REP Comment 1.1 Thie Aash Redacted
Planning and Building Control Directorate Department of Environment Food and Agriculture Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas IM1 2SF
19 July 2022
Dear Sir/Madam
Re: PA 22/00759/B - 27 Cannan Court, Kirk Michael IM6 1FA
We write in connection with the above application, and wish to be given interested party status, our property being within the required distance from the boundary of 27 Cannan Court.
We object to the application, on the following grounds:
- The application form misleadingly states that the site postcode is IM6 1ED. This is incorrect, the actual postcode being IM6 1FA.
- A planning application for an extension to 27 Cannan Court, PA 21/00717/B, was given approval in 2022. The additional design report, dated 17 Nov. 21, stated in the Revision to the Proposals section:
"Replacing a large shed with an extension that is designed to fit in is betterment to the current situation."
It must now, therefore, be concluded that retaining the large shed would be detrimental to the current situation.
- The Summary and Conclusion of the same additional design report states,
"Whilst the applicant respects the concerns of the neighbours, extending a dwelling is generally considered to be an acceptable providing it respects the site and its surrounding which this proposal does. Under permitted development the applicant is perfectly at liberty to construct an extension up to 15m2. Whilst this extension is larger than that, its size is nevertheless in keeping with the size of the site and the impact of construction activities in the area remain the same."
Having the approved 34m2 extension, and retaining the large c.15m2 shed, must surely be out of keeping with the size of this small site.
- The Planning Officer's Report and Recommendations for PA 21/00717/B stated:
"ASSESSMENT... Amenity Impact
6.7 ... Towards the rear of the site the gap between the existing shed/garage to be demolished and No.26 nearest elevation is approx. 7m"
The Planning Officer's assessment of PA 210071B for an extension was clearly, in part, based on the demolition of the large shed. When concerns were expressed by objectors at the Planning Committee meeting that the shed might actually be retained on site, despite no mention of this being made by the applicant, the committee asked for an additional condition to be included in the approval, i.e.
Addendum to the Officer's Report
"... The addition condition now applied to the approval reads as follows:
"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:
- Class 13 Greenhouses and polytunnels
- Class 15 Garden sheds and summer-houses
- Class 17 Private garages and car ports
- Class 22 Solar Panels (Stand alone)
Reason: To control development and culmination of structures in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area"
The Planning Committee were clearly of the opinion that, given their approval of an extension, 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.
We concur with that assessment and respectfully ask, therefore, that the application for relocating the large shed be refused.
Yours sincerely,
Redacted
25 Cannan Court Kirk Michael IM6 1FA
Redacted
