Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/01275/B Page 1 of 3
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/01275/B Applicant : Mr Chok Kong Fong Proposal : Installation of a replacement front door (retrospective) Site Address : 13 Berkeley Street Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3QB
Technical Officer: Mr Thomas Sinden Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 21.12.2020 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal fails to meet the tests of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01, as the character of the Conservation Area is being adversely affected, and not being preserved or enhanced. It is therefore judged to be unacceptable. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not 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):
The owner/occupier of 12 Berkeley Street
as they do not clearly identify a relevant issue in accordance with paragraph 2C1 of the Policy __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is a two storey mid-terrace dwelling on Berkeley Street, within the Selborne Drive Conservation Area. The terrace has attractive facing brickwork, generally in a pale yellow colour, with red brickwork used around the front door surrounds. The properties have slate pitched roofs, brick chimney stacks and are set back from the highway with dwarf boundary walls enclosing the front gardens.
1.2 The windows in the properties are generally sliding sash, although some have been replaced with casement units. The window frame material varies from traditional painted timber to modern uPVC. The doors in the terrace are generally painted timber, with three rectangular
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/01275/B Page 2 of 3
glazed panels in their upper section. Whilst one of the front doors on the terrace (no. 7) has been replaced with composite uPVC doors in a non-traditional style, this is the only property not to retain the traditional style. The traditional doors still in place make a positive contribution to the street scene and are in the arts and crafts style that the Conservation Area Character Appraisal notes as a feature of the area.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application proposes (retrospectively) to replace the existing traditional painted timber front door with a contemporary stained timber door with a single off centre rectangular frosted glass panel.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site is within the Selborne Drive Conservation Area where Environment Policy 35 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01 require development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area and to take into account in any decision, the special character of the area.
3.2 General Policy 2: 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;
3.3 Environment Policy 34: In the maintenance, alteration or extension of pre-1920s buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Application 96/01023/B approved the installation of uPVC windows, whilst application 99/00408/B approved the re-slating of the roof, installation of replacement roof lights and removal of a rear chimney stack.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The owner/occupier of 12 Berkeley Street has submitted a comment stating that the new door is not similar to doors at houses 11, 15 and 17. They state that the site is in a Conservation Area, and that approval would give licence to proceed at will without consent (29.11.2020).
5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division have stated that there is no highways interest in the application (04.12.2020).
5.3 The Borough of Douglas have stated that whilst they are not objecting to the application as the work have already been carried out, they do wish to express their dissatisfaction with the application. They state that as the site is within a conservation area, the applicant should have sought pre-planning advice prior to the installation of the door. They state that there may have been a different decision made by them if the work had not already been undertaken (04.12.2020).
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issue here is whether the proposed replacement door would preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area taking into account the special character of the area.
6.2 The proposed door is in a different style to the one it is replacing, and also in a different style to the front doors of the adjacent properties. General Policy 2 states that proposals will normally be permitted provided that the development respects, amongst other things, the design of buildings and does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding townscape. In addition to the sections of General Policy 2 pertinent to this application, Environment Policy 35 requires
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/01275/B Page 3 of 3
development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area. In this instance, the replacement door proposed is a clear and very visible departure from the style and finish in evidence along the terrace. It is therefore judged that the proposal fails to respect the design of the building, affects adversely the character of the surrounding townscape, and fails to preserve or enhance the Conservation Area's character. It is therefore judged that the proposal fails to comply with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35, and is unacceptable.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 It is judged that the proposal fails to meet the tests of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01, as the character of the Conservation Area is being adversely affected, and not being preserved or enhanced. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
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 above 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 and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 22.12.2020
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
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