156270

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 17/00728/B
                                 Page  1  of  3

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 17/00728/B Applicant : Mr James & Mrs Jean Blair Proposal : Alterations, application of replacement render, removal of garage door and block up opening and installation of a replacement balcony Site Address : Rope Walk College Green Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1BE

Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of The Rope Walk, College Green, Castletown. The existing property is a two storey detached dwelling situated to the south of the highway but, owing to a significant, robust and historic stone wall cannot be viewed from the highway except for those occasions when its entrance gates are open. The dwelling is unusual in design, with prominent 'gull-wing' roofs positioned either side of a central, flat-roofed element. Owing to its symmetry in form, and particularly given the pair of car ports (perhaps more accurately described as 'open garages') at the sides, the building may have originally formed a pair of semi-detached dwellings. Today it is, however, a single residential unit.

1.2 To the sea-facing side of the elevation is a cantilevered balcony.

2.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for three separate matters:

o The permanent blocking up of one door on the left-hand (western) car port / open garage will walling to match the existing. This would appear to retain an opening for the garage to the north; o The re-rendering of the entire building with smooth to replace the current spar-dashed, and o The installation of a replacement balcony. This would be formed of hardwood or metal posts inserted in the ground, with glazed panels set between them. The area of the proposed balcony would be identical to the existing (7.5 in length with a depth of 1.3m).

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The balcony element of the current application is essentially identical to that approved, but evidently not implemented, under PA 10/01157/B. The case officer commented as follows:

"The existing balcony is of poor appearance, it is considered that the replacement balcony would respect the site in terms of scale and design and would enhance the appearance of the property.

"In terms of impact to neighbouring properties, the rear of the application site looks towards sea and would not result in overlooking toward neighbouring properties. It is considered that the replacement balcony would not have a harmful impact to the character and appearance of the property or the surrounding area in general, nor would it be detrimental to the amenities of local residents."

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 17/00728/B
                                 Page  2  of  3

3.2 Other than this, no other applications judged to be of material relevance have been submitted on this site or its neighbours.

4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.1 The site falls within an area zoned as Residential on the Area Plan for the South, which contains no policies judged to be materially relevant to the current proposal; General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan does, however, apply.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services of the DoI offered no objection to the application on 31/07/17, while at the time of writing Castletown Commissioners have not responded.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The proposed replacement balcony is as supportable today as it was in 2010. The existing structure is poor in form and its reinvigoration as proposed will provide a welcome, contemporary addition to the dwelling's appearance - even if it would not be quite so historically appropriate as the existing balcony. That the size would be identical in the proposed balcony means no additional overlooking will result.

6.2 The installation of a wall in place of the present garage door will have a limited impact on the character or appearance of the dwelling, even if the loss of symmetry in a building evidently designed to be symmetrical is to be lamented to a certain degree. The harm is, however, not so significant as to warrant the application's refusal. The site has a significant amount of parking land available and so no concern is raised on this point.

6.3 The re-rendering will have a similar neutral effect, although the addition of a 'cleaner' finish relative to that which exists may have a positive effect on the dwelling's architecturally (but intentionally) simplistic appearance and style.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION 7.1 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, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o 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; o Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material, which in this case includes Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 16.08.2017

Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 17/00728/B
                                 Page  3  of  3

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.

The development hereby approved relates to the Location Plan and Drawings 1407.1, 1407.2 and 1407.3, all four date-stamped as having been received 7th July 2017.

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 : Permitted

Date: 17.08.2017

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.