Planning Committee Agenda Item

Planning Application For Alterations And Extensions To Dwelling (Comprising Amendments To Pa09/00245/B) Fern Glen Cotage, Glen Auldyn, Lezayre 1. The Planning Office received on 30th January, 2012 an application which proposes amendments to an existing planning approval (09/00245/B) which sought approval for "alterations and extensions to dwelling, Fern Glen Cottage, Glen Auldyn, Lezayre". The new application proposes a new porch, window, sunroom, dormer window and rearranged parking layout. An additional area of land is also included as part of the application site to provide more space for parking. 2. PA 11/00471/B proposed amendments to 09/00245/B but was refused by the Planning Authority for the following reasons: R1. The proposed extensions and alterations would result in a substantial increase over the existing traditional property, which would in turn result in the loss of character, proportion and form of the existing traditional property, contrary to Housing Policy 15 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. R2. The proposed porch extension would preclude the provision of two acceptable off road parking spaces and therefore be detrimental to highway safety and contrary to the parking provisions of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. Additionally the submitted plans are inaccurate in that they illustrate two parking spaces being achievable whilst not showing a true layout of the site and surrounding area. 3. This decision was taken to appeal where the appointed inspector found that the only reason for refusal was that relating to the proposed parking. He considered all other aspects of the proposal to be acceptable. However, the decision of the Minister stated that he "has considered the report, concurs with the appointed person's conclusions, and accepts the recommendation that the appeal be dismissed". He then reiterates both of the original reasons for refusal of the Planning Authority. 4. The applicant has re-submitted the application taking into account the conclusions of the Inspector. Consequently, the application that has now been made is very similar to refused PA 11/00471/B with the exception of the revised parking arrangement. As such the Planning Committee could decline to consider the application. On the other hand, if regard is had to the Inspector's conclusions, this application makes amendments aimed at overcoming the only issue the Inspector found to be unacceptable – the parking. 5. On the basis that the applicant has addressed what the Inspector considered to be the determining issue, then it is recommended that the application be accepted for reconsideration. Steven Stanley Planning Officer