Planning Committee Agenda Officer Report

• buildings are perhaps closer to each other than one may find on a modern estate which adds to the charm and character of the historic village. I consider that the proposal is well-designed and accords with Environment Policy 42 which states that "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality" and Housing Policy 4 which states that "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages" of which Port St. Mary is one identified in the Strategic Plan paragraph 5.8. ### Conservation Officer'S Supplementary Report: As the proposed development is attached to a Registered Building, I have had particular regard to Policy RB/5 Alterations and Extensions to a Registered Building as set out in Planning Policy Statement 1/01 in considering the content of the application. It occurs to me that there are two factors when considering this scheme; firstly, whether the building should be there in the first place and secondly, whether the design of the proposal is acceptable. The red line on the map attached to the registration documentation is clear that the registration is drawn around the buildings and not the adjoining land. The reason for the requirement of the Registered Building application is that the proposed development is physically attached to the registered building and therefore has an impact on it. The proposed design is not overly contentious. The form is traditional and utilises materials and forms that are readily found in the immediate vicinity and indeed the rest of the Island. There are arguments for the use of render as it sets the building as different from the Registered Building and therefore aids in 'reading' the old from the new. Conversely, the buildings in the immediate vicinity i.e. the Registered buildings and the apartment block adjacent, are pointed stonework which reflects the 'working' nature of the harbour as some of the buildings such as the adjacent apartment block, are converted warehouses, net lofts or the like and would probably not have been rendered. There is evidence both on the gable of the existing building and within the walled area, to suggest that there was a building formerly on the site. A perusal of the 1869 Ordnance Survey Map is inconclusive as the outline of a building is shown (in the same way as the registered buildings to which it adjoins), but it is not clear whether this represents a building or a garden wall. The addition of the new dwelling impacts on the Registered Building in that there is currently an area of open space immediately adjacent to it, which enables the building to be readily seen. The introduction of this property will partially mask this. I have some minor points, I would prefer that the building is set back slightly so as to show the quoins off of the original and so that this proposed property is seen to be subservient to the Registered Building. Secondly, the use of dormers on the front elevation which means that the down pipes between them (not shown on the drawings) will clutter the frontage appearing to the right of the front door, between the dormers and to the left of the dormers. Having had consideration of all of the above, I am minded to recommend approval of this application. ### Party Status PC Agenda 16.08.2007 The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. The points raised by the Fire Prevention Officer are the responsibility of the Building Regulations and as such should be addressed by way of a note. The Fire Prevention Officer should not as such be afforded party status in this instance. Isle of Man Water Authority is concerned with issues of supply which are not planning considerations and as such the Authority should not be afforded party status in this instance. The owner of Harbour Cottage should be afforded party status as this property is immediately alongside the site. ### Recommendation Decision Recommended by the Director of Planning and Building Control: Permitted

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This permission relates to the erection of a dwelling as shown in drawing reference WL/07/1030/2, /3 and /4 and the site and location plans all received on 23rd May, 2007 and to both of the options provided for the front elevation - ie. it may be finished in stone or render as shown.

C 3. The windows in the new dwelling must be timber framed sliding sashes as shown in the approved drawings and retained as such in perpetuity.

C 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order) no extensions, greenhouses, walls, gates, fences, garden sheds, summerhouses, flag poles, decking, garages, or tanks for the storage of oil for domestic heating shall be erected (other than those expressly authorised by this approval.)

N 1. The Chief Fire Officer recommends the installation of mains wired interconnected domestic smoke detection.

N 2. For single connections to a water main (i.e. a single dwelling) the applicant should contact Isle of Man Water Authority Customer Services, telephone 695949.

Item 20

Mabsoot Haverbreaks Lancaster LA1 5BN

Objects to the proposal

Proposal : Registered building consent for erection of a dwelling with integral garage to be attached to (In association with 07/00998/B) Registered Building Nos. 203

Site Address : 22 Shore Road Underway Port St. Mary Isle Of Man IM9 5DX Applicant : Mr & Mrs J Walker Application No. : 07/01000/CON Case Officer : Mr S Moore

Consultations

Representations

Highways Division	Do not oppose
Port St Mary Commissioners	22.06.07 - Objection
Chief Fire Officer	Note received
IOM Water Authority	Note received

Planning Officer's Report

THE SITE: The site as outlined in red on the proposed drawings is immediately adjacent to No. 22 Shore Road, Port St Mary which appears on the Protected Buildings Register as RB 203.

THE PROPOSAL: The application proposes Registered building consent for erection of a dwelling with integral garage to be attached to (In association with 07/00998/B) a Registered Building.

REPRESENTATIONS Port St. Mary Commissioners object to the application as, after having visited the site they consider that the development would be an over-development of the site and that the size and design would be out of keeping with the surrounding properties.

The Isle of Man Water Authority recommends the attachment of a note regarding connections to the main water supply

The Fire Prevention Officer recommends the installation of domestic smoke detection.

The owner of Harbour Cottage, The Underway, Port St. Mary, situated adjacent to the proposed site objects on the basis of a loss of light. This is a Planning consideration and will be dealt with by the Planning Officer in her report.

ASSESSMENT:

As the proposed development is attached to a Registered Building, I have had particular regard to Policy RB/5 Alterations and Extensions to a Registered Building as set out in Planning Policy Statement 1/01 in considering the content of the application.

It occurs to me that there are two factors when considering this scheme; firstly, whether the building should be there in the first place and secondly, whether the design of the proposal is acceptable.

The red line on the map attached to the registration documentation is clear that the registration is drawn around the buildings and not the adjoining land. The reason for the requirement of the Registered Building application is that the proposed development is physically attached to the registered building and therefore has an impact on it.

The proposed design is not overly contentious. The form is traditional and utilises materials and forms that are readily found in the immediate vicinity and indeed the rest of the Island. There are arguments for the use of render it sets the building as different from the Registered Building and therefore aids in 'reading' the old from the new. Conversely, the buildings in the immediate vicinity i.e. the Registered buildings and the apartment block adjacent, are pointed stonework which reflects the 'working' nature of the harbour as some of the buildings such as the adjacent apartment block, are converted warehouses, net lofts or the like and would probably not have been rendered.

There is evidence both on the gable of the existing building and within the walled area, to suggest that there was a building formerly on the site. A perusal of the 1869 Ordnance Survey Map is inconclusive as the outline of a building is shown (in the same way as the registered buildings to which it adjoins), but it is not clear whether this represents a building or a garden wall.

The addition of the new dwelling impacts on the Registered Building in that there is currently an area of open space immediately adjacent to it, which enables the building to be readily seen. The introduction of this property will partially mask this.

I have some minor points, I would prefer that the building is set back slightly so as to show the quoins off of the original and so that this proposed property is seen to be subservient to the Registered Building. Secondly, the use of dormers on the front elevation which means that the down pipes between them (not shown on the drawings) will clutter the frontage appearing to the right of the front door, between the dormers and to the left of the dormers.

Recommendations:

Having had consideration of all of the above, I am minded to recommend approval of this application.

Party Status

I consider that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:

• The Highways Division of the Dept of Transport
• The Port St Mary Commissioners

The Isle of Man Water Authority are concerned with issues of supply which are not planning considerations and as such the Authority should not be afforded party status in this instance.

The points raised by the Fire Prevention Officer are the responsibility of the Building Regulations and as such should be addressed by way of a note. The Fire Prevention Officer should not as such be afforded party status in this instance.

Recommendation

Decision Recommended by the Director of Planning and Building Control: Permitted

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This permission relates to the erection of a dwelling as shown in drawing reference WL/07/1030/2, /3 and /4 and the site and location plans all received on 23rd May, 2007 and to both of the options provided for the front elevation - ie. it may be finished in stone or render as shown.