Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
22/00324/CON Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 22/00324/CON Applicant : Mr Ian Saunders Proposal : Demolition of wall between access lane, reposition front gate posts and formation of electronic charging car parking bay in the front garden (In association with application 22/00323/B) Site Address : 2 Strathallan Crescent Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4NR
Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 08.07.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The removal of the side boundary wall for the creating of a parking space to the front of the property would neither preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the existing property or the Conservation Area and therefore the proposal would fail to comply with General Policy 2, Environment Policy 35 & 39 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, Planning Policy Statement 1/01 and the statutory test of Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999).
__
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 4(2):
The owner/occupier of No.3 Strathallan Crescent as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). __
Officer’s Report
==== PAGE 2 ====
22/00324/CON Page 2 of 7
1.0 SITE 1.1 The site comprises the residential property of No.2 Strathallan Crescent, Douglas. The site sites to the northern side of Kind Edward Road and Douglas Promenade. No.2 Strathallan Crescent is a traditional two storey semi-detached property with a garden and mature hedgerow to front.
1.2 To the south west of the application site is No.1 Strathallan Crescent and to the north east of the site is a service lane running between the application site and No.3 Strathallan Crescent. This provides a vehicle access to these two properties but also pedestrian access to two other neighbouring properties along Strathallan Crescent.
2.0 PLANNING POLICIES 2.1 The application site is within an area of 'Predominantly Residential' under the Area Plan for the East 2020. The site is not within a Conservation Area.
2.2 Due to the zoning of the site and the proposed works the following policies are relevant in the determination of the application:-
2.3 General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
2.4 Environment Policy 35 states: "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."
2.5 This echoes the policies of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man which states; "POLICY RB/6 DEMOLITION There will be a general presumption against demolition and consent for the demolition of a registered building should not be expected simply because redevelopment is economically more attractive than repair and re-use of an historic building; or because the building was acquired at a price that reflected the potential for redevelopment, rather than the condition and
==== PAGE 3 ====
22/00324/CON Page 3 of 7
constraints of the existing historic building. Where proposed works would result in the total or substantial demolition of a registered building, an applicant, in addition to the general criteria set out in RB/3 above, should be able to demonstrate that the following considerations have been addressed:-
o The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use. Any such assessment should be based on consistent and long term assumptions. Less favourable levels of rents and yields cannot automatically be assumed for historic buildings and returns may, in fact, be more favourable given the publicly acknowledged status of the building. Furthermore, historic buildings may offer proven performance, physical attractiveness and functional spaces that in an age of rapid change may outlast the short-lived and inflexible technical specifications that have sometimes shaped new developments. Any assessment should take into account possible tax allowances and exemptions. In rare cases where it is clear that a building has been deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition, less weight should be given to the costs of repair;
o The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. An applicant must show that real efforts have been made, without success, to continue the present use, or to find new uses for the building. This may include the offer of the unrestricted freehold of the building on the open market at a realistic price reflecting the building's condition.
o The merits of alternative proposals for the site. Subjective claims for the architectural merits of a replacement building should not justify the demolition of a registered building. There may be very exceptional cases where the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the community; these would have to be weighed against preservation. Even here, it will often be feasible to incorporate registered buildings within new development, and this option should be carefully considered. The challenge presented by retaining registered buildings can be a stimulus to imaginative new designs to accommodate them
POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole."
2.6 Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) states, "(4) Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act".
2.7 2.7 Within Section 7.32 - Demolition in Conservation Areas of the IOMSP, the following text is all relevant and informs Environment Policy 39 (below):
==== PAGE 4 ====
22/00324/CON Page 4 of 7
"7.32.1 Under Section 19 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act, Conservation Area designation introduces control over the demolition of most buildings within Conservation Areas...
7.32.2 The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. When considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to: o the condition of the building;
o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions);
o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use;
o the merits of alternative proposals for the site."
2.8 Environment Policy 39 states: "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area."
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There are no previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.
3.2 It should be noted that there does not appear to be any Registered Building approvals for the demolition of any boundary walls of any driveways along Strathallan Crescent since the area was adopted as a Conservation Area in 2002.
4.0 PROPOSAL 4.1 The application seeks approval for the Registered Building Consent for the demolition of wall between access lane, reposition front gate posts and formation of electronic charging car parking bay in the front garden (In association with application 22/00323/B).
4.2 The works involve the increasing in the width of the existing access from 2.1m to 2.5m which requires the reposition of the existing pedestrian gate and pillars. The pillars and gate would be reinstated/rebuild on a like for like basis.
4.3 The works also involve the removal of the existing side boundary wall which currently separates the front garden of the site with the shared service lane which is used by Nr 2 and 3 Strathallan Crescent. This removal would allow for part of the front garden being paved to allow for a single off road parking space.
4.4 Since the application being initially submitted the applicants have indicated that they would be happy to have a clear demarcation between the new hardstanding and the shared access lane.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services do not object (07.04.2022) making the following comments: "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking. The Applicant is advised that highway licences may be necessary for the use of the highway during works."
5.2 Douglas Borough Council do not object (08.04.2022).
==== PAGE 5 ====
22/00324/CON Page 5 of 7
5.3 The owner/occupier of No.3 Strathallan Crescent objects to the application which can be summarised as (19.04.2022); concerns of position of red line; visibility slays should be taken from the kerb line rather the edge of parking area; the proposal subsumes the communal access road into the garden of no 2 with no demarcation and will appear as an extension to their property; will adversely affect the privacy of my property and two other properties as we will effectively traversing the garden of No 2 to gain access to our rear yard facilities with the extent of the area of communal land no longer defined as it currently is within the two boundary walls; It will have an overbearing impact and cause loss of privacy to all properties including the applicants own; will fundamentally change the access arrangements that have been in place since the properties were built in the early 19th century; we and any future owner of our property or indeed the other two properties will undoubtedly feel uncomfortable traversing what would appear to be the garden of No 2; further would any future owner of No 2 really want three other households driving walking through their garden on a regular basis; proposal with adversely affect mu outlook and character of the Conservation Area as a whole; contrary to Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policy 25 & 39; contrary to PPS/01 which indicates the historical street pattern and definition of property boundaries and quality enclosures, spaces between buildings and vista along streets are prime consideration in identifying conservation areas, the removal of the boundary wall and the effective removal of the communal space between garden will be detrimental for generations to come; the introduction of car parking within this front garden will adversely affect the character of the Conservation Area as a whole; and the applicants would not be disadvantaged by a refusal as there is ample on street parking immediately adjacent to the application site and Government provided EC charging bays have already been installed within walkable distance of the site.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issue to be considered in the assessment of this application is whether the side boundary wall should be retained as its makes a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and whether the resulting proposed scheme is appropriate.
6.2 The alterations to the front of the property is the most important in this case, being the elevation which is most publically viewable and elevation which is most important in terms of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The main works to the front elevation relate to the works to the removal of the side garden wall of the front garden and the creation of a parking area fronting the property. The changes to the gate pillars and widening of the access raises no concerns.
6.4 It should be noted that paving part of the front garden (similar to what is shown on the proposed plans) does not need planning approval as it would be considered as gardening works and not development. So in terms of this aspect of the works, it is not considered unacceptable. However, the resulting works (removal of side wall) and then the creation of the hardstanding for parking does change the existing character from a garden to a parking area in the main, especially when a car is parked. This cannot currently occur. Therefore, while the physical works of laying paving to the front of the property in itself does not raise concern, it does enable parking which in turn has the potential to raise some concern.
6.5 The removal of the side boundary wall could also raise concern. Certainly if the proposal was to removal the front boundary wall this would cause significant concern. It is noted that a limited number of properties along Strathallan Crescent have undertaken this (without permission or are historical works) and such works are considered to have a detrimental impact to the area/individual property due to the physical removal of the front boundary walls, and also the character and appearance of the properties/street scene, given the former front gardens now accommodate parked vehicles which change the character of the
==== PAGE 6 ====
22/00324/CON Page 6 of 7
properties/street scene in an adverse way and difficult to argue such works preserve the Conservation Area, which is the required test (Section 18(4) & EP35).
6.6 In favour of the application is the fact that with the existing front boundary walls being retained and the front mature hedgerow being retained then the visual impact of the removal of the side wall may not be especially noticeable; nor perhaps the parking of a vehicle given the hedgerow would screen such views, with the exception of when immediately passing the entrance of the site. However, should this hedge die/damaged or removed (does not need any form of other permission from DEFA) by perhaps future owners, the appearance of the works and namely a parked car would be far more noticeable and would have an adverse visual impact to the character and appearance of the site, street scene and this section of the Conservation Area.
6.7 Views of the Registered Buildings Officers have been sought and they have commented;
"...We are of the view that as long as the front wall and hedge are retained, and the repositioned pillars are in a like for like manner to the existing pillars, the impact on the special character of the conservation will be minimal. The existing gate is of a material and form that is appropriate, so we would request that the replacement wider gate matches the form, material and finish of the existing."
6.8 However, while the physical removal of the boundary wall may not be considered to have a significant adverse impact upon the Conservation Area; the proposal would allow for the parking of a vehicle to the front of the property. In this regard and with discussions with the Register Building Officer they also have concerns that the appearance of this feature would impact upon the appearance of the property and that where is has been done elsewhere this has had a negative impact upon character and appearance.
6.8 A element in favour of the application is it would enable an EV vehicle to charge within the curtilage of the property which supports the overall aim of the IOM in reducing the impacts of Climate Change/emissions. While there are EV charges along the promenade, these are not significant in number and with the increasing amount of EV vehicles, it is likely more and more private charging facilities will be required, rather than relying on public EV charging spaces. Therefore, this aspect falls in favour of the proposal.
6.9 This aspect is considered a balanced decision; if the hedgerow is retained and the works are undertaken as indicated, then arguable the proposal could be considered to preserve the character and appearance of the area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development. However, if the hedgerow where to be removed/die, potential by future owners how may not want the maintenance of hedgerows or prefer more open views; then impacts would be unacceptable and given this. Relying on landscaping to solely overcome concerns of any development is not generally acceptable, rather should only be considered acceptable to help limit the impact. Therefore, on balance it is considered the proposal would neither preserve nor enhance the Conservation Area therefore failing to comply with Environment Policy 35 & 39 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01.
6.10 Furthermore the proposal would fail the statutory test of Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999). This requires that any development in a Conservation Area should preserve or enhance the areas character or, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area. If any proposed development would conflict with that objective, there will be a strong presumption against the grant of planning permission, though, no doubt, in exceptional cases the presumption may be overridden in favour of development which is desirable on the ground of some other public interest. In this case there is no significant public interest in approving this application as the works would benefit the applicant and not the public. An example of this perhaps would be an infrastructure project which has wider public benefits
==== PAGE 7 ====
22/00324/CON Page 7 of 7
which may impact a Conservation Area, but the public benefits of the scheme outweigh the conservation harm.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 It is considered the proposed works would neither preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the existing property or the Conservation Area and therefore the proposal would fail to comply with General Policy 2, Environment Policy 35 & 39 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, Planning Policy Statement 1/01 and the statutory test of Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999).
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013, the following 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; (c) Manx National Heritage; and (d) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated
8.2 In addition to those above, the Regulation 9(3) requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application. __
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 and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status
Decision Made : Refused Date : 12.07.2022
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