Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/01089/B Page 1 of 3
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/01089/B Applicant : Miss Marie McLaren Proposal : Installation of a replacement front door Site Address : 9 Hildesley Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 5AU
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 21.11.2017 __
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;
The development hereby approved relates to the Site Location Plan, the photograph and the door brochure detail, all three pieces of information date-stamped as having been received 16th October 2017.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 9 Hildesley Road, Douglas, which is a mid-terraced dwelling situated on the southwestern side of the highway in the Douglas (Selborne Drive) Conservation Area.
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/01089/B Page 2 of 3
1.2 The dwelling - in common with the terraces fronting the highway - is finished in red brick and has an unusual crenelated feature above the two-storey bay window features. It has a timber front door that does not appear to be original to the dwelling. The Character Appraisal notes the red Ruabon brick as being a key feature of the highway at paragraph 3.16, intensifying "the appearance of durability". The Appraisal does not, however, mention fenestration as a feature. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE APPLICATION
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the installation of a replacement front door. The door proposed would appear to be formed of uPVC material with a rosewood-coloured finish. There would be a new toplight and a single, centralised glass panel above two panes in the door.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has been the subject of applications seeking approval for the installation of replacement windows (1998) and windows and doors (2004); the latter was actually a single application that was part-approved and part-refused, with the proposed door refused approval for the following reason:
"The site is within the Selbourne [sic] Drive Conservation Area; the installation of a PVC door would be out of keeping with the original architecture of the terrace, and would affect adversely the appearance and character of the Area."
3.2 Also worthy of note are other applications approved for the installation of replacement doors under the following applications, with the numbers of each dwelling noted in brackets: 04/01712/B (no.9), 05/00162/B (no.21), 07/02116/B (no.3), 08/00416/B (no.18), 09/01483/B (no.19), 09/01115/B (no.15), 11/00485/B (no.45), 11/01372/B (no.20), 12/00482/B (no.49), 14/00220/B (no.12), 14/01194/B (no.43), 15/00450/B (no.1), 16/01303/B (no.29) and 17/00431/B (no.42). The last two applications were approved on the basis of the officer report / assessment that there is a variety of doors within the streetscene and that the character and interest of the area is due to the unique brick and castellation features rather than the windows and doors.
3.3 There is also a currently undetermined application at no.13 - 17/01077/B.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Residential on the Douglas Local Plan. Its additionally being sited within a Conservation Area means that the application falls to be assessed General Policy 2 as well as Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 No comments have been received at the time of writing (four days after the end of the consultation period).
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 As noted, the key feature of the Conservation Area is judged to be the form and finish of the dwellings rather than the fenestration style or details. In any case, the existing door would not appear to be original to the building and, while the loss of timber is perhaps to be lamented, the style of the door here proposed is not inappropriate to the dwelling or the streetscene context given that the "durability" characteristic of the terraces would be retained.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 It is concluded that the application complies with GP2 and EP35 of the Strategic Plan.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/01089/B Page 3 of 3
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 can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 23.11.2017 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
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