Officer Report

Application No.: 25/90190/B Applicant: Mr Paul Kennedy Proposal: Installation of tiered decking with glass balustrade (retrospective) Site Address: Seascape Mount Gawne Road Port St Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5LX Planning Officer: Vanessa Porter Photo Taken: 29.04.2025 Site Visit: 29.04.2025 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 15.05.2025 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. Within one month of the decision notice a soft landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Such a scheme shall include details of all trees, hedgerows and other planting which are to be retained; details of all other boundary treatment and finished ground levels ; a planting specification to include numbers, density, size, species and positions of all new trees and shrubs; the location of grassed areas and a programme of implementation.

All soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out in full accordance with the programme approved in writing by the Department and retained thereafter. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Department.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

• C 2. Within one month of the decision notice a hard landscaping plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Such a schemed must include details of any hard boundary treatments but specifically the treatment of the section of boundary to the Southern corner where Seascapes meets No.2 The Waterfront. This should include fencing to a minimum of 2m in height from the ground level of the parking area to the South East of the proposed decked area along the southern boundary between the abovementioned properties and a programme of implementation.

All hard landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out in full accordance with the programme approved in writing by the Department and retained thereafter.

Reason: in the interest of neighbouring amenity This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.

The proposed decking extension is deemed acceptable in terms of their form, mass and design by providing a suitable extension to an existing residential property and as such complies with General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 16.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received on 24th February 2025;

• o Drawing No. 01
• o Drawing No. 02
• o Drawing No. 03
• o Drawing No. 04
• o Drawing No. 05
• o Drawing No. 06

This decision also relates to an email dated 6th May 2025 which states the applicant is amiable to conditions regarding hard and soft landscaping.

_________________________________________________________________ Right to Appeal It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highway Services - No objection It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal: No.2 The Waterfront - Objection _________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THE SITE

1.1 The application site comprises the residential dwelling at Seascapes, Mount Gawne Road, Port St Mary, which is a modern, large, two storey detached property located on the southwest side of Mount Gawne Road, close to the junction with Shore Road. The dwelling is set back on the site from the road and is screened from it by a high wall with security gates providing vehicular access in a gap in the wall onto the road. THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of tired decking to the rear of the property. The decking is to surrounding the new leisure room approved under PA23/00368/B. The decking to the leisure room is to be set at finished floor level and then reduce down by 0.5m to being approximately 0.9m above ground level where the parking area is situated.

2.2 The proposed decking is approximately 2.4m away from the boundary fencing and is to have 1.1m high glass balustrade to both tiers. PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 Seascape has been the subject of numerous applications for its construction and subsequent alteration, of which the most recent two applications are relevant to this assessment;

3.2 PA23/00368/B - Proposed Leisure Extension - Permitted

3.3 PA23/00904/MCH - Minor changes application to PA23/00368/B involving removal of door, installation of bi-fold instead of window, alterations to roof design - Permitted.

PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site is not designated for development on Area Plan for the South, Map 7 Port Erin/ Port St Mary, with the property not being situated within a Conservation Area nor being in a Flood Risk Zone. In terms of planning policy, the key policies are Environment Policy 1 which seeks that the countryside is protected for its own sake, Housing Policy 16 in respect of the visual assessment of the proposal within the streetscene and rural area, along with the general standards towards development as set out in General Policy 2 notably those parts referring to amenity and highway safety (parts b, c, g, h and i).

4.2 These policies are then followed by Strategic Policy 5 which seeks that new development should make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island, General Policy 2 sets out general development control standards in connection with the Residential Design Guidance, Environment Policy 1 seeks to prevent development which would adversely affect the side other than in exceptional circumstances and General Policy 3 states that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan other than a number of stated exceptions, which do not include the extension of existing dwellings REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summery;

5.2 Highway Services have considered the application and state, "No Highways Interest." (03.03.25)

5.3 No comments have been received from Arbory & Rushen Commissioners at the time of writing this report.

5.3 The owner/occupier of No.2 The Waterfront, Shore Road, Gansey have written in to object to the proposal on the basis of overlooking and overbearing impact. (28.02.25) ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:

• - principle of development (GP3, EP1 and HP16);
• - detail of design (GP2, HP16)
• - impact on neighing amenity (GP2, g)

- 6.2 PRINCIPLE

• 6.2.1 The site is not designated for development, nor does the proposal meet the expectation criteria in General Policy 3. However, Housing Policy 16 and its supporting text clearly allows for residential extensions in the countryside where they would not detract from the countryside, in the case of the extension of non-traditional, poor or dwellings of inappropriate form, this means that they must not increase the overall impact of the dwelling when viewed by the public.

• 6.2.2 The property due to its location within the overall streetscene, the main dwelling and the leisure extension can be seen from the main A5 Road, whilst this is the case, the actual proposed decking works will not be seen from a public vantage point. As such it is deemed that the overall principle in general is acceptable, as the proposal would not be increasing the impact of the dwelling when viewed by the public, whilst this is the case it is required to see whether the proposed works on the site would be acceptable.

- 6.3 DETAIL OF DESIGN

• 6.3.1 Turning towards the proposed design appearance of the proposal. The proposed decking would be in keeping with the overall property and would be seen as a residential extension to a residential property. As such the proposal is deemed acceptable in terms of its design and size.

6.4 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITY

• 6.4.1 When looking at the impact upon neighbouring amenity, the objection from No.2 The Waterfront has been taken into account and a site visit was undertaken to assess the work done retrospectively and the proposed works.

• 6.4.2 The details provided with the original application for the leisure extension shows an existing photograph with a raised decked area, which shows an already existing decked area which would go to the edge of the upper tier proposed, abide not as far East as proposed. This is collaborated by the aerial photos from both the Government aerials and Google Earth aerials. This means that there was already a raised platform of sorts within this part of "Seascapes."
• 6.4.3 Having visited the site to ascertain what works had already been done and when matching these works against the objection received and the drawings provided, it can be seen that the works have been altered so that the works are not directly adjacent to the fence of No.2 The Waterfront and are indeed approximately 2.4m away from the boundary fencing.
• 6.4.4 The difficulty with applications such as this, is that there is already a certain amount of overlooking into No.2 The Waterfront by "Seascapes" due to the elevation gain of "Seascapes," and whilst the majority of this overlooking has been reduced due to the mature trees and hedges along the boundary, where the existing car parking area is situated, views were awarded over the existing fencing, due to its low level height.
• 6.4.5 Whilst this is the case and whilst there is already a large amount of overlooking to No.2 The Waterfront, it could be seen how the proposed works could create an overlooking/ overbearing impact above and beyond what is currently in place, especially due to the existing hedging situated adjacent to the boundary where the proposed raised planting area is to be situated has been cut down to facilitate the works.
• 6.4.6 The agent on behalf of the application has shown on the drawings that additional planting will be done to create a buffer between the properties but no additional information regarding types, heights nor planting has been provided as such a soft landscaping condition should be included and a hard landscaping condition for a 2m high fence from the ground level of the existing car parking area (where the existing 1.6m high fencing is situated), for mitigation whilst the planting gets to a height to mitigate any further overlooking/ overbearing the proposal might have on No.2 The Waterfront.
• 6.4.7 It should be noted that the objection from No. 2 The Waterfront does request that the lower level decking is removed from the application, whilst this could mitigate some of the proposed overlooking/ overbearing impact, from the objection the main impact was regarding the upper floor bedrooms, which during my site visit, it was ascertained that I could look at the windows from a variety of areas within the car parking area and the surrounding landscaping. As such the removal of the lower level decking, whilst removing some of the overlooking/ overbearing impact would not remove their concern fully and with the addition of a condition, it means that the overlooking/ overbearing impact from the area most likely visited by "Seascapes" would be reduced.

CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposed decking extension is deemed acceptable in terms of their form, mass and design by providing a suitable extension to an existing residential property and as such complies with General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 16 with two conditions regarding landscaping.

RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE

8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted). - 8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:

• o applicant (in all cases);
• o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and
• o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.

8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):

• o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant);
• o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area;
• o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and
• o in the case of a petition, a single representative. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner 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 and/or rights to appeal.

Decision Made : Permitted Date: 20.05.2025 Determining Officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.