DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 20/00779/MCH Applicant: Mr John & Mrs Anne Lee Proposal: Minor changes application to PA18/01279/B involving change to gate design and material Site Address: Crofton Mews The Crofts Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1LW Head of Development Management: Mr S Butler Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.08.2020 _________________________________________________________________ Notes for Approval The applied for amendment to the gate is hereby approved. ## Plans/Drawings/Information;

This decision relates to the site plan and drawings no. 2 and 2A, all received 27.07.20. _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

|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 other application|Yes| |Must relate to a grant of planning approval in respect of a building|21/2)(a)|Approval relates to alteration to wall and gate, which are building<br><br>operations (18/01279/B, for the Removal of part wall to widen existing vehicular access (in association with 18/01282/CON)|Yes| |Must specify what minor changes are being sought and why the applicant considers them to be of a minor nature|21(2)(b)|Application form and plans – replacement of solid gates with metal gates.|Yes|

|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 change|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)|The width of the access and height of the wall are unchanged. The gate would open sideways (sliding) rather than inwards, and there would be some level of visibility through it (rather than the previously approved solid gates). On balance no material no change to as approved.|Yes| |Cannot alter the conditions (if any) which have been imposed|21(2)(c)(v)|No conditions other than 4 years commencement|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)|Approved 24th January 2019|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)|Proposal will still have gates in same place, size of access unchanged. Visually will be different and will allow some|Yes|

| | |visibility through, but such changes are not considered to go beyond what may be possible as a MCH in this case.| | |---|---|---|---| |Must not significantly change the nature of the development in question|23(1)(b)|The wall to be removed is the same, the width of the access to be created is the same, the gates still do not open outwards and the visibility over/through is no worse. The material/design of the gates is different, but on balance considered not significant change to the nature of the proposal overall.|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)|No concerns – if anything slight improvement in terms of both safety and visual appearance|Yes| |Must 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)|23(1)(d)|No concerns|Yes| |Must not be more than minor and to be of a magnitude to warrant a new application|23(1)(e)|See above|Yes| |Must not otherwise fundamentally change the basis on which the grant was originally made.|23(1)(e)|See above|Yes| |If it does not do any of the above, must then be considered. – is the application considered acceptable?|23(2)|Yes - See above|Yes| |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)|All|All| |For any elements refused, the reasons for that.|24(2)(b)|N/A|N/A|

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 : Permitted Date : Determining officer

Signed : J CHANCE Jennifer Chance Director of Planning

and Building Control

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of theassessment and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.