CABINET OFFICE Government Office Isle of Man IM1 3PN Direct Line (01624) 685280 Fax Number (01624) 685710 Email [email protected]
CHIEF SECRETARY Will Greenhow ACMA
19th February 2015
Planning Secretary Planning & Building Control Division Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas
RECEIVED ON 20 FEB 2015 DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE
Our Reference : DF14/0057
Dear Sir/Madam,
Town And Country Planning Act 1999
Town And Country Planning (Development Procedure)
(No2) ORDER 2013
PA Ref: 14/00335/B Applicant: Mrs Patricia Burgess Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling with associated parking Address: Land Adjacent To Cliff Cottage Back Shore Road Laxey Isle Of Man
I refer to the abovementioned planning application.
In accordance with the Article 10(9) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, I herewith give notice of the decision as follows.
On 12th February 2015, the Council of Ministers considered the recommendations of the Planning Inspector and determined to refuse the application for the reasons specified below.
CABINET OFFICE, Government Office, DOUGLAS, Isle of Man IM1 3PN Tel (01624) 685280. Email [email protected]
Although thoughtfully designed in itself, this detached dwelling inserted into the small gap available in the road frontage would appear contrived and harmfully uncharacteristic of the street scene and locality, within the Laxey Conservation Area, in conflict with General Policy 2 (b&c) and Environment Policies 35 and 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
The cumulative impact of the proposed dwelling would harm living conditions at Beach Cottage to an unreasonable degree, with particular regard to loss of natural light and potential outlook, in conflict with General Policy 2 (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
The potential future loss or substantial lopping of trees of public amenity value would conflict with the aims of Policy L/OSNC/PR/6 of The Laxey and Lonan Local Plan 2005 to a degree that adds some weight to the other reasons for refusal.
In accordance with Article 10(10)(c) of the Order, please be advised that the decision of the Council of Ministers is binding and final (subject to the possibility of judicial review by petition of doleance).
Yours faithfully,
A Johnstone Planning Appeals Administrator On behalf of the Chief Secretary
Application by Mrs Patricia Burgess for: Erection of a detached dwelling with associated parking, Land Adjacent to Cliff Cottage, Back Shore Road, Laxey.
Site Visit: Monday 19th January 2015 Inquiry: Wednesday 21st January 2015
Preamble
The application was referred to the Council of Ministers in accordance with Section 10(1)(b) of The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 because the proposal includes works to a public highway vested in the Department of Infrastructure. Following the inquiry, Mr & Mrs Taylor, neighbouring objectors, submitted photographs of the way their bedroom window hinges. As this further submission responded to an assertion by the Planning Case Officer at inquiry, I accepted it for circulation. No further responses were received.
This residential locality, traditional in character, is within the Laxey Conservation Area close to the coast. Back Shore Road is a minor highway, more a lane than a road, with the site on its western side. The land rises from the lane, increasingly so towards the rear where it becomes an embankment. It includes trees and other vegetation, subject to substantial pruning agreed to have been carried out shortly prior to the inquiry. The frontage is some 9.1 m, between the front corner of Beach Cottage to the south and an indicated boundary with the curtilage of Cliff Cottage to the north.
The facing side of Beach Cottage and most of its rear elevation directly abut the site. This dwelling sits at an angle and consequently the site initially narrows, to some 6.3 m at the cottage's rear corner, before widening behind its rear elevation. The ground floor is about 600 mm lower than the adjacent site. On the northern side, the main facing side of Cliff Cottage is just over 2.5 m from the indicated boundary with an enclosed entrance porch projecting to about 1.0 m away. The site widens rearwards of this cottage but only by a small amount and not tight to the building.
Beach Cottage has one ground floor window in its facing side elevation, obscure glazed as required by covenant and serving the end of the kitchen/dining area. The rear elevation directly bounding the site has two ground floor windows: that serving the kitchen area is obscure glazed below a clear glazed fanlight (and again subject to covenant); that serving a utility room is further from the proposed dwelling and clear glazed. Upstairs, similarly directly bounding the site, are a clear glazed bedroom window and a bathroom window obscure glazed by choice. Windows in the end elevation of Cliff Cottage are minor, with its main outlooks to front and back.
Back Shore Road has no footways (pavements) but this length has a grass bank, rising from the carriageway to a stone wall running along the frontage between the neighbouring dwellings. As initially submitted the scheme proposed a layby set into the site. Amongst other amendments, it now proposes instead to cut away the highway bank to create increased opportunity for on-street parking.
The proposed single bedroom dwelling, some 4.8 m wide, would sit between Beach Cottage and Cliff Cottage. Its forward part would be two storey (extending into the roof-space) and some 5.4 m deep, with a full width single storey rear outrigger some 3.65 m deep. No windows are proposed on the south elevation. The northern would have two roof-lights on the outrigger and a ground floor side window serving an open plan kitchen/dining area. This space would also have a front window and some 'borrowed' light from the outrigger living room rear patio windows. Beach Cottage would be just over 1.0 m away at its own rear corner; the Cliff Cottage boundary would be just less than 0.5 m away.
PA 01/00088/B refused an application in principle¹ for one dwelling on the site, supported by an indicative siting, for following reasons:
1) The proposed development as indicated in the submitted drawing would represent backland development which would be uncomfortably close – in terms of the distances between front and rear elevations – to both Beach Cottage and Cliff Cottage. In addition, the additional traffic which would be generated by the new dwelling and the proximity of the adjacent properties would cause inconvenience and unneighbourliness.
2) If the new dwelling were brought forward to line up with the existing roadside development, this would obstruct vehicular access into the site for both the new dwelling and the existing, in an area with limited on-street parking opportunities, and narrow road widths.
Gist of the Representations
Planning Authority: there is no policy objection to a new dwelling in this locality, the issue is whether this particular proposal is acceptable. Both the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005 and the 2007 Strategic Plan post-date the previous refusal, creating a new policy framework, but even so those reasons for refusal were material to planning and provide an appropriate starting point now.
As regards that second reason, Highway Services do not oppose the current proposal; removing the bank would create additional parking in a locality where there is already plentiful provision. As to the first reason, the impact from additional traffic from a one bedroom house would not be a significant issue, at least by contemporary standards, or support submitted objections with respect to pedestrian safety on a road where traffic speed is inherently low. The opening part of the first reason for refusal related to an indicative siting some way behind the cottages either side. Now the front of the dwelling would be well forward, its amended location being a definite improvement with respect to overlooking and overbearing outlook. It is not a backland proposal.
The current innovative design has a successful traditional street elevation behind the existing, albeit lowered, front Manx stone boundary wall. The outrigger is less traditional but appropriate in scale and appearance, and with little public impact. Back Shore Road is fronted by variety of building forms and sizes, with its own charm. The site is undeniably tight but, as amended, the dwelling would sit comfortably in the street scene, with a ridge at much the same level as those either side. It meets the aims of Strategic Plan Environment Policy 35 with respect to the Conservation Area and those of Environment Policy 42 generally as well as with respect to backland proposals. It similarly accords with General Policy 2(b&c). Intrinsically, the dwelling would provide adequate floorspace, some 69 sq m, plus a relatively generous, if steeply rising, back garden. Its occupants would have open sea views from the front, offsetting their limited rear outlook.
The scheme would cause minimal impact on living conditions at Cliff Cottage, but more so at Beach Cottage, where its acceptability is extremely finely balanced, so much so as to be influenced by, for example, whether that dwelling’s bedroom window hinges towards or away from the proposed building. However, its ground floor windows most potentially affected are subject to a covenant obscuring the available outlooks; natural light is curtailed by the embankment above; and both natural light and any outlook are already vulnerable to potential permitted development within the site.
The upper rear windows are not subject to covenant, although the further one, serving the bathroom, is obscure glazed. The closer one serves a bedroom, where the outlook would be curtailed; but the proposed outrigger would be single storey
¹Notwithstanding the B reference suffix, which would normally indicate a full application.
2
under a roof sloping away to a ridge roughly level with the cill. In the particular and unusual circumstances here the impacts on living conditions at Beach Cottage are, on a very finely balance conclusion, considered to be acceptable. Other objections raised relate to Building Regulation or are otherwise not material to planning management. Approval subject to conditions is recommended.
Applicant: this modest one bedroom dwelling is to provide an affordable home for her son, next door to his sister living at Cliff Cottage. The amended scheme was drawn up in consultation with the Case Officer. The parking survey was submitted in good faith, and in any event from personal knowledge it may be said that there is adequate parking within walking distance. Back Shore Road is not subject to waiting restrictions and cutting back the bank merely improves the current situation.
The current plan shows an indicative cluster of bushes beside the proposed rear patio, which would not affect light at the Beach Cottage windows. Existing trees and bushes are higher than any proposed vegetation. The closest pinch point between Beach Cottage and the new dwelling would be 1052 mm, and structural engineers would be appointed at the Building Regulation stage. The north facing window is subject to a covenant requiring obscure glazing. It currently faces a timber structure, climbing garden beds and a cherry tree. The facing side of the proposed dwelling would be reflective white. The application notice was correctly displayed.
Mr and Mrs Barratt, of Cliff Cottage: have no comment regarding the application, but refute suggestions in objections that they are involved with it. The site is next to their home but not part of it. Nor did they make the previous application or any application concerning Cliff Cottage. Ivy Cottage does not "physically adjoin the site" since their own home intervenes. At risk of repetition, Cliff Cottage cannot lose garden land or parking opportunities, since it cannot lose what it doesn't have. Conversely, the proposal would improve parking opportunities.
Laxey Village Commissioners: opposed the scheme as initially submitted but recommend approval as amended. Highway Services do not oppose subject to conditions. DEFA refer to protected dark bush crickets on the site and make recommendations with respect to future management of the garden. Manx Utilities (Electricity) make standard comments.
Mr Taylor, of Beach Cottage: as submitted, the application claimed that the applicant is in discussion with the owners of Beach Cottage (he and his wife) with a view to selling a strip of land to improve maintenance access, implying that agreement might be reached. This was false as discussions had ceased. Also false, photographs in the Parking Survey report include vehicles and physical features that did not exist as shown on the claimed dates. Conclusions drawn from the report cannot be relied upon, and this alone should nullify the application.
The development's proximity risks damage to Beach Cottage, as would works to the front boundary wall which is attached to it. The Proposed Site Plan incorrectly shows the dividing wall within the site whereas it actually extends onto their land, and it should be noted that the site's trees have grown intended for years, blocking light and causing damage at their home. The Case Officer's report describes their kitchen/diner as already a dark room and attributes this to the "frosted windows and cliff rising away to the rear". In fact it is the intended evergreen trees, only very recently pruned, that cause the problem. Photographs illustrate that the closest window to the proposed dwelling does receive considerable light, whereas that to the west is hemmed in by the trees. As photographs verify, their spread is considerably more than on the topographical survey. A sycamore is of most concern
3
both in terms of damage and loss of light, and significantly the application scheme proposes more planting while written exchanges with the applicant call into question any intention of a more neighbourly approach. The application also requires felling of three trees, which cannot be reconciled with the presumption against doing so to facilitate development in Local Plan Policy L/OSNC/PR/6. The site is associated with Cliff Cottage in the sense of family relationship if not direct ownership, and the frontage is only ever used for parking associated with Cliff Cottage.
Mr and Mrs Williams, of Ivy Cottage: their home physically adjoins the site and its privacy and enjoyment would be substantially affected. This development in the garden of Cliff Cottage would be tight, whereas the Strategic Plan, with respect to infill proposals, requires that the value of spaces between buildings should not be underestimated, even in small settlements. This is not a specified building plot but in the garden of a small cottage, which typify the locality: not 'urban and built up' but a Conservation Area of heritage cottages. Environment Policy 42 does not permit the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of an area. This development would ruin characteristic picturesque cottages in a Conservation Area.
The Strategic Plan requires parking compliant with standards: 2 spaces, at least one within the curtilage behind the front of the property. This one would not comply. Of greater concern, it proposes additional parking in a narrow lane fronted by older properties without off-street parking. As well as being unsightly, making an historic area look like a car park, the outcome would increase traffic. Their front door opens directly onto the lane, and as well as their own small child others frequently visit. Child safety is paramount, but the application scheme conflicts with requirements in the Strategic Plan for developments to promote a more integrated transport network, aiming not to harm highway safety for all users. The Plan also states that pedestrians need safe and convenient means of crossing and passing along roads, together with a requirement that their needs be given similar weight to those of other road users. Even with the bank cut back, the lane would remain very narrow, so parking there risks access to their own home particularly in an emergency. Their neighbours on the other side to Cliff Cottage had to call an ambulance 3 times over recent years; each time it was forced to park at the end of the lane.
Mr M James, of Mariners House, Back Shore Road: as a long term resident he objects as this dwelling would be shoe horned in and undermine the existing cottages' linear character. Additional parking here would undermine the aesthetically pleasing promenade green. As well as reducing the value of existing properties, approval would open the flood gates to development on any spare piece of land in the Conservation Area. The previous refusal should be maintained.
Inspector's Assessment
There are three main considerations: the development's impact on the appearance and character of the street and locality; the effect on living conditions at Beach Cottage with respect to natural light and outlook; and considerations regarding traffic and parking. These issues should be considered primarily on their own merits rather than by comparison with the refusal of PA 01/00088/B, which was materially different, or the superseded layout initially submitted with this current application. No significant issue arises with respect to living conditions at Cliff Cottage, which would be little affected, and the consultation response by DEFA does not amount to an objection but rather seeks the imposition of a condition with any approval.
Appearance and character of the street and locality.
This dwelling would be an infill rather than backland development. It has been thoughtfully designed, commendably including well-proportioned sliding sash windows; a traditional roof pitch book-ended by chimneys; and retention of at least the line if not full height of the existing attractive fronting stone wall. However, it cannot be gainsaid that the site is extremely narrow, reducing to just some 6.3 m, with a row of small terraced cottages on one side and the predominantly linear rather than vertical character of Beach Cottage on the other. Inserting this small, detached, building into the tiny gap would be harmfully uncharacteristic and inherently appear contrived rather than respectful of its setting, particularly when visualised while standing looking on the ground.
The outcome would conflict in these regards with the important aims of Strategic Plan General Policy 2 (b&c) and the similar aims in the opening part of Environment Policy 42, eroding rather than preserving key characteristics of this part of the Laxey Conservation Area in conflict with Environment Policy 35.
The Laxey and Lonan Local Plan Policy L/OSNC/PR/6 presumes against the loss of trees to facilitate development. Those that would need to be felled here are not the finest, and to that extent conflict with the aims of the policy would not be substantial. However, trees further into the site are larger and do contribute significantly to public amenity. These would not require felling, at least at the outset, but they would stand above and at no great distance behind the proposed dwelling. It is reasonable to suppose that at some time its occupants might well seek at least substantial lopping, and in the circumstances then existing this could be difficult to resist, but at the cost of a loss of public amenity. The issue is perhaps less than a determinative one but it does weigh further against the proposal.
Living conditions at Beach Cottage
The disposition of Beach Cottage, with windows directly onto another person's land, is unusual. A balance needs to be struck between safeguarding reasonable living conditions for present and future residents there, while recognising that the adjoining land is not part of their garden and might be subject to change. The step up in level between the ground floor and the adjacent land is a material factor in this assessment. My own view is that the outcome would be unacceptable. Although obscure glazed, the dining area window provides an impression of the 'outside world' as well as admitting natural light to what is, overall, a gloomy part of the cottage. Following the development, this window would face onto a two storey gable just over 1.5 m away. There would be a severe loss of natural light and any perception of openness, which would be only very partially offset by painting the facing wall in white. In comparison, the existing small shed standing on this part of the site has minimal impact.
Beach Cottage's rearward facing windows would be less affected, since the closest one, serving a bedroom, is upstairs and just higher than the proposed outrigger, while the downstairs kitchen window is further away. Even so, because of the angle of this dwelling relative to the site, and bearing in mind that its outlooks here are already constrained and its windows overshadowed, the proposed building would in these particular circumstances impart an encroaching an intrusive impact. Even allowing for the bedroom window opening towards rather than away from the proposed building, the resulting erosion of living conditions would be insufficient on its own to warrant refusal, but it would be cumulative with the clear cut harm affecting the side window.
5
These impacts need to be assessed against the situation as it exists, not hypothetical possible outcomes resulting from the exercise of such permitted development rights as may be available for this parcel of land. And when so assessed, I conclude that overall impact on living conditions at Beach Cottage should be treated as unacceptable.
Traffic and parking
I see little to criticise in the proposed parking provision. The existing highway grass bank provides little amenity value and is already evidently parked on to some extent. Strategic Plan parking standards admit flexibility, and for practical purposes the additional readily usable on-street provision would be adequate for this small one bedroom dwelling. A car parked on the created area would not significantly affect accessibility to the remainder of Back Shore Road and neither would the outcome erode safety for pedestrians or other road users. The proposal adequately meets the aims of Strategic Plan Transport Policy 7 regarding parking and the broader aims of Transport Policies 4 and 6 with respect to safety and accessibility.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The dwelling would provide a pleasant small home, as well as employment during its construction, and I commend the constructive approach by the Planning Case Officer, in conjunction with the applicant, leading to the amended scheme. However, these favourable points, and those with respect to traffic and parking, do not overcome the long term harms that I have previously identified. Accordingly, I recommend that the Council of Ministers refuse this application for the following reasons.
Although thoughtfully designed in itself, this detached dwelling inserted into the small gap available in the road frontage would appear contrived and harmfully uncharacteristic of the street scene and locality, within the Laxey Conservation Area, in conflict with General Policy 2 (b&c) and Environment Policies 35 and 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
The cumulative impact of the proposed dwelling would harm living conditions at Beach Cottage to an unreasonable degree, with particular regard to loss of natural light and potential outlook, in conflict with General Policy 2 (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
The potential future loss or substantial lopping of trees of public amenity value would conflict with the aims of Policy L/OSNC/PR/6 of The Laxey and Lonan Local Plan 2005 to a degree that adds some weight to the other reasons for refusal.
In the event that the Council of Ministers disagree and determine to grant approval, then I would suggest the following conditions and notes, based on those submitted by the Case Officer and discussion at the inquiry:
The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
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.
No works shall take place until details of the following items, to include plans, elevations and sections at a scale of 1:10 or 1:20 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Building Control.
Reason: in the interest of the character and appearance of the application site and Conservation Area as a whole.
Prior to the commencement of development, a survey of the application site to identify the presence of any dark bush crickets must be undertaken by appropriately qualified persons. It is recommended that such survey be undertaken in August or September. The survey together with its findings and details of any required mitigation measures must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department of
6
Infrastructure, Planning and Building Control prior to the commencement of development, and any approved mitigation measures shall be implemented in accordance with their approval.
Reason: to provide adequate safeguards for any dark bush crickets existing on the site.
Any damage to the wall that fronts the site and is adjacent to Back Shore Road highway shall be made good using materials to match the existing and the wall shall be retained as per approved plan 900-03/B.
Reason: to safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.
Note 1: the applicant is recommended to contact the Network Operations Section of the Department of Infrastructure prior to carrying out any works within the highway, on telephone number 686665.
Note 2: this approval relates to Drawings No 900-01/B, 900-02/B, 900-03/B, 900-05/A and 13TS022-01, all date stamped as received on 28th October 2014.
Alan Langton DipTP CEng MRTPI MICE MCIHT Inspector
Inquiry Participants
Mr Kaz Ryzner MRTPI
Planning Consultant for the applicant
Mrs Patricia Burgess
Applicant
Mr Bill Snelling
Accompanying the Applicant
Mr Ed Riley BA MA MSc
Planning Case Officer
Ms Hazel Reid
Traffic Engineer, Highway Services
Mr Chris Balmer MA(Hons), MTCP, MRTPI
Senior Planning Officer, observing
Mr Richard Taylor BA(Hons) ACMA CIRM Mrs Jude Taylor BSc(Hons)
Objectors, of Beach Cottage, Shore Back Road
4 Key points:
Very concerned about the potential damage to our house given the very close proximity of the new building, and the age of our house with very shallow foundations. The applicant has recognised the shallow foundations in an email of 17 Feb 2014. There has been no explanation, discussion or understanding given as to how to make good any potential damage.
The application advises that the front boundary wall which is attached to our property is going to be altered. This will affect the rendering on our house and there has been no explanation as to how that is going to be rectified.
Light. Prior to the applicant clearing the bushes and trees last week, we had reduced light into our kitchen and dining room, which was not due to the cliff/bank at the back of the land, but as a result of the overgrown bushes and trees. Prior to last week this foliage has only been trimmed once in the last seven years after requests by us (due to the restricted light). Therefore the main source of light, into our kitchen and dining area, has been through the north facing frosted window. The proposed building is to be situated very close to our property and will impact the amount of light coming in through the north facing window, even though the glass is frosted. Whilst the owner has had the trees and bushes that were significantly blocking the westward facing windows severely pruned in the week before the inspection we have concerns that this was done purely for the application process, and that these will be allowed to grow back in the future and again block the light. The foliage had overgrown so much that light was not only an issue in our kitchen and dining room but also our bathroom and back bedroom. We have concerns that the area that has been cleared will be used to park building materials and machinery during the period of the build. The applicant stated that discussions would be held over the possibility of transferring some of the land to us but those discussions did not take place either before the application was submitted or after (although it did state they were taking place in the application). On several occasions we tried to set up a proper discussion but these never occurred, so advising that they were taking place was misleading in the application.
Parking. Currently the owners of Cliff Cottage park their car in front of the proposed site often meaning that certain vehicles can't access the lane. (Indeed, there has been damage to vehicles from manoeuvring down Back Shore Road in the past). Further, recently they have been parking up the bank and maybe affecting the insect life that was identified in the nature survey. The results of the parking survey that was carried out that led to the finding in 5.1.2 of the statement of the planning authority were falsified. The application was originally accepted by the highways division on a relaxed standard for one off street parking space. When the application was refused because the building had to be further forward, the relaxation was further granted because apparently there was ample local parking nearby. This assumption appears to have been made because of the falsified survey. In my response I have pointed out clearly that the survey dates were from different months, yet the application claims that certain photos were from the morning and evening of the same day.
Because the site has not been maintained over the years, the level of soil (from the bank slip and foliage debris) is currently 2 feet above the floor level of our house, and appears to be the case next door as well. This over the years has banked against our house causing
significant issues with our house, which has been rectified at our own cost. Therefore we have concerns regarding any potential damage to our house through a building of a new property and how this will be rectified. We also have concerns as to where they will place the displaced soil from where the building will be.
I have an issue with where the planning notice was placed. It was not directly onto a public highway nor on the gateway to the site. As Mr Barratt pointed out, Cliff Cottage is not part of the planned site, and the application was put on his gate, (which is recessed behind the wall) in such a position that only if you looked for it could you see it, and indeed if the gate was open, it could not be seen at all.
Wednesday 21st January 2015 2.00 pm
Df14/0057 14/00335/B
Mrs Burgess
Please print your name in the column below
Please print your address in the column below
Please print your email address in the column below
Planning Secretary Planning & Building Control Division Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas
Our Reference: L09-13/DF14/0057
Dear Sir/Madam,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) (No2) ORDER 2013
PA Ref: 14/00335/B Applicant: Mrs Patricia Burgess Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling with associated parking Address: Land Adjacent To Cliff Cottage Back Shore Road Laxey Isle Of Man
Further to my letter of 12 December 2014 regarding the above application. Please find enclosed an email and two accompanying photographs from Mr and Mrs Taylor. The inspector has viewed the documents and agreed that they be circulated for clarification. If you would like to respond to the documents I would be grateful if you could kindly submit your response by 5.00 pm on 30 January 2015. Yours faithfully,
A Johnstone Planning Appeals Administrator On behalf of the Chief Secretary
CABINET OFFICE Government Office Isle of Man IM1 3PN Direct Line (01624) 685280 Fax Number (01624) 685710 Email [email protected]CHIEF SECRETARY Will Greenhow ACMA 23rd January 2015
Planning Secretary Planning & Building Control Division Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas
Our Reference: L09-13/DF14/0057
Dear Sir/Madam,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE)(No2) ORDER 2013
CABINET OFFICE Government Office Isle of Man IM1 3PN Direct Line (01624) 685280 Fax Number (01624) 685710 Email [email protected]CHIEF SECRETARY Will Greenhow ACMA 12th December 2014
PA Ref: 14/00335/B Applicant: Mrs Patricia Burgess Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling with associated parking Address: Land Adjacent To Cliff Cottage Back Shore Road Laxey Isle Of Man
Further to my letter of 10 November 2014 regarding the above application.
I have received a request for the application to be considered before the Inspector at a hearing rather than being considered on written evidence.
As it is not possible to always assess the length of each inquiry, it is hoped that this appeal will be called at 14:00 on 21 January 2015, but it is requested that all parties attend the waiting area just prior to this time to enable, if possible, a prompt start to be made. The inquiry will be held in the Committee Room, Cabinet Office, 3rd Floor, Government Offices, Bucks Road, Douglas.
Please acknowledge receipt of this communication and advise whether you will be attending the inquiry.
Please also find enclosed copies of additional written submissions made to the Inspector and note that this appeal will only be deferred in the most exceptional circumstances.
Yours faithfully,
A Johnstone Planning Appeals Administrator On behalf of the Chief Secretary
Planning Secretary Planning & Building Control Division Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas
Our Reference: L12-13/DF14/0057
Dear Sir/Madam,
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE)(No2) ORDER 2013
CABINET OFFICE Government Office Isle of Man IM1 3PN Direct Line (01624) 685280 Fax Number (01624) 685710 Email [email protected]
CHIEF SECRETARY Will Greenhow ACMA 10th November 2014
RECEIVED ON11 NOV 2014DEPARTMENT OFINFRASTRUCTURE
PA Ref 14/00335/B Applicant: Mrs Patricia Burgess Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling with associated parking Address: Land Adjacent To Cliff Cottage Back Shore Road Laxey Isle Of Man
Thank you for your letter concerning the above captioned application which will be passed to the Inspector appointed to consider the matter.
If you have anything further that you wish to add to your previous submission I should be grateful if you send it to me by 5 p.m. on 24th November 2014. A copy of your statement will be made available to the other parties involved in this application and, therefore, it would be appreciated if you could supply 12 COLLATED SETS of your submission of case.
This matter is scheduled to be dealt with by way of written submissions only without appearing before the Inspector at an inquiry. Please advise me in writing if you are in agreement for this procedure to be followed, but if no reply is received by the date stated above it will be considered as agreement with this procedure.
Yours faithfully,
A Johnstone Planning Appeals Administrator On behalf of the Chief Secretary
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
Source & Provenance
Official reference
14/00335/B
Source authority
Isle of Man Government Planning & Building Control
