DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 21/00175/MCH Applicant: JM Project Management Ltd Proposal: Minor changes application to PA 17/00852/B involving alterations to retail unit, car parking, cladding, and retaining walls Site Address: Crosby Meadows Estate Ballaglonney Main Road Crosby IM4 2EE Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Split Decision Date of Recommendation: 31.03.2021 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval

• N : Notes attached to conditions APPROVED The following changes are considered to be minor and accepted:

• o Addition of ramp access to the east side of the Costa unit adjacent to the footpath
• o The increase in Tree numbers to the front of the site from 8 to 11.
• o The erection of retaining wall to the rear of plots 22 to 28 and 17 to 21.
• o The amendment of the foul water drainage to discharge into the sewage treatment works. Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the Covering Letter, and drawings 16/2576/15E, 16/2576/105F,

- 16/2576/105K, 16/2576/64B, 16/2576/27K, 16/2576/306A, 16/2576/15W, 16/2576/27C,

• 16/2576/900E, 16/2576/300D, 16/2576/300A, and 16/2576/81C all received on 22nd March 2021; and Letter received 27th March, 2021.

REFUSED All the other works are not considered to be minor and as such are refused. They include:

• o The works to alter the external elevation of the retail building, extension of canopy and the addition of balustrade;
• o The installation of the ATM on the front elevation of the retail building;

• o The changes to the parking layout to add 5 more parking spaces and remove turning area;
• o The erection of wall to form the side boundary to plots 22 and 17;
• o The erection of detached garage on plot 15;
• o The creation of a balancing pond in lieu of an underground attenuation system;
• o Altering the drainage scheme that was originally shown discharging directly into the River Dhoo; and
• o Construction of drainage ditch to the periphery of the site.

Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal

• O : Notes attached to reasons

• R 1. Approval is sought to make changes to the elevations of the retail building; majority of which have already been implemented and as such would fail to pass for a minor change application given that they have been completed. Overall, it may be that the net impact of some of these changes on the site and surrounding area is reduced, however this would be a balanced judgement and certainly the impact on the area would be materially different. Overall, it is therefore considered that given the nature/level of change, these should be assessed by way of full planning application and exceed the level of change that should be dealt with through a Minor Change Application.
• R 2. The proposed erection of a double garage on plot 15 is in itself a departure from the approved scheme as it would introduce to the site a building without any supporting plans and information to effectively determine its impact and whether it was acceptable: if it would pass as permitted development then it would not need planning approval. This, added to the creation of a balancing pond in lieu of an underground attenuation system, the erection of the wall on the boundary of the landscaped area between plots 17 and 22 (which rises to over 2m on some sections), together with the alteration of the parking area by the retail building to remove a turning area and add five more parking spaces would cumulatively change the character and appearance of the site, in addition to altering the associated impacts and as such are not considered to be minor when compared with the approved scheme, and are a departure from some of the conditions upon which the original application was approved contrary to 23(1)a, b, d and e. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

n/a _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report INTRODUCTION

The following application is to be assessed against the criteria set out in Part 3 - Minor Changes Applications of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 specifically Articles 21, 22, 23 and 24.

BASIS OF APPLICATION

• 21(1) This is the only minor changes application that has been made in respect of any particular grant of planning approval.

• - PASS - relates to 17/00852/B. Whilst the overall site has been the subject of more than one application, the site has not been the subject of any previous MCH applications.

• 21(2)(a) The Minor Change Application relates to the grant of planning approval in respect of a building

• - PASS - relates to alterations to retail unit, car parking, cladding, layout of site and drainage management

• 21(2)(b) The application specifies what minor changes are being sought

• - PASS - the covering letter specifies that the application proposes:
• - Retail Unit:

• a) Omission of the roller shutter door to the service yard of the retail unit.
• b) The extent of Manx stone wall to the frontage of the retail unit has been increased.
• c) An ATM has been added to the frontage of the retail unit.
• d) The entrance doors have been relocated to the Co-op unit.
• e) The double entrance doors on the Costa unit has been amended to a single door.
• f) The door initially indicated at first floor level has been moved to the end east elevation.
• g) A balustrade has been added to the entrance canopy at first floor level.
• h) A stone wall and ramp access has been added to the east side of the Costa unit adjacent to the footpath with a metal balustrade on the wall 1100mm in height.
• i) The car parking layout has been amended to accommodate more cars.
• j) Tree numbers to the front of the site has been increased from 8 to 11.
• k) The cladding to end east elevation has changed to aluminium in anthracite grey.

• - Landscaping:

• a) A retaining wall has been added to the rear of plots 22 to 28 and 17 to 21 with a hedge included between the fence and retaining wall. The hedge was previously included in the landscape proposals.
• b) A wall has been added to the boundary of the landscaped area between plots 17 and

1. The landscaping is unaffected.

• General items:

• a) A 6 x 6m garage has been added to plot 15.
• b) A balancing pond has been added in lieu of underground water storage.
• c) The surface water is to be discharged into the Curraghs area in lieu of directly into the River Dhoo as agreed with the MUA.
• d) A drainage ditch has been constructed to the periphery of the site to accommodate direct water runoff and divert the water from the front of the site. This was agreed with the MUA when constructed. This has added benefit of not discharging water into the stream at the bridge on the main road thereby reducing the amount of water coming down the stream in times of peak rainfall.
• e) The foul water drainage has been amended to discharge into the sewage treatment works when the upgrade is undertaken. This part of the work has been agreed with the MUA but not yet fully completed.

• 21(2)(b) The application specifies why the applicant considers the minor changes to be of a minor nature

• - PASS - set out in a letter; the applicant explains that:
• - The omission of the roller shutter door is an improvement to the scheme and has less impact on the neighbouring properties than the personnel door that has replaced it.
• - The additional stone has little overall impact and does not detract from the visual aspects of the elevation. The previous approved glazing is reduced in extent.
• - The ATM was added at the request of the Co-operative Society who are to be the tenants of the unit. This is a facility for the public and will be a very useful addition for the community.

• - The doors are of glass and have little visual impact being relocated. This amendment was to facilitate the layout of the shop internally and could not have been envisaged at the initial design stage as the tenant was not in place at the time.
• - Costa does not require a double door and the door is glass and so the impact would be negligible.
• - The door initially indicated at first floor level and now moved to the end east elevation is for access to the area forming the canopy and was obstructed to the front elevation by structural bracing. The door is glass and is visually unobtrusive.
• - The entrance canopy is to be used for maintenance and repair of the glass façade. Under the CDM Regulations a guard or protection must be fitted to allow access.
• - The stone wall is approximately 900mm in height and will have a balustrade over to protect from falling. This area was not fully detailed at the design stage and is merely design development. The balustrade is to protect from falling, especially children with stream being adjacent.
• - It became apparent when laid out that there was a better solution to the car parking and there is no additional tarmac involved.
• - Additional trees were planted which is an improvement to the visual amenity.
• - The finish is better quality and marries with the under cladding of the canopy to create a more harmonious appearance.
• - Retaining wall ranges from 800mm to 1.5m at the highest point and forms the rear wall to plots 17 to 21. The wall was constructed to level the rear gardens of plots 22 to 28. The approved landscaping scheme shows a hedge to the rear of these gardens and there is a hedge planted between the retaining wall at the high level and the garden fence. This still complies with the landscaping condition and wall is not above 1.5m in height therefore would be within permitted development rights.
• - The wall forms the side boundary to plots 22 and 17 and is bounded by a landscaped area in accordance with the Landscape condition. This wall is not higher than 1.8m and is set back from the road and therefore is within permitted development rights. It is better than a fence in our opinion aesthetically.
• - The detached garage is a standard garage and would normally be within permitted development rights.
• - The balancing pond is in lieu of an underground attenuation system. It also allows for a greater capacity and therefore is a better option than a fixed underground system. It has also been agreed with MUA Drainage Department as part of the surface water works for the site as a whole.
• - The pipe that was originally shown discharging directly into the River Dhoo has been omitted and the scheme is a better environmental solution as it does not drain the Curraghs area and enhances it instead.
• - The drainage ditch is covered under the section 8 drainage and diverts water that originally ran into a ditch to the side of the Peel Road.
• - The foul water drainage hat has been amended to discharge into the sewage treatment works was a condition that the foul sewer be connected to the sewage treatment works. I have added it here for completeness as it is a requirement of the planning consent that it is connected. The scheme shows the route to Old church Road.

• 21(2)(c)(i) The Minor Change Application does not increase the number of dwellings or buildings for which planning approval has been granted

• - FAIL - It increases the number of buildings as approval was not granted for the proposed garage which would be difficult to assess for permitted development given there are no plans to enable proper assessment of its suitability for the site and possible impacts.

• 21(2)(c)(ii)The Minor Change Application does not increase the net external footprint of a building for which planning approval has been granted

• - PASS - No change to external footprint of buildings granted approval under PA

- 17/00852/B.

• 21(2)(c)(iii) The Minor Change Application does not alter the site for which planning approval has been granted and which was defined by a red line on the site location map by changing that line

• PASS - no change to site

• 21(2)(c)(iv) The Minor Change Application does not make material changes to the vehicular access arrangements for which planning approval has been granted

• PASS - no change

• 21(2)(c)(v) The Minor Change Application does not alter the conditions (if any) which have been imposed

• FAIL. The parent application, 17/00852/B was subject, inter alia to conditions which read: C5: Prior to any work to create ditches or pipework in the area between the Heritage Trail and the River Dhoo, a construction method statement must be submitted to and approved by the Department to demonstrate that these works will be undertaken in such a way as to avoid damage to an area of ecological value and the works must be carried out in accordance with these details.

Reason: To accord with Environment Policies 4 and 7 of the Strategic Plan.

The works to alter the drainage details approved under PA 17/00852/B in the form of altering the pipe that was originally shown discharging directly into the River Dhoo, and the creation of a drainage ditch to divert water that originally ran into a ditch to the side of the Peel Road were required to be guided by a Construction Method Statement to be approved by the Department. Any change to these works would be in violation of Condition 5 and the approved construction method statement.

C14: The retail building must be erected, laid out and used as shown in drawing 16/2576/105F received on 20th November, 2018. In particular, the two units must be arranged as shown and may not be combined or merged, and there may be no additional floor space introduced either through the introduction of mezzanine flooring or other means.

Reason: The proposal as approved represents less than 500 sqm of retail floor space which would not require a Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) to demonstrate that it would not have an adverse impact on the viability and vitality of the town centres; any increase in floor area would be in excess of this and no RIA has been provided.

The proposed external changes to the retail building such as the increase in the extent of Manx stone wall to the frontage of the retail unit; the addition of the ATM to the frontage; the relocation of the entrance door to the Co-op unit; the replacement of the double entrance door with a single door on the Costa unit; and the changing of the cladding on the east elevation to aluminium in anthracite grey would be at variance with the elements of Condition 14 which required that the retail building must be erected, laid out … as shown in drawing 16/2576/105F received on 20th November, 2018. An additional floor area of 94sqm, added to the first floor of the smaller retail unit (from which access to the canopy is gained), would also be contrary to Condition 14.

• 21(2)(d)The Minor Change Application is not be made where the parent approval is less than

• 21 days old, subject to an undetermined appeal or has expired

• - PASS - original application approved 7th January 2019. APPLICATION CONTENT

• 22(3)(a) Application Form

• - PASS - provided

• 22(3)(a&c) The information in Schedule 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 has been provided:

• o Site location plan (with red/blue lines)
• o The planning approval that is the subject of the application
• o Explanation of changes being applied for and reasons why
• o drawings of the proposed minor changes with buildings and structures amended to indicate the changes
• o Flood risk assessment is not necessary in this case

• - PASS - provided

• 22(3)(b) Provision of other documents specified on form but not in Schedule 1

• - PASS - No other documents provided

• 22(3)(4) Fee

• - PASS - Dealt with at submission

• 22(6) Such further info as Department may request prior to determination (has anything further been requested and provided?

• PASS - requested and provided DETERMINATION

• 23(1)(a) The Minor Change does not significantly increase the size or scale of the development in question

• - FAIL - does increase scale of development. The erection of the detached garage, although should fall within permitted development, is not supported by any plan that shows the actual position of the garage or height and as such it would be difficult to ascertain if it passes for permitted development. Thus, it is considered the this element of the scheme has the potential to increase the scale of the development beyond that which was approved given that no provision was made for the garage in the approved scheme; so it was not assessed. The erection of the wall which rises to over 2m on some sections of the boundary with plots 17 and 22 would further increase the scale of the scheme beyond the approval granted under PA 17/00852/B. As well, the balancing pond to be erected in lieu of an underground attenuation system would also increase the scale of the scheme beyond that which was approved.

• 23(1)(b) The Minor Change does not significantly change the nature of the development in question

• FAIL - nature of original development has changed considerably as noted below:

• i. The addition of a 34m fence that rises to over 2m at some sections would considerably alter the appearance of this section of the site and as such is considered to change the nature of the approved development.
• ii. A new garage measuring 6m x 6m (36 sqm. footprint) added to plot 15 would be a significant change to the plot. Whilst its footprint would pass for permitted development, there is no plan to show its location or information to state its height. As such, it would be difficult to determine if it would pass for permitted development or ascertain its impacts on the area.
• iii. The addition of five new parking spaces to the retail parking layout would add five more parking spaces to the site area, increasing the number of vehicles the car park can accommodate and alter the layout of the park, removing a large turning area and as such cannot be classed as a minor change.

• iv. The installation of an ATM to the frontage of the retail unit is not a minor change as the installation of ATM's are assessed as full planning applications considering their impact on a building and area would usually be assessed to determine if they are acceptable or not.
• v. The balancing pond in lieu of an underground attenuation system would change the nature of the scheme approved.

• 23(1)(c) The Minor Change does not result in an approval which, at the time of approval, complied with a Development Plan, National Policy Directive or a Planning Policy Statement, ceasing to do so

• - PASS - remains compliant

• 23(1)(d) The Minor Change does not result in new or increased adverse impacts on adjoining or neighbouring properties having a significant or disproportionate impact on the environment (irrespective of whether such impacts might be outweighed by other considerations)

• FAIL - there will be new impacts compared with the parent approval. The extension of the entrance canopy with balustrade over at first floor level will introduce some level of overlooking to the rear garden of Plot 28 seeing the end of the balustrade would be 18.6m from the rear boundary wall to this property and would offer views at 3.3m above ground level into parts of the neighbouring rear garden.

• 23(1)(e) The Minor Change is more than minor and some elements could be considered to be of a magnitude to warrant a new application

• - FAIL - a considerable number of the elements of the amended scheme are not considered minor

• 23(1)(e)The Minor Change does not otherwise fundamentally change the basis on which the grant was originally made.

• FAIL - basis of original approval is changed through significant alterations to the building elevations; particularly the front elevation via the increase in the length of the canopy from 15.3m to 20.4m and the addition of 1100mm high steel & glass balustrade, the increase in the area of Manx stone to facade and installation of the ATM.

• 23(2) If it does not do any of the above, must then be considered. - is the application considered acceptable?

• FAIL - unacceptable NOTICE OF DECISION

• 24(2)(a) Set out whether all or some of the changes are accepted

• - Some of the changes are accepted. They include:

• o Addition of ramp access to the east side of the Costa unit adjacent to the footpath
• o The increase in Tree numbers to the front of the site from 8 to 11.
• o The erection of retaining wall to the rear of plots 22 to 28 and 17 to 21.
• o The amendment of the foul water drainage to discharge into the sewage treatment works.

• - All the other works are not considered to be minor.

• 24(2)(b) Set out whether any elements are refused, the reasons for that.

• As per report 21(2)(c)(i)(v); (23(1)(a)(b), (d) and (e)) _____________________________________________________________________

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Split Decision Date: 01.04.2021 Determining officer

Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Principal Planner

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 onlineservices/customers and archive records.