DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 22/00759/B Applicant: Mrs L Reid Proposal: Relocation of existing shed from beside of dwelling to the rear Site Address: 27 Cannan Court Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 1FA Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 11.08.2022

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. 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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. Before the first use of the relocated shed, the existing shed annotated "to be removed" on drawing number 01 shall be removed from the site.

Reason; the application has been assessed on this basis in the interest of visual and neighbouring amenity.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

Subject to a condition requiring the removal of the smaller shed, the proposal is considered to have an acceptable visual and amenity impact in line with General Policy 2 (b, c, and g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to drawing number 01 date stamped and received 14/06/2022.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

• Numbers 23 and 26 Cannan Court, Kirk Michael, Isle of Man as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2021). _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report SITE

1.1 The application site represents the residential curtilage of 27 Cannan Court, Kirk Michael, a semi-detached bungalow located at the northern end of the cul-de-sac. The bungalow is one of twelve forming part of the sheltered housing complex. - 1.2 The dwelling sits on a triangular plot with a driveway running along the boundary with No. 26. The dwelling was recently approved for the erection of an extension. This extension was to replace an existing small garage/shed structure sitting alongside the house. - 1.3 Submitted drawings show an existing 1.8m x 1.2m shed sitting in the rear corner of the garden nearest No. 26. PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed now is the retention of the shed/garage structure and its relocation to the rear corner of the garden and the removal of the smaller shed. - 2.2 For the avoidance of doubt, the garage/shed building measures approx. 2.4m x 3.6m and 1.8m to eaves and 2.1m to central ridge.

PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 There has only been one application for the dwelling since its original approval in the 90's and this was 21/00717/B for the erection of the extension. This application was determined by the Planning Committee and as part of their conclusions they sought that the PDO rights for any other structures in the garden be revoked so that they would have to form part of a separate planning application and their impact properly assessed. The condition applied and its reason states as follows: - 3.2 "C4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development shall be undertaken in accordance with any of the following Classes of Schedule 1 of the Order at any time:

• o Class 13 Greenhouses and polytunnels
• o Class 15 Garden sheds and summer-houses
• o Class 17 Private garages and car ports
• o Class 22 Solar Panels (Stand alone) Reason: To control development and culmination of structures in the interests of the amenities
• of the surrounding area."

PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Kirk Michael Local Plan (1994) as 'Predominantly Residential' and the site is not within the Kirk Michael Conservation Area. Given the nature of the proposal it is relevant to have regard to General Policy 2 (b, c, g, h and i) which assess visual impact, impact on neighbouring properties and highway safety matters. The Residential Design Guide 2021 is also a material consideration which provides advice on the design of extensions to existing properties (Section 4.0) as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the general streetscene and on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties (Section 7.0).

REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 Kirk Michael Commissioners - no comments received as of 11/08/2022.

5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - No highways interest (01/07/2022). - 5.3 The owners of No. 26 and 23 Cannan Court (16/07/2022 and 22/07/2022) OBJECTION

• 5.3.1 They consider that retaining the shed would be detrimental to the site especially when combined with the approved extension and would be out of keeping with the area. Reference is made to 21/00717/B and the comments of the Planning Committee and that they were clearly of the opinion that other structures on this site, especially this large shed, could be considered to be detrimental to the amenities, and over-development, of the well designed and very attractive Cannan Court sheltered housing development and thus the relocating of the large shed should be refused. Their comments also indicate an inaccuracy with the postcode provided. ASSESSMENT
• 6.1 It is clear that the key assessment as part of this application is whether the retention of the shed/garage structure would have an acceptable impact on the amenities of the area and in particular the amenities of the immediate neighbour No. 26.

6.2 The submitted drawing indicates that another shed is to be removed to allow the relocation of the larger shed as a one for one replacement, while the relocated structure would be larger than that which it is to replace it would still sit towards the rear boundary and away from dwelling and the neighbours dwelling so as to help minimise any overbearing or significant adverse impacts on amenity. It is noted that the orientation of the two dwelling around the corner means that the neighbour No. 26 also has a fairly large open aspect garden to their rear and towards the north east and so this also helps to minimise any impacts.

6.3 While the proposal does result in a culmination of somewhat larger structures minded of the extension approved for the dwelling, it is felt that the one for one replacement of the rear shed structures, coupled with its size and setback position helps to minimise impacts on the wider surroundings and helps to minimise impact on the immediate neighbours No. 26. Shed structures are not uncommon in such residential areas and so would not be visually out of keeping, the siting of the proposal and the orientation and layout of the two dwellings also help to further minimise any obtrusive, overbearing or outlook impacts. CONCLUSION - 7.1 By reason of the size, scale, siting towards the rear and being a one for one replacement with another shed structure, that the proposal is considered to have an acceptable visual and amenity impact as to comply with General Policy 2 b, c and g.

7.2 A condition requiring the existing shed to be removed as detailed on the plans is considered necessary. It is not necessary to duplicate the PDO condition from 21/00717/B as this remains valid as part of that approved application. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management 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 : Permitted Date : 11.08.2022 Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management

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 online services/ customers and archive records.