saw no harm in amenity or visual terms. He goes on to state "I can see little wrong with the principle of including dormer windows providing they do not face existing dwellings or cause the height of the new buildings to become excessive" and recommended a condition which reads "The proposed dwellings shall generally be of a single storey height. Any dormer windows constructed shall not be in those elevations facing existing dwellings around the site in a manner that would cause overlooking and loss of privacy or result in the height of the new dwellings to become excessive". There were a number of suspensive conditions which require things to be undertaken prior to works commencing on site. These were: 5) diversion of the existing public sewers must be agreed with DoT 6) the main river designation of Silverburn River pursuant to the Land Drainage Acts has been extended to incorporate the flood alleviation and mitigation measures shown on URS Drawings 47445-006-787 Figures 5, 6, 7, 8 and 11... 7) prior to the commencement of any building works, following the clearance of the site, the bund, flood protection wall and flood alleviation and mitigation measures specified in conditions 2 and 6 must be constructed on site... 8) no other works may be commenced on site until the estate road junction with the A7 adopted highway including visibility splays where required has been set out and established... 9) no dwelling on the site may be occupied until the estate road has been constructed to at least base course level and adequately lit... 10) Before each dwelling is occupied the proposed vehicle parking facilities shall be provided... 11) no works may commence upon the penultimate dwelling until the estate road has been completed... 14) Prior to the commencement of works on site, including site clearance, those existing trees on site whose removal is not authorised by this approval must be adequately protected against damage during the course of construction... 16) No development may commence until there has been approved by the PC a scheme of landscaping... 18) Prior to the commencement of development, the applicant/developer shall convene a site meeting with the contractor and relevant officers of the DLGE and other Government Departments to agree how the works are to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and conditions. 19) Prior to the commencement of any building works, further details including where appropriate the precise location, construction, elevational and cross sectional details of the proposed floor (flood_) protection bund and wall and surface water attentuation tank must be submitted for approval by the PC. No information has been provided to clarify where any of these matters are up to and whether any have been addressed. The various objections from local residents and the local authority are on the basis of prematurity - the above conditions have not been satisfied, the inclusion of dormer windows and the style and size of the proposed dwellings. The dwelling proposed here sits on the same footprint as that shown in approved drawing 0210/PL01 H. No details of the elevational treatment of the dwellings were included in the plans considered for the previous application. The size of the dwellings in terms of footprint cannot be at issue as the plans are the same as those approved previously. The bungalow is single storey but with a roof pitched at 35 degrees which is not excessive. The rear and front of the roof is hipped to further reduce its impact. There are roof lights in both pitches and it is possible to have accommodation in the roofspace although there is no staircase and little room on the ground floor for such a facility. I can see no reason to withhold permission on the basis of the plans proposed other than the timing and the absence of the plans and agreements required in PA 02/0712. Defer for clarification on these matters. I have received views from the applicant as well as the Attorney General who advises that there are no grounds of prematurity based upon the matters reserved under the previous application which would justify refusal of any of the applications. As such I would recommend that the applications (this and PA 04/1675 and 1661) are considered and approved, reiterating the suspensive conditions applied to PA 02/0712. It may be suggested that the consideration of individual applications represents a piecemeal and unphaed approach to the development of the site, there were no conditions of the previous application which required the submission of one application for all of the plots or any particular phasing or order of development. As the applications submitted to date are identical to the footprints shown in the approved application it could also be reasonable to be able to assess each application as not prejudicing the next in terms of overlooking, overshadowing etc without seeing the application for the next plot. ### Recommendation Recommended Decision : Permitted Date of Recommendation : 18.10.2004 ### 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 Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ... --- *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/76675-malew-plot-2-dwelling/documents/1421674*