Loading document...
Application No.: 19/00234/B Applicant: Mr Richard & Mrs Julia Skillan Proposal: Alterations and erection of extensions (amendments to PA 18/00439/B) Site Address: Eastleigh Crescent Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 2JR Planning Officer: Mr Owen Gore Photo Taken: 30.10.2018 Site Visit: 30.10.2018 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 21.05.2019 _________________________________________________________________
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.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This planning permission relates to the following plans and documents: -
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.
2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application follows on from the previous planning permission granted on the site ref: 18/00439/B. The previous development proposed to replace the roof to the main house and conservatory; construct a larger porch; create of a larger bay window to the rear; replace the existing garage with a new garage and shed; and construct of a new boundary wall and with new gates. - 2.2 The alterations to this previously approved proposal include reroofing as previously; however with the demolition of the conservatory and replacement with an extension; the construction of a larger porch (larger than previously approved); and create a larger rear bay window (again, larger than previously approved). - 2.3 It is understood that the replacement garage with a new garage and shed and the new boundary wall with new gates will remain as the previous proposed in planning permission ref:
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'.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY The previous planning permission 18/00439/B for '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'- APPROVED 01.11.2018, is considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application. - 5.0 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 letter dated 23 April 2019. - 5.2 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they oppose in the letter dated 22 April 2019. The comments continue: -
'As of previous 18/00439/B planning approval, Highways Services opposes the application on highways safety grounds as there would be inadequate highway visibility at the site access due to the 1.5m height of the front boundary wall being above 1.05m maximum height according to visibility standards'.
6.0 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 previous planning permission included the following section relating to the front boundary wall, which is considered to be applicable to the current application: -
'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.
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'.
6.2 This is still considered to be the case for the current proposal. - 6.3 The proposed extensions and the replacement garage are set back from the highway and do not detract from the existing dwelling; these are therefore considered to be acceptable. The proposal would not unacceptably harm the characteristics of the existing building or the character of its surroundings.
'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.
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.
The DEFA Forestry team have accepted this approach'.
6.6 This is still considered to be the case for the current proposal. 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. This has been previously accepted in the previous planning permission granted on the site. The below sections were included in the officer's report and are considered to be applicable: - - 6.9 The on-site parking provision is adequate and complies with the standards set out in Appendix 7 - Parking Standards. In terms of the wall height, in proposing to remove and rebuild the wall, the applicant is proposing to set the gate posts back from the existing location to provide a 2.4m clearance between the edge of the site and the edge of the carriageway. The site has an existing, lower 1m wall to the front of the property; however it has a large hedge which prohibits views over the wall. The road is generally narrow, typical of a residential area and has a low speed; therefore on balance the height of the wall seems reasonable in this case. - 6.10 This is still considered to be the case for the current proposal.
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. - 8.0 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:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
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 a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 23.05.2019 Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
