Loading document...
| Application No.: | 24 / 90919 / B | | :-- | :-- | | Applicant: | Maclo Construction Limited | | Proposal: | Conversion of offices on upper floors into three apartments | | Site Address: | 39 Bucks Road | | | Douglas | | | Isle Of Man | | | IM1 3DE |
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken: \quad 07.10 .2024 Site Visit: \quad 07.10 .2024 Expected Decision Level :
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: \quad 11.10 .2024
R 1. Overall, it is considered that the very poor terms of outlook for future occupiers of the apartment, confined entirely to the rear of the property, means that the scheme does not represent good design, bringing the scheme as a whole into conflict with General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 17 of the Strategic Plan, and the harm is not outweighed by other considerations.
R 2. The introduction of the new second floor rear patio doors with Juliet balcony at a distance less than 12 m to the bathroom and bedroom windows on the rear of the first floor apartment at No. 2 Princes Street, Douglas, is considered unneighbourly and would adversely affect the privacy and enjoyment of this neighbouring property, contrary to General Policy 2 (g) of the Strategic Plan.
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o DoI - Highways Services - No objection o Douglas City Council - No Objection It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal because:
1.1 The site is the curtilage of 39 Bucks Road, Douglas, a three-storey end-of-terrace building located on the southwest of Bucks Road, between its junction with Princes Street and Tynwald Street. Access to the floors above the shop on the ground floor is via an entranced door to the front elevation with stairs to the uppers floors. There is a staircase accessed from the rear lane to the property which leads to the first floor of the building. 1.2 The property has two parking spaces accessed from the rear lane via Tynwald Street and Princes Street. The property sits about 50 m from a bus stop along Bucks Road, and within close proximity to the Chester Street car park and the Marks & Spencer Drumgold Street Car Park.
2.1 Planning approval is sought for conversion of offices on upper floors into three apartments. The offices which are the subject of the current application are the first and second floor offices within the property. 2.2 The first floor would house one apartment. The internal configuration of this new apartment on the first floor would be for a two-bedroom apartment with an open plan living room/kitchen/dining, and served by a bathroom. 2.3 The second and third floor are proposed to provide for two apartments, a one bedroom apartment, and two bedroom apartment. The front section of the second floor that directly overlooks Bucks Road would serve the open plan kitchen/living/dining area for the twobedroom apartment. There would be internal stairs to the third floor roof space which would provide for two bedrooms, a store and bathroom. Roof lights will be installed over the roof of both bedrooms and the bathroom. 2.4 The internal configuration of the new one bedroom apartment on the second floor would provide an open plan living room/kitchen/dining situated at the rear of the building with views to the rear lane, a bedroom with window overlooking the narrow rear yard, and a bathroom. 2.4 The proposal would provide for two car parking spaces, a cycle storage for 3 bicycles, and a bin storage area at the rear of the site. 2.5 The external works proposed would include: a. Replacing the rear second floor window on the rear outrigger with a new patio door with Juliet balcony. b. Replacing the rear door on the first floor rear elevation with a new full height fix pane window within the aperture. c. Removing the existing roof light to the front elevation and replacing it with two smaller rooflights ( 550 \mathrm{~mm} \times 978 \mathrm{~mm} ). d. Removing the two rooflights on the rear elevation and replacing them with three new smaller rooflights ( 550 \mathrm{~mm} \times 978 \mathrm{~mm} ). e. Removing the rear staircase and creating a new parking area at the rear yard. 2.6 The applicants have provided a cover letter which sets out the basis and rationale for the proposed development.
3.1 Site Specific: 3.1.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential on the Area Plan for the East (map 5 - Douglas Central), and the site is not within a Conservation Area. This site is
not prone to flood risks. As such, the following polices contained within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 would be relevant for consideration in the assessment of this proposal. 3.2 National policy: THE ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN 2016 a. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. b. Environment Policy 42 - character and need to adhere to local distinctiveness. c. Strategic Policies 1 & 2 - relate to re-use of existing sites, and location of new development within existing towns. d. Housing Policy 17 - Allows for the conversion of buildings into flats. e. Strategic Policies 3 - promote use of local materials and character. f. Strategic Policy 5 - New development, including individual buildings should be designed to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. g. Transport Policy 4 - Highway capacity and safety considerations. h. Transport Policy 7 - Parking considerations/standards for development. 3.3 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (CHANGE OF USE) (DEVELOPMENT) (No. 2) Order 2019 3.3.1 The Order defines primary window to mean a main window serving a living room, a dining room, or a kitchen that includes dining facilities. 3.3.2 Part 1, Class 2 of Schedule 1 makes provisions for the change of use of buildings to flats. 4.0 OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Residential Design Guide (2021) 4.1.1 This document provides advice in Section 7 deals with impact of developments on neighbours. Paragraph 7.2.2 defines the various tiers of rooms and windows on a dwelling, and this includes the following: o Primary Habitable Rooms: Living Rooms, Dining Rooms, Kitchens which includes dining facilities and Conservatory; o Secondary Habitable Rooms: Bedrooms and kitchens; and o Non-Habitable Rooms: these include bathrooms, utility rooms, hallways/corridors, stairs/landings, garages, porches, and storage. 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site has been the subject of the following previous planning application which are considered to be materially relevant to the current application: 5.2 Approval was granted under PA 89/00914/B for Conversion of the first and second floor into offices in October 1989. 5.3 PA 22/00445/B for Conversion of existing offices into 4 self-contained 1 bedroom apartments and 1 studio apartment was refused on 4 August 2022, for the following reason: "1. Three out of five flats have an undesirable outlook. While the intensified usage would not create an unacceptable impact on its neighbouring properties, it is considered that the lack of outlook outweighs the provision of additional housing options. This application is considered to fail to comply with Housing Policy 17 of the Strategic Plan." 5.3.1 The application was then the subject of an appeal where the decision to refuse the application was further upheld on 1 March 2023. The reason for refusal is as follows: "The very poor condition in terms of outlook for future occupiers of three out of the five apartments proposed, means that the scheme does not represent good design, bringing the scheme as a whole into conflict with General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 17 of the Strategic Plan. That harm is not outweighed by other considerations." 5.3.2 The Inspectors report provides the following basis for the decision:
"Planning Balance 35. The very poor outlook for occupiers of three out of the five apartments proposed brings the scheme as a whole into conflict with the relevant development plan policies. In coming to a view on this, I am also mindful that, among other things, the environmental strategic objectives of the Strategic Plan include the encouragement of high quality development throughout the Island, with the Department wishing to promote good design in new development. Moreover, the Spatial Vision Statement set out in the Area Plan for the East seeks, among other things, to maintain and enhance a high quality built environment through careful and sensitive design, with Chapter 6 of the Area Plan confirming that a high quality urban environment contributes to a good quality of life where people come first. Given my findings, there would be conflict too with these aspirations of the development plan. 36. To be weighed against that harm are the benefits associated with bringing longstanding vacant accommodation back into beneficial use in a sustainable location, at a time when the Island is experiencing an ongoing reduction in household sizes, meaning that more people are looking for smaller accommodation. These are matters to which I attach substantial weight. In the overall planning balance, however, those benefits do not outweigh the identified harm. 37. The appellant suggested that if only some of the apartments proposed were found to be acceptable, then consideration should be given to a split decision. In my view, however, the units are not readily severable from each other, either physically or functionally. Indeed, a split decision could have implications for the remainder of the floor space, the use of which could, in turn, have implications for the residential use proposed. Furthermore, a split decision would conflict with the description of development for which permission is sought, as set out on the application form, specifically four self-contained one-bedroom apartments and one studio apartment." 5.4 PA 23/00372/B for Conversion of existing offices to form two self-contained apartments was approved on17th July 2023. This application sought to overcome the reasons for approval under PA 22/00445/B, by proposing two apartments on the first floor and second floor, with windows to primary windows fronting onto Bucks Road. This application was approved subject to two approval conditions.
Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. 6.1 DOI Highways Division find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the site is in a sustainable location in Douglas centre. However, the cycle parking should be enclosed and secure and therefore plan details of this should be provided for review of conditioned on permission (16 August 2024). 6.2 Douglas Borough Council has no objection to this application. They however, stress the importance of bin and recycling storage and state that any changes to the existing layout must not result in any waste bins or recycling receptacles being stored outside the curtilage of the property (23 August 2024). 6.3 Manx Utilities Authority - Electricity, although consulted on the 13.08.2024, has not commented on this application at the time of drafting this report, and so it is assumed that there are no comments. 6.4 The owners/occupiers of 41 - 43 Bucks Road, Douglas, have made the following comments on the application (14 August 2024): o They state that they share a party wall with 39 Bucks Road. o They note that the application appears to be mainly changes to internal layout, and therefore, have no objection in principle but would request that any resultant approval be
conditional on any piercing, alteration or additional loading to this party wall be properly evaluated according to building safety bye laws.
7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the determination of the application are: a. Impacts on the character or appearance of the site and area (GP2 & STP3); b. The Impacts on the living amenities of the occupants of the proposed apartments (HP 17, GP2 & Paragraphs 8.13.1 to 8.13.3); c. Impacts on the amenities of the neighbouring properties (GP2); and d. Impacts on parking provisions (GP2 & TP7).
7.2.1 In assessing the impacts of the proposed alterations to the property, it is noted that the proposal seeks to make alterations to the external appearance of the building with the particularly noticeable elements being the installation of three new replacement rooflights to the front elevation of the property, the installation of two new replacement rooflights to the rear roof plane, and the alterations to the rear to install new patio doors with Juliet balcony to replace a window, the replacement of a door with a full height window of similar height and width with existing door, and the replacement of a 50/50 top hung casement window with a new single pane casement window on the property. 7.2.2 With regard to the proposed window and door alterations to the rear elevation of the dwelling, it is considered that these works would not result in changes to the sizes of the fenestrations such that they would fall under Class 24 the PDO 2012 for window/door replacements, as such these would not be accessed as part of the current application, with the key change to be assessed here being the replacement of the window on the second floor rear elevation with new patio doors and Juliet balcony. 7.2.3 In assessing the impact of the proposed Juliet balcony to replace the existing window on the second floor rear elevation, this is considered to be a reasonably minor level of development which is not expected to result in any adverse visual impacts on the overall character of the existing property or on the general appearance of the rear lane, given the generally bland and uncharacteristic appearance of the rear elevations here, dominated by varying window sizes, designs and proportion. As such, it is considered that this element of the proposal would comply with GP2 (b) and (c). 7.2.4 The installation of the front conservation styled rooflights and rear rooflight are considered appropriate given their design and size, and as rooflights can be found of the front roof plane of properties within the immediate street scene along Bucks Road, as well as the rear elevations of the neighbouring properties. In addition, the rooflights would not be noticeable from the immediate street scene, due to the height of the property and the nature of the roof slope which offers no views to the roof from the street level. Therefore, these works would not have adverse impacts on the appearance of the immediate street scene or character of the property. 7.2.5 Overall, it is considered that the proposed alterations to install new windows and patio doors with Juliet balcony, as well as the new rooflights would be acceptable forms of development, not resulting in significant adverse impacts to the appearance of the site and property. Thus, these elements of the proposal would align with the provisions of General Policy 2 and Strategic Policy 3 (b) of the Strategic Plan.
7.3.1 As outlined within Housing Policy 17, each apartment needs to have a "pleasant clear outlook, particularly from the principal rooms". In the case of the current application, whilst the apartment on the first floor, and the apartment occupying the second floor street elevation and roof space (third floor) would have primary windows which serve the open plan
living/kitchen/dining rooms for these apartments afforded clear pleasant outlook over the main street scene along Bucks Road, there is significant concern with the second floor apartment confined entirely to the rear of the property. 7.3.2 This one-bedroom apartment on the second floor will have the windows to the primary rooms (living room, kitchen, and dining) confined mainly to the rear yard, with the window to the living room overlooking the rear lane, such that this apartment would not have an acceptable level of outlook for these primary windows, and these were a key concern for the inspector for refusing a previous scheme for the site (under PA 22/00445/B) which sought to create apartments confined entirely at the rear of the property, where the following comments were made: "Views from those rear facing windows are of the on-site parking spaces proposed and, across a narrow single vehicle width service road that runs between Princes Street and Tynwald Street providing access to parking spaces and garaging, of a three/four storey apartment block with ground floor garaging, located more or less opposite. A similarly narrow access street runs perpendicular to the service road, providing rear access to those properties on Princes Street and Tynwald Street that back onto it. Whilst there are views from the rear facing windows along that perpendicular service road, the immediate views are generally bleak and uninspiring, which would materially detract from the residential use and enjoyment of the rear facing apartments." As the rear facing apartment proposed as part of the current scheme does not offer a better outlook than those which were considered unacceptable by the Inspector, there are no basis to accept the current scheme as having an acceptable outlook from the primary windows for the rear facing apartment. 7.3.3 Further to the above, the outlook from the kitchen and dining area windows which are also primary windows as they exist as part of the main living space, will also not offer acceptable levels of outlook as they directly overlook the boundary wall, and sit only about 1.8 m away from the blank boundary wall, and would further detract from the residential use and enjoyment of this rear facing apartment. 7.3.4 Whilst it is noted that the Island is experiencing an ongoing reduction in household sizes, meaning that more people are looking for smaller accommodation, with seasonal/temporary/migrant workers also looking for reasonable temporary accommodation, such that the provision of a one-bedroom flat can serve as a viable supplement to the existing housing supply, a clear and pleasant outlook is an important amenity for any occupiers of flatted accommodation. As such, it is an amenity that should be safeguarded to ensure that quality housing options are made available. However, the current scheme fails in this regard due to the poor outlook for the rear facing apartment. 7.3.5 Further consideration was given to the fact that the site sits adjacent the Douglas town centre, such that the Town and Country Planning (Change of Use) (Development) (No. 2) Order 2019, could be applicable. However, as this site falls outside the defined town centre boundary, it is not considered that the conditions stipulated within the Order regarding the change of use of buildings to Class 3.4 (Flats) would be applicable. Besides, even if it was considered that the conditions should be applied due to the proximity of the site to the town centre, given that only a road separates the site from the town centre, the proposal would still fail the third condition which requires that "No flat shall be created which does not have an outlook which includes a view of a highway from at least one primary window". Hence, it is also considered that the scheme would fail to comply with the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Change of Use) (Development) (No. 2) Order 2019, should the site be located within the town centre location, or assessed as such. 7.3.7 On balance, whilst there are benefits for the proposal in terms of the benefits associated with bringing a longstanding vacant accommodation back into beneficial use in a sustainable location, at a time when the Island is experiencing an ongoing reduction in
household sizes, meaning that more people are looking for smaller accommodation, it is not considered that these benefits outweigh the identified harm evidenced in the quality of the internal space for the apartment confined entirely to the rear of the property which would offer very poor living conditions in terms of outlook for future occupiers. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to Housing Policy 17 (b), Paragraph 8.13.3, and GP 2 (h), as the amenity for future occupiers for the one-bedroom apartment would be unacceptable.
7.4.1 In terms of impacts on neighbours, it is noted that the element of the proposal with the potential to impact on neighbours is the replacement of the second floor window to the rear of the property with new patio doors with Juliet balcony. It should be noted that the new patio door would be replacing a window with small fenestration area measuring only about 1.05 sqm , with new patio doors that would have a viewing area measuring about 3.78 sqm which is a significant increase in viewable area for the fenestration here, given that it would only be situated about 11.5 m from the bedroom windows on the first floor rear elevation of the apartment at 2 Princes Street, situated directly adjacent. Whilst it is noted that the orientation of this window which is slightly inclined away from these neighbours may serve to diminish the impact, the fact that there would be a Juliet balcony here which would allow unconstrained views from varying angles out of these patio doors makes this impact significant. 7.4.2 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the proposed patio doors with Juliet balcony would directly overlook the bedroom and bathroom windows for the apartment on the first floor of No. 2 Princes Street situated directly southwest, and would result in unacceptable levels of actual and perceived overlooking from the proposed patio doors, to the detriment of the residential amenity of this neighbour, contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 (g) of the Strategic Plan, and the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide 2021.
7.5.1 In terms of parking provisions, it is considered that there are two parking space allocations for the apartments, which would not meet the standards stipulated within Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan. However, the site is close to existing public transport corridors within Douglas, and the Chester Street Car Park is only situated about 200m away. Moreover, the property is within walking distance to the town centre and a variety of amenities, meaning further relaxation of parking standard is acceptable. Combined with the provision of cycling storage for three bicycles, it is considered that the impact on on-street parking is acceptable. 7.5.2 In addition, the advice offered by DOI Highway Services confirms that they have no highway safety or parking concerns, subject to details of secure cycle parking provision being conditioned. As such, it is not considered that there would be any significant concerns with regard to parking and highway safety resulting from the proposal.
7.6.1 The comments made by the neighbours at 41 - 43 Bucks Road, Douglas, regarding construction impacts on party wall, and evaluation of impacts according to building safety bye laws are noted. However, issues related to construction impacts bear no weight as material planning considerations, and as such cannot be considered in the assessment of planning applications. This issue would be better addressed via the relevant Building Control legislation.
8.1 Overall, it is considered that the very poor condition in terms of outlook for future occupiers of the apartment confined entirely to the rear of the property, means that the scheme does not represent good design, bringing the scheme as a whole into conflict with General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 17 of the Strategic Plan, and the harm is not outweighed by other considerations. Also, the proposed patio doors with Juliet balcony at the rear second floor would result in detrimental impacts on the amenities of the occupants of the first floor apartment at No. 2 Princes Street, due to unacceptable overlooking. As such, the proposal is
considered to be contrary to the requirements of Housing Policy 17 (b), Paragraph 8.13.3, and GP 2 (g & h) of the Strategic Plan, and the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide. The application is, therefore, recommended for refusal on these grounds.
9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted). 9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria. 9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. 9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Acting 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 and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made: Refused Date: 21.10.2024
Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
