Loading document...
Application No.: 20/00593/MCH Applicant: Mr Dan Jespersen Proposal: Minor changes application for PA 18/00266/B involving the addition of two columns to support first floor balcony and changes to balustrading Site Address: Waverley Spaldrick Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6PD Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 17.07.2020 _________________________________________________________________ Notes for Approval Approval is sought to add two columns to the balcony and to have a stone balustrade rather than modern SS and glass balustrading. These would be in a prominent position on the front elevation of the building. The value of the row of properties is in part due to the matching details. The previous approval alters this in relation to the glass balcony. The proposed stone balcony arguably blends in more, and so is a potentially reduced impact. The introduction of pillars is an additional and potentially negative impact. Overall it may be that the net impact of the proposal on the streetscene (and proposed Conservation Area) is reduced, however this would be a balanced judgement and certainly the impact on the area would be materially different. On balance it is therefore considered that given the nature/level of change, it should be assessed by way of full planning application. ### Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to application form, drawing 17/2646/05, 2004/PL1000, 2004/PL1001 Rev A date stamped as having been received 21.06.20 _____________________________________________________________________________
|Requirement|Source|Analysis|Pass| |---|---|---|---| |Basis of Application|Basis of Application|Basis of Application|Basis of Application| |Only one minor changes application may be made in respect of any particular grant of planning approval.|21(1)|No previous|Yes| |Must relate to a grant of planning approval in respect of a building|21/2)(a)|PA 18/00266/B Conversion of former guest house to create a residential dwelling|Yes| |Must specify what minor changes are being sought and why the|21(2)(b)|Set out on application form and plan - Approval is sought to add two|Yes|
|applicant considers them to be of a minor nature| |columns to the balcony and to have a stone balustrade rather than modern SS and glass balustrading.| | |---|---|---|---| |Cannot increase the number of dwellings or buildings for which planning approval has been granted|21(2)(c)(i)|No change|Yes| |Cannot increase the net external footprint of a building for which planning approval has been granted|21(2)(c)(ii)|No concerns|Yes| |Cannot 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|21(2)(c)(iii)|No change|Yes| |Cannot make material changes to the vehicular access arrangements for which planning approval has been granted|21(2)(c)(iv)|No change|Yes| |Cannot alter the conditions (if any) which have been imposed|21(2)(c)(v)|No change|Yes| |Cannot be made where the parent approval is less than 21 days old, subject to an undetermined appeal or has expired|21(2)(d)|No concerns|Yes| |Requirement|Source|Analysis|Pass| |Application Content|Application Content|Application Content|Application Content| |Application Form|22(3)(a)|Provided|Yes| |Information in Schedule 1:<br><br> Site location plan (including flood risk assessment)<br> The planning approval that is the subject of the application<br> The changes to that approval which are being applied for<br> An explanation as to why those changes are being applied for;<br> (if relevant) the site plan, and the plans, elevations and sections of the proposed buildings and structures amended to indicate the changes.<br>|22(3)(a&c)|Provided|Yes| |Document specified on form but not in Schedule 1|22(3)(b)|N/A|Yes| |Fee|22(3)(4)|Provided|Yes| |Such further info as Department may request prior to determination|22(6)|N/A|Yes| |Requirement|Source|Analysis|Pass| |Determination|Determination|Determination|Determination| |Must not significantly increase the size or scale of the development in question|23(1)(a)|No concerns|Yes| |Must not significantly change the nature of the development in question|23(1)(b)|Overall the proposal is still for conversion and provision of balcony, so broadly acceptable – although some concerns (see below)|Yes|
|Requirement|Source|Analysis|Pass| |---|---|---|---| |Must 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|23(1)(c)|Officer’s report for original application stated,<br><br>“The works will generally renovate the property, reinstating much of the original features such as the sliding sashes. Those works which bring new elements to the property - the balcony, rooflights, changed gable window and removal of the rear annex will have little visual impact due to their position, the first floor balcony having the most impact. However, given the glazed screen and the angled nature of it, this is not considered to be objectionable”.<br><br>Approval is sought to add two columns to the balcony and to have a stone balustrade rather than modern SS and glass balustrading. These would be in a prominent position on the front elevation of the building. The value of the row of properties is in part due to the matching details. The previous approval alters this in relation to the glass balcony. The proposed stone balcony arguably blends in more, and so is a potentially reduced impact. The introduction of pillars is an additional and potentially negative impact. Overall it may be that the net impact of the proposal on the streetscene (and proposed Conservation Area) is reduced, however this would be a balanced judgement and certainly the impact on the area would be materially different. On balance it is therefore considered that given the nature/level of change, it should be assessed by way of full planning application.<br><br>Discussion with the Registered Buildings Officer (17.07.20) indicate that the approved scheme does impact on the symmetry of the buildings, and proposed revised design for the balcony may in itself be preferable. However, the columns are a negative element and so the impact would be materially different.|No| |Must not result in new or increased adverse impacts on adjoining or neighbouring properties having a significant or disproportionate impact on the environment|23(1)(d)|See above|No|
|(irrespective of whether such impacts might be outweighed by other considerations)| | | | |---|---|---|---| |Must not be more than minor and to be of a magnitude to warrant a new application|23(1)(e)|See above|No| |Must not otherwise fundamentally change the basis on which the grant was originally made.|23(1)(e)|See above|No| |If it does not do any of the above, must then be considered. – is the application considered acceptable?|23(2)|See above|No| |Notice of Decision|Notice of Decision|Notice of Decision|Notice of Decision| |Set out whether all, some or no changes are accepted (And which is which)|24(2)(a)|Application is refused|Application is refused| |For any elements refused, the reasons for that.|24(2)(b)|As per report (23(1)(c))|As per report (23(1)(c))|
See on-line _____________________________________________________________________
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Director of Planning and Building Control in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date : Determining officer Signed : J CHANCE Jennifer Chance Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
