Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00939/B Page 1 of 9
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00939/B Applicant : Mr David Swanson Proposal : Replacement dwelling with attached garage Site Address : Clarecourt Marathon Road Douglas Isle of Man IM2 4HL
Case Officer : Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 08.01.2018 Site Visit : 29.11.2017 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 09.01.2018 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed dwelling by means of its siting and layout (orientation), form (height and size), design and landscaping does not respect the site or its surroundings and adversely affects the character of the street scene. The proposal creates a visual intrusion on the amenity of the area and for these reasons fails to meet the tests of parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons 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 6(4):
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of an existing dwelling known as Clarecourt, Marathon Road, Douglas. Clarecourt is a detached house located on the south-eastern side of the road nearest the junction with Princess Road. The existing two storey property sits on a modest plot with a rear garden which slopes down to the south east where it abuts a lower plot (under ownership by the applicant but not included in the red line for this application) approved most recently for a new dwelling facing onto Victoria Road under PA 15/01013/B.
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00939/B Page 2 of 9
1.2 Clarecourt has a front elevation approx. 13m wide set back 6.5m from Marathon Road. The front elevation comprising two projecting gables between which sits a ground floor conservatory. The dwelling projects backwards into the site approx. 11m.
1.3 The front curtilage of the site is bound from Marathon Road by a tall stone wall. There is a single vehicular gated access and a driveway on the northern most side providing parking for up to one vehicle off the road.
1.4 Clarecourt has an existing eaves level of 5.09m and finished ridge height of 7.59m. The finished floor level is 0.8m lower than Marathon Road.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current application proposes to demolish the existing house and erect a replacement dwelling with an attached flat roof garage. An additional comparative section drawing was requested from the Agent and received on 16/11/2017 dwg number: 5/4601/30 outlining the proposed dwelling and ground levels against those of the existing dwelling.
SITING 2.2 The proposed dwelling will be set 6m back from the main road and 1.5m from the boundary with 16/16A Marathon Road. The attached double garage sited in the northern corner of the site abutting the pavement and adjoining the boundary of 16/16A Marathon Road.
2.3 The dwelling is to have an 11m wide front elevation facing Marathon Road and is to project 9m backwards into the site.
2.4 An additional 5m rear sunroom is proposed at ground floor level nearest the boundary with 16/16A Marathon Road.
2.5 The dwelling is to have off road parking for up to three vehicles provided at the front of the property (including the garage space). The proposal is to include the removal of 9m of the front boundary stone wall. At the rear the dwelling will have an area of patio space before dropping down to a lower garden.
HEIGHT 2.6 The replacement pitched roof dwelling will run in line with the level of Marathon Road sitting at a level higher than the existing house.
2.7 The dwelling is to be 5.5m to eaves and 10m to the central ridge.
INTERNAL ACCOMODATION 2.8 The proposed dwelling has accommodation over three floors. Living spaces at ground floor comprising kitchen, lounge, sunroom and hallway, four bedrooms at first floor and three storage rooms at third floor attic level.
2.9 Each floor is accessed by a permanent central staircase, including the storage rooms at attic level (within the roof).
EXTERNAL ELEVATIONS 2.10 The front elevation at ground floor comprises an entrance door covered by a small lean to copper roof and a window. At first floor there are two windows. At roof level there are three 0.7m wide x 1.5m high roof lights.
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00939/B Page 3 of 9
2.11 The rear elevation comprises the rear lean-to sunroom with four roof-lights and bi-folding doors. At first floor two windows. At roof level three roof-lights matching the front elevation and three solar panels above.
2.12 The northern gable elevation facing 16/16A Marathon Road comprises a single window and single access door at ground floor, no apertures at first floor and a single port hole window at third floor.
2.13 The southern gable elevation facing Marathon House Apartments comprises two patio doors at ground floor, a high level window at first floor and a Juliet balcony at third floor.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There are a number of previous planning applications (for the application site and adjacent sites) that may be considered pertinent in the assessment of the current application. The most relevant in this case is PA 13/00762/B.
3.2 PA 13/00762/B - Erection of replacement dwelling and garage at Clarecourt. The application was for the development of a pitched roof dwelling with a maximum height of 10 metres, width of 15.6 metres and depth of 21 metres and a floor area of 397 square metres. The dwelling was proposed to be two storey with additional accommodation in the attic space, parts of the elevations were to be clad in timber boarding. A detached double garage was proposed between the dwelling and the road with a parking and turning area in front accessed directly off Marathon Road. The dwelling was orientated as such that the gable end faced towards Marathon Road while the longer elevations faced north towards 16/16A Marathon Road and south towards the apartments on the corner with Princes Road.
3.3 While the Department considered the principle for a dwelling was acceptable, that the proposal be means of its scale, layout, design and form would result in an adverse impact on the visual appearance of the locality and public amenity, its siting and orientation would have an overbearing, over-dominating and adverse impact on the outlook and amenity of 16/16A. The application was reviewed on appeal where an independent Inspector commented that by means of its 10m height the proposed dwelling would appear incongruous to the street scene and neighbouring properties. Equally the timber material finish would serve to draw attention to the discordance within the street scene of the dwelling arising from its relative height. The Inspector stated that the proposal would conflict with Strategic Policy 5 in that it would not make a positive contribution to the Island environment, furthermore the proposal would not positively contribute to the site specific context. By means of its scale, form and design the proposal was considered contrary to part (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2, it would not respect the site and it would adversely affect the character of the locality and townscape. The application was refused at appeal.
4.0 PLANNING STATUS AND POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Douglas Local Plan 1998 as Predominantly Residential and is not within a Conservation Area. As such, there is a presumption in favour of residential development. The key issue in the assessment of this case is whether the proposal complies with the general standards of development as set out in General Policy 2.
General Policy 2 states (in part): "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/00939/B Page 4 of 9
g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services indicate that they do not oppose the application stating that the proposals were considered acceptable (28/09/2017).
5.2 Douglas Borough Council state they do not object to the application (21/09/17).
5.3 The owners of Inglenook, Marathon Road, Douglas who are located directly opposite the application site have written in on two occasions objecting to the application. Both objections stated similar reasons for refusal. In summary they state that the proposed dwelling would be larger and substantially higher than the existing dwelling but that the submitted drawings for the existing property obfuscates measurements and perspective. They state that the height of the replacement dwelling would result in a loss of light and impact on their privacy due to the large roof lights in the attic space. They state that the proposal would impede on their sea views and diminish the value of their house. The owners of Inglenook make reference to the previous application for Marathon Court that was rejected by the planning authorities on grounds of its size and that a revised application reduced the height to match those properties of Princes Road. They state that parts of the submitted drawings and photographs are misleading in terms of the heights of the proposal when compared to the existing property and its surroundings photographs from their property were included. They commented on the sloping nature of the site and that the existing house sat lower than the pavement level of the road. They indicate the proposal now is at the same level of the road and therefore the new dwelling would appear 50% taller than the current one and would set a detrimental precedent (28/09/2017 and 29/11/2017).
5.4 Following the circulation of the additional comparative section drawing responding comments were also received from the applicant 07/12/2017. These comments were submitted with two annotated drawings. One drawing outlines that the orientation and distance between Inglenook and Clarecourt was as such that views from ground floor are obscured and from upper floors at oblique angles. The demolition of the existing and the replacement with the new dwelling will increase the gap between the closest elevations of Marathon Court and therefore improve the views from Inglenook, but that there is no entitlement in planning terms to a view.
5.5 The other drawing, indicated to have been part of a prior planning consultation, provides an artist's impression of the street scene in the form of a collage. The applicant states that it is denied as a fact that the proposal is substantial larger than the existing and is not significantly higher than other buildings on the same side of the road. The proposal fits within the varied street scene and that it will not be the highest or the bulkiest along the road. But that in the efforts to improve on its predecessors even if it was higher or bulkier than other buildings that this should not be regarded as an obstacle to development.
5.6 The applicant also makes reference to the planning history of Marathon Court and that the development control intervention sought to make worse the design of the original application resulting in a poor and weak termination of the corner junction with Princes Road. The applicant states that a greater mass would have provided a better visual street scene and that the current internal accommodation was inferior to those living there.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/00939/B Page 5 of 9
6.1 Given the planning history of the site it is relevant to consider in the assessment of the current application whether or not the proposal now seeks to address the concerns and the reasons given by the Inspector for the refusal of previous application PA 13/00762/B for a replacement dwelling on the same site.
6.2 The fundamental issues in this case being:
MATERIAL FINISH 6.3 The previous application included the use of timber cladding boards on parts of the external elevations of the dwelling which was considered to be inappropriate and inconsistent to the character and material finish of the surrounding area and surrounding properties. The proposal now omits the use of timber cladding and proposes the use of a painted sand cement render which will ensure that the dwelling corresponds to the surrounding materiality of the adjacent dwellings and in harmony with the materials of the vicinity and general townscape.
FORM (Height and Size) 6.4 The Inspectors report for the previous refusal indicated that the refused dwelling's height would be some 10m high and that it would be about 2.4m higher than the existing dwelling. The Inspector stated that although that height would only be achieved at the ridge it would look out of place in the immediate street scene by virtue of its height, rising well above the apartment block and towering above the existing and proposed dwellings at 16/16A Marathon Road. The assessment concluding that the proposal would likely look incongruous to the street scene due to its height when compared with adjacent properties.
6.5 When assessing the drawings for the current application it was unclear from the submissions as to the ground and floor levels of the existing dwelling in order to fully assess the comparative heights of the proposed dwelling. Following concerns raised in an objection by the owners of Inglenook, it was requested that the Agent submit details of the existing dwelling and spot levels.
6.6 Drawing 5/4601/30 submitted on 16/11/2017 provides a comparative section through the existing and the proposed dwelling. This identifies that the proposed dwelling is to have a finished ground level higher than that ground level of the existing site. This higher finished floor level (similar to that of the floor level of the main road) results in the proposed 10m ridge height being some 3.2m higher than the ridge of the existing dwelling. The height of the proposed dwelling matches the height of the previously refused application PA 13/00762/B.
SITING AND LAYOUT (Orientation) 6.7 Previously the Inspector considered that the orientation of the front facing gable did not impact the character of the area but that it was the shear height of the dwelling that was detrimental to the street scene. The proposal now alters the orientation of the dwelling resulting in the longest elevation facing the main road. The significant height of the dwelling for a length of 11.5m would bring about an arrangement inferior to that already refused. The height of the proposal would be inappropriate to the street scene particularly when compared to the reasonably lower levels of adjacent neighbours. The proposal would not positively contribute to the visual appearance or character of the street scene and would adversely impact the quality and enjoyment of the area from both public and private amenity. The
==== PAGE 6 ====
17/00939/B Page 6 of 9
proposal is considered to bring about an incongruous mass which does not respect the site specific context or the wider environment.
LANDSCAPING (Garage and Boundary Wall) 6.8 In addition to the development of the dwelling and garage, the proposal also includes the removal of 9.5m of the existing tall Manx stone wall which bounds the site from the Marathon Road. The use of a stone wall boundary features on both side of the road in the area of Clarecourt and along large stretches of Marathon Road south of the junction with Princes Road. These stone walls only containing small punctures where pedestrian or vehicle access is required into private residence.
6.9 The removal of this substantial amount of the existing stone wall would result in a negative impact of the character of the street scene and would remove a feature which forms parts of the character of the surrounding area and which also appears across wider parts of Douglas and the Island's environment. Conversely the site is not within a Conservation Area and as such this element alone may not be sufficient enough to warrant refusal, however it does exacerbate the negative impact of the proposal as set out above.
AMENITIES OF THE NEIGHBOURS 6.10 The revised orientation of the dwelling (when compared to the PA 13/00762/B) reduces the length of the dwelling along the boundary with 16/16A and limits the projection of the dwelling towards the rear. It is considered that the neighbours at 16/16A and Marathon Apartments are likely to remain free from significant adverse impact in terms of privacy and overlooking due to the limited level of glazing above and beyond the existing levels of glazing on the nearest facing side elevations.
6.11 The proposal will contain a significant amount of glazing on both the front and rear elevations, facing both towards the highway and in the direction of Inglenook and south east down towards the rear elevation and garden amenity area of the proposed dwelling approved under PA 15/01013/B that is to sits on the lower half of the land at Clarecourt.
6.12 Inglenook sits at a level a little higher than Clarecourt and the distance to the nearest elevation is approx. 35m. Marathon Road also runs between the two dwellings. Given the distance between the two properties it is unlikely that the proposal will have any significant impacts on privacy or overlooking, and while the Owners of Inglenook indicate that the proposal will be eliminate their sea views due to the height, rights to a sea view from a private residence is not a materially planning consideration to which any weight would be given. Similar the value of property whether in an increase or decrease is neither a material planning consideration.
6.13 The distance to the nearest elevation of approved dwelling PA 15/01013/B is also sufficient enough to limit loss of privacy between the application site and the internal living areas of the approved neighbouring dwelling, however there is limited information available by means of levels of the land to determine the impact on terms of the height and area of glazing over and beyond what exists between the two sites at present. Furthermore it may be considered that the increased height and large amounts of glazing at the rear of the proposed dwelling may be substantial enough to result in an impact on the privacy and enjoyment of the external garden amenity space of the lower site to cause a concern to be sufficient enough to result in a perceived essence of overlooking above and beyond that of the existing dwelling.
OVERBEARING/ OVER-DOMINATING IMPACT 6.14 While the revised orientation limits the projection and mass of the dwelling from the site at 16/16A the significant height of the proposal will continue to have a controlling and dominating impact on the dwellings at 16/16A Marathon Road, the apartment block and those future occupants of the new dwelling approved under PA 15/01013/B on the lower part of the land owned by Clarecourt.
==== PAGE 7 ====
17/00939/B Page 7 of 9
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The revised orientation of the proposed dwelling reduces impacts on the privacy and general amenity of the neighbouring properties and the proposed material finish ensures that there is a uniform appearance throughout the elevations of the proposed dwelling which collaborates and harmonises with the material finishes of properties in the surrounding area.
7.2 However by means of its siting and layout (orientation), form (height and size), design and landscaping the proposed dwelling is considered to be an incongruous structure which does not positively contribute to the street scene. The substantial height of the proposed dwelling detracts from the visual quality of the area and is detrimental to the character of the street scene.
7.3 The height of the proposed dwelling would result in an overbearing and dominating impact on the lower level adjoining neighbours disturbing general levels of both public and private amenity.
7.4 While the proposal provides sufficient and safe access and parking off the road, the vast removal of part of the front boundary stone wall makes worse the negative impacts of the proposal, and cumulatively detriments the character and appearance of the area.
7.5 For the reasons stated above the proposal is not considered to comply with parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
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.
Decision Made : Refused
Date : 09.01.2018 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
==== PAGE 8 ====
17/00939/B Page 8 of 9
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.
==== PAGE 9 ====
17/00939/B Page 9 of 9
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal