Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
18/01181/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 18/01181/B Applicant : Mr Christopher & Mrs Bryony Jennings Proposal : Alterations and erection of an extension to rear elevation (in association with 18/01182/CON) Site Address : 10 Albany Street Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3LE
Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 17.12.2018 __
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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers 1471.1, 1471.2 and 1471.3 all received on 9th November 2018.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site represents the residential curtilage of 10 Albany Street which is an existing traditional two storey mid terraced dwelling situated at the north-eastern side of Albany Street and north of Albany Lane.
==== PAGE 2 ====
18/01181/B Page 2 of 6
1.2 The property has a small garden to the front (south-west facing) and a small yard to the rear. A rear single storey outlet can also be found to the rear of the main dwelling house, which accommodates a kitchen, utility room and store.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the alterations and erection of an extension to the rear elevation.
2.2 The extension involves the demolition of the existing single storey rear outlet and replaced with a single storey flat roofed extension, which has a rear projection of 6m, a width of 5.5m and a height of 3.5m. A roof lantern would be installed within the flat roof.
3.0 PLANNING STATUS AND POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Douglas Local Plan of 1998 (and Draft Area Plan for the East) as Predominantly Residential. The site also lies within a Conservation Area.
3.2 The Strategic Plan contains the following policies which are relevant:
3.3 General Policy 2 states: "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: (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (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; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (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; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
3.4 Environment Policy 35 states: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
3.5 Within Section 7.32 - Demolition in Conservation Areas of the IOMSP, the following text is all relevant and informs Environment Policy 39 (below):
==== PAGE 3 ====
18/01181/B Page 3 of 6
"7.32.1 Under Section 19 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act, Conservation Area designation introduces control over the demolition of most buildings within Conservation Areas...
7.32.2 The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. When considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to: o the condition of the building;
o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions);
o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use;
o the merits of alternative proposals for the site."
3.6 Environment Policy 39 states: "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area."
3.7 Conservation Areas of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man):
"POLICY RB/6 DEMOLITION There will be a general presumption against demolition and consent for the demolition of a registered building should not be expected simply because redevelopment is economically more attractive than repair and re-use of an historic building; or because the building was acquired at a price that reflected the potential for redevelopment, rather than the condition and constraints of the existing historic building. Where proposed works would result in the total or substantial demolition of a registered building, an applicant, in addition to the general criteria set out in RB/3 above, should be able to demonstrate that the following considerations have been addressed:-
o The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use. Any such assessment should be based on consistent and long term assumptions. Less favourable levels of rents and yields cannot automatically be assumed for historic buildings and returns may, in fact, be more favourable given the publicly acknowledged status of the building. Furthermore, historic buildings may offer proven performance, physical attractiveness and functional spaces that in an age of rapid change may outlast the short-lived and inflexible technical specifications that have sometimes shaped new developments. Any assessment should take into account possible tax allowances and exemptions. In rare cases where it is clear that a building has been deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition, less weight should be given to the costs of repair;
o The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. An applicant must show that real efforts have been made, without success, to continue the present use, or to find new uses for the building. This may include the offer of the unrestricted freehold of the building on the open market at a realistic price reflecting the building's condition.
o The merits of alternative proposals for the site. Subjective claims for the architectural merits of a replacement building should not justify the demolition of a registered building. There may be very exceptional cases where the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the
==== PAGE 4 ====
18/01181/B Page 4 of 6
community; these would have to be weighed against preservation. Even here, it will often be feasible to incorporate registered buildings within new development, and this option should be carefully considered. The challenge presented by retaining registered buildings can be a stimulus to imaginative new designs to accommodate them
POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole."
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There are no previous planning applications are considered relevant in the determination of this application.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Douglas Borough Council indicates that they do not oppose the application (received on 30.11.2018).
5.2 Highway Services comment there are no highway implications (received on 05.12.2018).
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to be considered in the assessment of this application is; the potential impact of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area; the individual property and potential impacts upon neighbouring properties; and is whether the single storey building should be retained as its makes a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
The potential impact of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the Conservation Area 6.2 The Planning Authority has a duty to determine whether such proposals are in keeping with not only the individual building, but the special character and quality of the area as a whole. With this in mind it is very relevant to consider Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted June 2016). This policy indicates that development within Conservation Areas will only be permitted if they would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.
6.3 In terms of the proposed single storey flat roofed extension to the rear of the property, while the flat roofed design is not ideal, it arguable is best suited to this property, given its height is lower than what a more traditional roofed extension would be and being to the rear of the property. Further, with a 2m high boundary wall to the rear, it will not be especially apparent from public views from the rear lane. Further, the rear elevation is not a key feature of the Conservation Area and not especially apparent from main public views and therefore it is also considered an appropriate form of development.
==== PAGE 5 ====
18/01181/B Page 5 of 6
6.4 Accordingly, it is considered the proposals are appropriate and would preserve the Conservation Area and the individual property and therefore the proposal would comply with Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan in this case.
The individual property and potential impacts upon neighbouring properties 6.5 In terms of impacts upon neighbouring amenities (loss of light and/or overbearing impact upon outlooks), the main potential impacts are potentially caused though the height and rear projection of the extension, namely in relation to the neighbouring property Nr 8 Albany Street.
6.6 It is noted that currently (measured from applicants site) there is a approximate 2.2m high wall which runs along the shared boundary with Nr 8. It is also noted that for the first 1m section (apx) of the wall (measured from rear wall of main dwelling house) the height is approximately 3.2m in height.
6.7 The proposed extension would essentially appear from the Nr 8, as an increase of the existing boundary wall height by a further 1.2m, therefore a overall height of 3.4m. This is slightly reduced as the ground level of Nr 8 is 0.4m higher than the application site. Therefore the wall/extension would have a overall height of 3m for a 6 metre length of the shared boundary.
6.8 It is noted that there are four windows potentially affected by this extension, one being with the rear elevation of the main dwelling house (likely to be dining room) and three windows (likely to be no primary living rooms i.e. living/dining rooms) which would directly look towards the extension, as they are within the side of the rear two storey outrigger which is in place to the rear of Nr 8. It is important to consider that the internal floor levels of Nr 8 are higher than the norm and therefore the subsequent window cill levels are approximately 1.6m above the ground level of Nr 8 rear yard. Accordingly, when viewing out of these windows, the impact of the proposed wall would be reduced.
6.9 As mentioned there is already a sizeable boundary wall in place, and the proposal would equate to an increase of approximately 1.2m and therefore, the issue is whether this additional height above the existing (total of 3m in height), for a length of 6m, would result in a significant impact upon neighbouring amenities to warrant a refusal.
6.10 In this case it is considered acceptable, namely given the existing height of boundary wall; the modest increase in height of the extension above the existing wall, the ground and first floor levels are above that of their application site, which in turn reduces the potential impact; and as the primary
Whether the single storey building should be retained 6.11 In relation to this issue, it was considered whether the single storey building makes a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. In this respect the demolition of the existing building raises no concerns as the building does not have any character or quality worth of retention, nor can it be seen from public views.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal would comply with the relevant policies of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan therefore it is recommended that the application be approved.
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;
==== PAGE 6 ====
18/01181/B Page 6 of 6
(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: 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. __
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.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 17.12.2018
Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett
Principal Planner
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal