Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00635/LAW Page 1 of 3
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00635/LAW Applicant : Mr Fessal Bouaziz Proposal : Application to make lawful the installation of replacement windows Site Address : Flat 4 65 Bucks Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 3EF
Case Officer : Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site forms part of the residential curtilage of 65 Bucks Road, Douglas an existing 3 storey property with additional accommodation in the roof space. Number 65 is 1 of 10 terraced properties of a similar design and style that line this part of Buck Road on the western side.
1.2 The existing property is split in to several different individual units, the unit specific to this application is Flat 4 which sits at the rear of the property and occupies the 2nd floor of the rear outlet. The flat has 4 windows overlooking the rear yard and the rear service lane.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL AND EVIDENCE SUBMITTED 2.1 A Certificate of Lawful Development is sought for the installation of 4 replacement windows for Flat 4, 65 Bucks Road.
2.2 The application has been submitted with the following evidence (in no order):
2.3 The application form compiled by the agent states that the operations started or were substantially completed 'approx. 2012'.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There have been two previous applications for 65 Bucks Road, however neither is considered to be of material relevance of the assessment of this application seeking a Certificate of Lawful Development.
4.0 REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection (04/07/17)
5.0 ASSESSMENT 5.1 This is an application seeking a Certificate of Lawful Development, and therefore it is not a matter of considering the planning merits of the scheme but rather a legal determination based on
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00635/LAW Page 2 of 3
the facts to establish whether the stated operations are established and lawful by period of time and therefore beyond the scope of enforcement action. The test of the evidence is based on the balance of reasonableness. In this instance, the applicant seeks to rely on the fact that the windows in question have been in situ for a minimum of 4 years to establish that the development can be considered lawful, as set out in Part 4, Section 24(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999.
5.2 The applicant has provided a number of photographs of the windows and a floor plan, no information has been submitted to provide clear and justified evidence that the windows have been installed and in situ for a period of 4 years.
6.0 RECOMMENDATION 6.1 In view of the above, it is not recommended that a Certificate of Lawfulness be issued to confirm that no enforcement action can or should be taken in respect of the operations.
7.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, 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) The Highways Division of the Department; and (e) The local authority, Michael Commissioners in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Fisheries are part of the same Department as is the planning authority and as such should not be afforded interested person status under the Order.
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 15.08.2017
Reasons for Refusal:
R 1. The application fails to provide sufficient evidence to support the lawful development of the windows.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 17.08.2017
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00635/LAW Page 3 of 3
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Senior Planning Officer
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