Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/01146/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/01146/B Applicant : Mr William James McDowell Proposal : Erection of dormer bungalow with off street parking Site Address : Land off Lane at rear of Westminster Drive Douglas Isle of Man
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 15.11.2017 Site Visit : 15.11.2017 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 28.11.2017 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The design of the dormer bungalow proposed is out of keeping with the surrounding built environment of Westminster Drive, and is therefore contrary to Environment Policy 42 and parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 2. Locating a dwelling here would adversely affect neighbouring residential amenity through the comings and goings associated with the dwelling and also owing to the impact a dwelling of this size adjacent the garden of the neighbouring 13 Westminster Drive would have on the enjoyment of the garden associated with that existing dwelling. The proposed dwelling is therefore contrary to part (g) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 3. The dwelling proposed would have insufficient outdoor amenity space and an inadequate outlook from its principle rooms, contrary to paragraph 7.34.1 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 4. The hardstanding area proposed for the parking of vehicles does not meet the minimum length standard for a parking space for two private vehicles, which is the required number of parking spaces for a two-bedroom dwelling. The application is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 7 / Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 5.As the hardstanding area proposed for the parking of vehicles does not meet the minimum length standard for a parking space for two private vehicles, the vehicles associated with the dwelling will likely overhang the hardstanding area, encroaching onto the lane and preventing its proper use. The application is therefore contrary to parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
__
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/01146/B Page 2 of 5
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are 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 of 17, Westminster Drive which physically adjoins the site.
__
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is a parcel of land to the rear of 15 Westminster Drive, Douglas, which is located to the southeastern side of the highway - behind the dwellings - and to the northwest of Ballakermeen High School. The site is almost rectangular in shape and does not currently have an active use, though from the site visit it appeared as if it may be in some form of storage use related to the applicant's construction business. The applicant also owns 15 Westminster Drive.
2.0 PLANNING HISTORY 2.1 PA 16/00283/B sought and gained approval for the erection of a building that would provide a pair of double garages on the site. The approved building has a width of 6.3m, a depth of 10.0m and a maximum height of 2.8m. The garage would have an external finish of smooth cement render painted or dash render, and had a flat roof design. The larger of the two was for the applicant and the smaller to be rented for private (i.e. ancillary to residential) use to fund the build. The application was approved in the face of significant local opposition to the application on grounds of the impact its possibly commercial use could have on local living conditions. A condition was attached limiting the site's use to "the parking of private cars and domestic related storage only and shall not be used for the parking of commercial vehicles and/or for the repair/maintenance of commercial vehicles".
2.2 Although the buildings previously in place on the site have been demolished, this did not require planning approval as the site is not within a Conservation Area, while there is nothing to indicate that PA 16/00283/B has been commenced - though, obviously, it will remain extant for some years yet.
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE CURRENT APPLICATION 3.1 Full planning approval is now sought for the erection of a dormer bungalow on the site. The building would measure 8.7m in width and 10.6m in length, with a small outrigger measuring 2.7m in width and a further 3.5m in length also proposed in addition, giving something of an L-shaped footprint. There would be a single, flat-roofed dormer window running almost the full length of the southwest-facing roof plane.
3.2 There would be a proportionally small garden associated with the dwelling, comprising two almost triangular parcels of land, to the rear (southeast), while to the front is proposed an area of hardstanding measuring roughly 9m in width and 5m in length, which would be for the parking of vehicles.
3.3 An annotation on the submitted proposed floorplan makes reference to a "Kitchen & Staff Dinning [sic] Area", but there is no reference in the application to any commercial use and so it is unclear what the "Staff" referred to are.
3.4 The applicant has included a supporting letter with the application, noting as follows:
o This plot has been an eyesore for many years;
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/01146/B Page 3 of 5
o The dwelling will enhance the area; o I will widen the lane in front of the plot to allow better access for goods and works vehicles to the rears of Westminster Drive properties; o There were many objections to the commercial use of the garages and so I feel it would be best to build a small dwelling to take away any future risk of commercial use; o It will also be kept clean and tidy; o This will give no.13 a secluded garden; o The dwelling won't be high enough to block light or look onto his property; o There can never be any business in it and this is reassuring; o There will be ample parking on the plot and it has good access via the lane and looks on to Westminster Drive; o I feel this is the best use for the plot as it will give a young couple a chance to get on the property ladder.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned on the Douglas Local Plan of 1998 as Predominantly Residential.
4.2 Accordingly, the application falls to be assessed against the relevant parts of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan. It is perhaps worth noting in full the Strategic Plan's commentary regarding backland development that, in paragraph 7.34.1, precedes EP42:
"[It] may also be acceptable in some circumstances, but only if satisfactory access can be achieved and if there is sufficient space to provide adequate amenity for both new and existing adjoining dwellings."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services indicate that they have no interest in the application (21.11.17)
5.2 Douglas Borough Council have no objection to the application (14.11.17).
5.3 The owner of 17, Westminster Drive objects to the application on the grounds that whilst the previous application proposed the erection of a garage, this now proposes a dwelling and if approved, there would be nothing to stop all the garages being so redeveloped. He believes that the original intention of the parcels of land associated with these properties was as amenity space or for garages, not a future development opportunity. The proposed change would fundamentally change the character of the area. The decision-maker should be aware of the precedent which would be established by an approval of this application. The site is currently used for the parking of construction vehicles and this loss would put an additional strain on local on-street parking which is already very busy. He believes that the development is an over-intensive use of the site and it would be difficult to build the structure without a significant impact on the adjacent properties. He currently lets number 17 out and will not give permission for his property to be used or accessed to facilitate the development. The inclusion of dormers facing across his garage roof will potentially overlook the rear yards of a number of houses. If approval is granted he would request that conditions are attached to constrain working hours to weekdays when most residents will be at work and when residents least require access along the lane (15.11.17).
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key issues here are the design effect the alterations proposed will have on the dwelling and the surrounding streetscape, and also in respect of neighbouring living conditions. Consideration also needs to be given to the availability of parking for the dwelling, and the general amenity its occupants would have.
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/01146/B Page 4 of 5
6.2 The design of the dwelling is not particularly well-considered. While the desire to keep it of a minimal mass in an attempt to protect neighbouring living conditions is welcomed, this has not resulted in a good quality design: and, moreover, it is one that will be visible from Westminster Drive, which is a traditional street benefitting from a well-defined rhythm formed of the two- and two-and-a-half storey dwellings that line the highway. The proposed bungalow, particularly with its ungainly flat-roofed dormer and lack of any fenestration on the two longer elevations, would be inappropriate against this context. It is accordingly concluded that the design of the dwelling fails to comply with Environment Policy 42 and parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
6.3 The dwelling would also adversely affect neighbouring living conditions; it is noted that backland development can be acceptable in certain circumstances, but the mere presence of a building such as this is likely to cause concern and disruption to local people. This is evident from the concern raised in respect of the proposed domestic garages here and the single objection received in respect of this current application. Moreover, though there are no windows that would face directly towards adjacent dwellings, the close distance between the dwelling and neighbouring gardens is such that, again, its presence would harmfully impact on the amenity of those living in and using the gardens of those dwellings. This is considered to comprise a level of harm (albeit somewhat on balance) sufficient to warrant the application's refusal in view of the policy provisions set out in part (g) of General Policy 2.
6.4 The dwelling would also have insufficient amenity space. The small triangular areas, that may be intended to be garden but is not at all clear from the submitted drawing, are judged to be wholly inadequate for the purposes of useable outdoor space. The outlook will also be inadequate: views are only achievable to the northwest (facing an access lane / the rear elevation of a dwelling) and southeast (Ballakermeen High School buildings) and, at first floor, to the southwest over other garages and storage land. None of this could be said to comply with the spirit of what paragraph 7.34.1 or the associated Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan are collectively trying to achieve and, consequently, the application is also concluded to represent inappropriate backland development contrary to this policy / paragraph combination.
6.5 The dwelling would not have a large enough area for the parking of associated vehicles, contrary to Transport Policy 7 / Appendix 7 and parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2. While in pure numeric terms the roughly 45sqm is large enough, the fact remains that one of the dimensions is 5m, and the standard measurement for the parking of a car is 6m in length. Therefore, insufficient parking space is proposed, while moreover it is likely that parked cars would overhang the proposed parking area, preventing the proper access to the lane and thereafter Westminster Drive. This represents two separate reasons that would alone justify refusal of the application on highway safety grounds.
6.6 There are no material considerations that would offset these concerns sufficiently to set them aside. The widening of the lane suggested by the applicant may well be welcomed, but there is nothing stopping this from occurring without the construction of the dwelling proposed; similarly the 'tidying' of the site. Finally, the concern residents may have about the commercial use of the approved garages should carry no weight since they are, by planning condition, prevented from such a use.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 It is concluded that the dwelling proposed should be refused for the reasons given.
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;
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/01146/B Page 5 of 5
(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 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: 28.11.2017
Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett
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