Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00904/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00904/B Applicant : Mrs Mary Trainor Proposal : Removal of a chimney Site Address : 9 & 10 Crosby Terrace Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 5DG
Case Officer : Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 31.10.2017 Site Visit : 25.09.2017 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 09.10.2017 __
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 Site Plan, 2 x Photographs and associated supporting statement all date stamped and received 23/08/2017.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
NONE
__
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT.
THE APPLICATION SITE
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00904/B Page 2 of 5
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of two terraced properties at Crosby Terrace in Douglas. Numbers 9 and 10 are situated opposite the junction with Dukes Road. The two and half storey mid-terraced dwellings each have a dormer on the front elevation set into the eaves level, this is a feature shared by each of the terraced properties numbered 9-17.
1.2 Along this stretch there are chimney stacks located between each of the dwellings. These stacks vary in size. Large stacks with several pots are split with intermediate smaller stacks with just two pots.
1.3 The application site lies within the Ballaquayle Road Conservation Area. The character appraisal of the Conservation Area states that the "majority of the terraces fronting on to Ballaquayle Road were built during the late nineteenth century and the progression down hill towards the sea is marked by the regular rhythm of splayed bay windows, gable peaks, decorative iron railings and other good quality Victorian detailing. The common use of materials and detailing serves to unify the group of terraces which makes a strong contribution to this main entrance to town."
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The planning application seeks approval for the removal of the smaller chimney stack located between both Number 9 and Number 10 Crosby Terrace and the making good of the roof to match the existing.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The application site has been the subject of one previous planning application for alterations to the roof to include removal of existing roof slates and replace with composite tiles, this was granted full approval in 2005 under PA 05/02016/B.
3.2 Given the nature of the application it may also be relevant to considered two previous planning applications for similar proposals that sought to remove existing chimney stacks with no replacements.
3.3 PA 15/01198/B - Commercial Hotel, Ramsey APPROVED AT APPEAL
The Inspector concluded here that given the poor state of disrepair, and the vegetation that sprouts from the chimney , that it gives the area a forlorn and neglected look. Its removal and replacement with a continuation of the existing slate roof would improve the appearance of the Conservation Area. In addition to this since the chimney stack no longer served any functional purpose, the Inspector stated that the benefit of retaining this structure would be purely aesthetic and as such was not satisfied that its potential contribution to the townscape would be significant.
3.4 PA 14/00683/B - 18 Kensington Road, Douglas REFUSED AT APPEAL.
The inspector concluded that the chimneys significantly contributed to the rhythm of the properties within the terrace and streetscene and their removal would substantially harm the character of the Conservation Area. In addition to this the Inspected shared concerns regarding the precedent in which a decision to approve would set as comparable problems of damp are likely to exist at other properties and that the cumulative result of the loss of chimney stacks would have substantially harmful impact on the Conservation Area.
PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential under the Douglas Local Plan 1998. As previously mentioned, the application site lies within Ballaquayle Conservation Area. Given the nature of the works the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains one policy considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00904/B Page 3 of 5
4.2 Environment Policy 35:
"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."
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The Department of Infrastructure Highway Services have indicated no highways interest in the application (07/09/2017).
5.2 Douglas Borough Council has no objections to the application (10/09/2017).
5.3 Following concerns of a Senior Planner additional views were sought from the Conservation Officer with regard to the proposed removal of the chimney stack. These comments stated that the removal of the stack would impact the rhythm of the streetscene. While other terraced properties in the area may not include such a feature it plays a role in the roofscape along Crosby Terrace. He followed on to say that if others had been removed elsewhere along the terrace the removal may not be so significant, however each of the intermittent stacks remain in existence and the loss of this one would generate an impact on the character of the area (18/10/2017).
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issue in this case is whether the removal of the intermittent chimney stack between No.9 and No.10 would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in accordance with Environment Policy 35.
6.2 Chimney stacks can add significantly to the character of a property and the wider area and their removal can often be controversial given that their significance is often a result of a difference of opinion between two people. This application has been difficult to assess given the split views within the Department.
6.3 Within PA 15/01198/B for the Commercial Hotel in Ramsey the reporting officer considered that the stacks were important and worthy of retention whilst the Inspector considered that the stacks were visually unattractive.
6.4 In the case here we have terrace made up of sixteen properties with two styles of design. The application site is one of eight pairs of symmetrical properties that form the northern end of the terrace; each pair has a large shared stack at each end with several chimney pots. Between each of the large stacks are smaller intermittent stacks with only two chimney pots. There is a notable size difference between the two. The large chimneys appear to act as book ends defining each pair.
6.5 Properties in the surrounding area are predominately terraced. The style and design of the properties varies although there are significant similarities between the application site and the terraced properties along Paletine Road. These properties also forming a terrace made of symmetrical pairs. These only have large shared stacks at the ends of each pair. With no intermittent smaller stacks.
6.6 The application has been submitted with a statement from the owner of Number 10 who states that the existing stack is not operational. The false chimney stack is also of poor form and causing damp ingress in both No. 10 and adjoining property No. 9. The statement indicates that repairs and replacements were carried out on the roof in early 2016 but have not solved the damp ingress issues.
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/00904/B Page 4 of 5
6.7 Often is the case that chimney stacks over time deteriorate in physical state. It is always sought to have them first repaired or removed and replaced with a replica false stack. The applicant indicates that repair has already been sought and the stack in existence is already false and that the last resort is for its complete removal and making good of the roof to match the existing.
6.8 There is little evidence provided as to whether the existing stack is false or not, although its detail suggests that it is original albeit painted grey.
6.9 Historic application PA 14/00683/B for 18 Kensington Road raised concern as an approval could set a precedent for neighbouring properties to similarly apply for removal of their chimney stacks, a culmination of which could have altered the character and rhythm of the terrace.
6.10 In this instance the removal of the small intermittent stack would unlikely have an impact on the appearance of the property or the streetscene and that the rhythm of the properties will be maintained through the bay windows, peaks and iron railings of the front elevations. Should an approval here set a precedent for the neighbours (No's 9-17), the removal of the other smaller intermittent stacks would not significantly impact the character of the area or result in an unacceptable break in the roofscape of Crosby Terrace and that the rhythm and character of the bays, peaks and Victorian iron railings remains undisturbed on the front elevations.
CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons the loss of the small intermittent stack between No. 9 and No. 10 is not considered to impact the character of the Conservation Area to warrant a refusal. The proposal it not expected to impact the rhythm of the front elevations for which the area has been appraised and that the streetscence will remain preserved.
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: 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 confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : ...Permitted.. Committee Meeting Date:...13.11.2017
Signed :...L KINRADE...
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/00904/B Page 5 of 5
Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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