Loading document...
Application No.: 18/00439/B Applicant: Mr Richard & Mrs Julia Skillan Proposal: Alterations and additions to property including replacement roof to main house and conservatory, construction of larger porch, creation of larger bay window to rear, replacement of existing garage with new garage and shed, and construction of new boundary wall and gates. Site Address: Eastleigh Crescent Road Ramsey Isle of Man IM8 2JR Planning Officer: Mr Owen Gore Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 23.10.2018 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
This planning permission relates to the following plans and documents: Site and Location Plan
Highway Visibility Splay Diagram Date-stamped as having been received 04 June 2018 Drg. No:01 - Site Plans Rev 'A' Date-stamped as having been received 03 August 2018 _______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE SITE
1.1 The application site is a bungalow dwelling within a residential area, to the south of Ramsey. The area is characterised by properties set back from the highway with generous front gardens and a number of properties have low walls with hedges. - 1.2 The application site currently has an existing approx. 1m tall wall with a large hedge behind for the majority of the front boundary. There is a large street tree in front of the property. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The proposal is for the alteration of the property including the replacement of the roof to the main house and conservatory; construction of a larger porch; creation of a larger bay window to the rear; replacement of the existing garage with a new garage and shed; and construction of a new boundary wall and gates. PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site is shown on the Ramsey Local Plan Order 1998 map No.2 as being within the local plan area and the property is designated within an Area of Predominantly Residential Use. General Policy 2 applies to proposals that are in accordance with the land-use zoning and states that development will normally be permitted where it: -
3.2 Within chapter 8 of the Strategic Plan, paragraph 8.12.1, in relation to extensions to Dwellings in built up areas or sites designated for residential use, it states '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'.
4.1 The previous planning applications are not considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application.
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners have commented on this application and stated that they do not object, in the letters dated 17 May 2018 and 20 September 2018.
5.2 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they oppose in the letter dated 23 May 2018. The comments continue: -
'The existing boundary wall with hedge above it would be replaced by a new boundary wall typically 1.8m in height. This is above the 1.05m maximum height in current design standards to allow sufficient highway visibility for motorists exiting the site onto the adjacent public highway. The proposed wall should therefore be reduced in height to a maximum of 1.05m to comply with current visibility standards'.
5.3 Following negotiations with the applicant's agent, an amended plan was submitted with an amended wall height of 1.5m, which highways have also objected to as it still does not comply with the abovementioned standards. - 5.4 The DEFA forestry team commented on this application, in the email dated 12 September
'…I agree that this is a significant street tree with some amenity value but I can also see that the tree has several pockets of decay in the main stem around old pruning wounds. Given that this image was captured in 2010, I wonder what the extent of the decay/condition of the tree is now. There would be no point going to a lot of effort and expense to prevent damage to a tree that may be deemed unsafe in a years' time (or whenever it is next surveyed). I realise that the tree is in the highway but if it were surveyed and found not to warrant specialist measures then the highway authority could be informed. If this were the case I would be happy for them to proceed without further information. So a survey of the tree should be the first step.
From the description below it sounds like they have good intentions for the tree but it is more likely to have a successful outcome if they have input from an arboriculturist during the design and implementation. For this reason, if the tree is found to have a reasonable 'safe useful life expectancy' (step 1), a method statement should be a requirement, as the next step of the process'.
5.5 Follow up comments were made in the email dated 17 October 2018; these comments state: -
'Following discussions with Mr Skillan and Mr Brooker, I think the email [additional submitted details] below is sufficient in this instance. It's difficult to know where the roots are in advance of the works starting and the exact specification of the bridging that may be required cannot be stated until they know the dimensions and position of the root they are trying to protect (if
it's even required) I'm not even sure how you could form an enforceable condition to guarantee that roots are bridged in an acceptable manor'.
ASSESSMENT Character and appearance
6.1 The area is characterised by properties set back from the highway with generous front gardens; a number of properties on the same side of Crescent Road have low walls with hedges behind them that offer some privacy to these areas. The originally submitted application include a 1.8m tall boundary wall the entire length of the site; however, following negotiation the it was agreed that this wall should be lowered to 1.5m with the new pillars and capping stones replicating the existing pillars on either side of the entrance leading to the front door.
6.2 The proposed increase in the height of the wall is regrettable; however it is noted that the change in the ground level, which falls to the north, is noticeable and the staggering of neighbouring walls gives a false impression of heights. The immediate neighbour 'Glen Hazel' has altered their boundary wall, smoothing the features and erecting a small fence on top of the wall; however there doesn't appear to be any reference to this in any the planning history for the site and it is not clear if this has been granted permission by this department. Other properties, some of which are older 1930's properties, have staggered walls at approx. 1.5m high, further up the street to the north of the site. - 6.3 The proposed extensions, the replacement garage and re-covering the conservatory roof are considered to be acceptable. The proposal would not unacceptably harm the characteristics of the existing building or the character of its surroundings. Impact on neighbours - 6.4 The proposed development would not result in a significant adverse impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents. Trees - 6.5 The proposal includes the rebuilding of the front boundary wall; in front of the site and the wall, there is a large street tree. The existing boundary wall is required to be taken down to ground level and the new wall built up off the existing wall so that it will be structurally stable and uniform. However, the roots of the adjacent street tree are disrupting the existing wall and the applicant has proposed to carry out some localised work to the wall foundations in these areas. They have stated that it may be possible to install concrete lintels at ground level to carry the wall over the tree roots as they are encountered. - 6.6 Following discussions with the DEFA forestry team, the applicants were advised to seek the advice of an arboriculturist; the applicant's arboriculturist in turn advised that a method of works to be undertaken regarding this wall/tree. The applicant has stated in their email dated 16 October 2018 that it is their intention to undertake the work by hand, using hand tools only. Following the demolition of the existing part of the wall to ground level, trail pits will be dug by hand to identify whether any roots with a diameter greater than 25mm are present at the location. If such roots are found then the new footing will be formed in such a way that the roots are bridged and not damaged; If no roots are found then a traditional footing will be used. - 6.7 The DEFA Forestry team have accepted this approach. Parking and highway safety - 6.8 The highway team have objected on the basis that the proposed wall will reduce visibility and that it should be lowered to 1.05m. The applicant has provided a sketch illustrating the driver's seating position at 2.4 metres from the edge of the road; they have stated that: -
7.1 The proposal is considered acceptable in accordance with the designation within the Local Area Plan and the appropriate policies within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. 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:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 01.11.2018 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
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
