Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90239/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90239/B Applicant : Mr Alexander & Charlotte Lewthwaite & Meechan Proposal : Conversion of funeral directors and workshop into dwellinghouse (in association with 25/00246/CON) Site Address : 29-31 Hope Street Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1AP
Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 10.04.2025 Site Visit : 10.04.2025 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 25.04.2025 __
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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Prior to the dwelling hereby approved coming into use all windows on the front elevation as shown on drawing number 2A (with exception to the Juliet balcony, garage top light and front door top light) must be installed in sliding sash and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: in the visual interest on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
C 3. All windows on the front elevation as shown on drawing number 2A shall be installed with externally fixed/fitted glazing bars and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: to ensure any glazing bars are fitted externally and not internally in the interest of character and appearance of the conservation area.
C 4. Prior to the dwelling hereby approved coming into use the front elevation front door shall be installed in a four panel design in accordance with details shown on drawing number 2A and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: the application has been assessed on this basis in the visual interest on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
C 5. Any roof light installed must be installed using recessed flashing kits as detailed on drawing number 2A and retained as such thereafter.
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90239/B Page 2 of 8
Reason: the application has been assessed on this basis in the visual interest of the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
N 1. The applicant is reminded of their separate obligations under the Highways Act 1986 in respect of not allowing any doors etc to open over the highway unless separate agreement has been given by DOI.
N 2. The applicant is reminded of their separate obligations under the Wildlife Act 1990 regarding protected species and nesting birds. Should evidence of such be found further advice should be sought from DEFA.
N 3. The applicant is reminded of the flood risk location of the site and give consideration to additional methods in the prevention of reducing flood risk to their property including flood resistant air bricks and providing internal services from top down. Further advice can be sought from DOI Flood Risk Management.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. By reason of its acceptable residential use, acceptable and in-keeping alterations across the frontage and its acceptable size, scale and design of the works to the rear the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact in terms of its principle, visual impact on site and conservation area surroundings, and neighbouring amenity impact. The highway, ecology and flood risk impacts are also considered to be acceptable and accordingly three notes will be added in respect of each to remind the applicant of their obligations under separate legislation and possibility of additional flood mitigation measures in their own interest. Conditions will be added to ensure the front elevation windows are installed in sliding sash, front elevation door in four panel design and roof lights with recessed flashing kits in accordance with the details submitted. The application is considered to accord with Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 10, 13, 34, 35 and 42 of the IOM Strategic Plan and meets with requirements of Section 18 of The Act 1999.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following: o DWG 1 - Existing Plans and Elevations o DWG 3 - Location Plan o DWG 4 - Site Block Plan o Planning Statement
o Agent response to DEFA email dated 27th March
o DWG 2A - Proposed Plans and Elevations o Garage door examples
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal: o Department of Infrastructure - No objection subject to conditions but these conditions have not been applied
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal because:
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90239/B Page 3 of 8
o No. 33 Hope Street - Objections relate to material planning considerations in respect of parking and traffic but do not set out how it would impact on the lawful use of their land (A10(2)(c)). __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application relates to 29-31 Hope Street Castletown, the former undertakers.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the conversion of the property into a single dwelling with off street parking. The proposal includes the following works: o Demolition of rear extension and its replacement with new smaller flat roof extension o Creation of rear garden and erection of pergola o Installation of three new windows to first floor rear elevation o Replacement roof and installation of three roof lights to each side of roof slope (six total) o Removal of front elevation dentals, string course and pebble dash and re-rendering o Alteration to windows and doors across front elevation including: Removal render/quoin bands, replacement windows, relocation of front door closing up of old door to window, and replacement garage door
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 96/00131/B was sought for part conversion of workshop, garage and store to living accommodation with undertakers premises. This was APPROVED by the Planning Committee.
3.2 There is a concurrent application 25/00246/CON for the demolition elements relating to the proposed works.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
4.1 Site Specific 4.1.1 Designated as 'residential' on Area Plan for the South 2013. The site is within the Castletown Conservation Area and recognised as being at high tidal flood risk.
4.2 Relevant policies of Area Plan for the South 2013: 4.2.1 Paragraph 5.12.2 - In flood risk areas inclusion of appropriate levels of flood protection and measures to ensure that the proposal would not increase the probability of flooding to the surroundings. Environment Policies 10-13 of IOMSP2016 relevant.
4.3 Relevant policies of IOM Strategic Plan 2016. o Strategic Policy 1 - best and efficient use of existing sites and reusing building materials o Strategic Policy 4 - protect and enhance conservation areas o Strategic Policy 5 - new development (including individual buildings) should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment (and in some cases a Design Statement will be required) o Spatial Policy 2 - Castletown recognised as Service Centre o General Policy 2 - General standards towards acceptable development o Environment Policy 10 - provision of flood risk assessment o Environment Policy 13 - flood risk increase on or off site will not be permitted o Environment Policy 34 - use of appropriate traditional materials in pre-1920 buildings o Environment Policy 35 - preserve or enhance character and appearance of the conservation area. o Environment Policy 42 - new development to be appropriate and in keeping with locality.
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90239/B Page 4 of 8
o Paragraph 10.5 - community facilities and services providing for the needs of the Island should be easily accessible, such services include community centres, medical facilities, places of worship, schools, nurseries, library services and premises that provide an element of care. But it is not for the IOMSP2016 to determine the needs for such community facility. o Community Policy 7 - designing out crime o Community Policy 11 - prevention of outbreak and spread of fire o Infrastructure Policy 5 - water conservation and management measures
4.4 Reference any relevant PPS or NPD 4.4.1 PPS 1/01 Heritage
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Legislation
o Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations. o 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". o Highways Act 1986 - Sections 49 and 50 refer to there being no projections from buildings resulting in highway obstruction or unsafe passage, and no doors etc opening outwards over a highway unless consent is given by DOI for such.
5.2 Policy/Strategy/Guidance o Manual for Manx Roads - Car parking standards o Active Travel Strategy o Residential Design Guide - locality and context, extensions, architectural details and neighbouring amenity impact o Castletown Cullen o PC 1/98 Replacement Windows
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DEFA Ecosystems - No objection (02/04/2025) - additional information was provided and so no bird or bat assessment will be requested. The application is advised to make appropriate checks prior to undertaking any works and should any birds or bats be found stop work and seek further advice.
6.2 DOI Flood Risk Management - do not oppose subject to condition (10/03/2025) - recommended that appropriate flood resistant doors are installed where possible and anti-flood bricks used at low level and services all fed from above.
6.3 DOI Highway Services - Do not oppose (07/03/2025) have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the site is in a sustainable location in Castletown centre and parking will be available internally within the site, subject to a condition attached to permission that the garage door must swing inwards or not encroach onto the adopted highway for the lifetime of the development.
6.4 The following were consulted but no response received at the time of writing the report 24/04/2025: o Castletown Commissioners o Manx National Heritage
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90239/B Page 5 of 8
o DEFA Environmental Health o Manx Utilities Drainage & Electricity o DEFA Registered Buildings Officer
6.5 Owners of No. 33 Hope Street - express concerns (14/03/2025) - will off street parking be provided for all cars as they were required in their own application to provide a private rented space, and will the proposed works for the property result in noise impacts on their tourist accommodation.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The land is designated as residential and so the principle of a new dwelling would be in keeping with the overall land use designation. The existing use as an undertakers provides a service to the community but is not considered a community facility as listed in 10.5 of the Strategic Plan nor is it a shop or public house and so its loss in this instance does not need to be justified (Community Policies 3 and 4). Therefore key issues to consider in this case are:
o Visual impact - on the character and appearance of the property itself, streetscene and overall Conservation Area o Amenity impact - on neighbouring properties o Highway safety impact o Flood Risk Impact o Ecology Impact o Statutory Test - The Act 1999 o Response to No. 33 comments
7.2 Visual Impact Front Elevation 7.2.1 The most prominent elevation is the front elevation running along the public highway. Works will result in some changes to windows and doors across the frontage but the overall proposed layout is considered to be in-keeping with traditional frontages along this street and conservation area. The existing pebble dash, dentals and window band details are not considered to be original features and likely ornamentation added at a much later date. There was some discussions with the agent regarding the first scheme which retained some window band detailing however it was judged to be more appropriate to omit this detail and retain a more simplistic arrangement more in keeping with the historic frontages along Hope Street and the surrounding area. The modification to the Juliet balcony to have the protective railing within the opening reveal was also considered more appropriate than the previous proposal which projected out and straddled beyond the reveal.
7.2.2 The proposal will result in the loss of existing timber windows and doors. Replacement with new timber would have been an enhancement, however given the prevalence of UPVC in the surrounding area the use of UPVC is not considered at odds or unacceptable in this case and retention of the sliding sash opening method and appropriate framing pattern retains and in keeping appearance with the streetscene and conservation area. While the proposed garage door is not traditional nor typical for this area, its size and scale relative to the building is not considered to be a prominent feature and its overall impact is judged as having a degree of harm considered less than substantial on the overall character and appearance of the conservation area. Highway safety impact of the door will be addressed later in this report.
Rear Elevation 7.2.3 The rear is not visually prominent from public view and so there is some flexibility in what works may be acceptable. Currently there is a flat roof extension covering over the full width of the rear elevation, proposed is its removal and replacement with a smaller flat roof extension covering over only half of the rear elevation and utilising the existing stone wall. The works are not considered to result in any public harm given their location and single storey design, and whilst the works may be visible to some neighbouring properties they are not
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90239/B Page 6 of 8
considered to result in any adverse visual impacts or harm beyond the existing situation as to warrant any concern, and some may argue works result in a visual improvement and upkeep to the rear.
7.2.4 New windows are proposed to the rear first floor where currently there are none. This would introduce new features but the over style and design is considered visually in keeping with the character and appearance of the property and its new use as a dwelling. There is no clarity in the rear windows being sliding sash, however there is an excepted relaxation of standards at the rear where they're not publically prominent and so installation in casement would not be unacceptable, but would lack uniformity in its own right which would be felt most to the internal user, going between front and back rooms.
Roof 7.2.5 The new slate roof and roof lights would be acceptable and of appropriate materials and style, including the roof lights having recessed flashings.
7.3 Amenity Impact 7.3.1 The existing building has an established commercial use where there is already a level of business activity expected. The new residential use is not expected to make this any worse nor to result in any increase to or unacceptable impact on the general amenity of neighbours or the surrounding area. General arrangement of the rear extensions remains within the parameters of the existing rear boundary walls and so no new or adverse overbearing impacts expected.
7.3.2 As mentioned earlier, the most notable change in respect of amenity may relate to the new windows proposed at first floor on the rear elevation. It may be considered that the three new windows may result in increased overlooking and privacy impacts beyond the existing single window situation, however minded of the distances between the properties here and their rear elevations (approx. 19-20m) being away would help to reduce this impact, and minded of the already fairly close knit town centre situation where there's already an accepted and expected level of inter-visibility between properties, the proposal is not considered to be so unreasonable or so far beyond other situations as to cause significant or unacceptable harm in this case.
7.3.3 Creation of car parking within the site and at the rear may be considered to increase some noise and vehicular activity beyond the existing situation. The site is within a high density area and where the streets are narrow and with some back land parking already within the area. The intensity of use being a single dwelling is not expected to be so adverse in this case to warrant a significant concern, and likely to be self-governing minded of the same impact on occupants of the house itself.
7.4 Highway Safety 7.4.1 There is already a level of commercial traffic which could occur at this premises and the proposal is not expected to make that any worse. The reduction to the rear extension allows for the creation of off road parking within the site and provision of at least two space (albeit possibly in tandem) meeting with general parking standards. That being side the site benefits from a town centre location and within close walking distance to shops and amenities as well as public bus stops and rail routes and where a reduction to parking standards can be accepted. Not forgetting that the existing commercial use of the building likely having a higher need for on street parking as a result of service vehicles as well as any staff and customers visiting the building. The new residential use likely having a lesser impact than the commercial use.
7.4.2 The garage doors are proposed to be up and over roller so as to not restrict access into the parking areas. Whilst DOI have requested condition to prevent any doors opening over the highway, it should be noted that there is separate legislation under the Highways Act 1986
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90239/B Page 7 of 8
which covers this and the applicant has a duty of care to meet their obligations under that separate legislation. As such it would not be relevant in this case to add a condition, but a suitably worded note will be added to remind the applicant of the Highways Act 1986.
7.5 Ecology Impact 7.5.1 DEFA have confirmed no objection and no requirement for any bird or bat reports to be provided. The Wildlife Act 1990 sets out standards and legislation in the protection of protected species including bats and any nesting birds. The applicant has separate obligations under that Act in the protection of bats and nesting birds and so another note will be added to remind them of their separate obligations under the Wildlife Act 1990 in respect of bats and birds.
7.6 Flood Risk Impact 7.6.1 The application is provided with site spot levels and information within the supporting statement indicating the proposed floor levels being approx. 600mm above street level and this helping to minimise flood risk impact compared to the existing situation. The proposal is not expected to make worse the existing flood risk impact or result in any increased flood risk beyond the existing situation.
7.6.2 DOI FRM have commented on the application indicating that they do not oppose subject to conditions for the installation of flood risk mitigation such as flood resistant doors, anti-flood bricks and that services are fed from top down. The proposal is not considered to make worse the existing flood risk situation, and whilst the introduction of further measures would be in the applicant’s best interest it is not considered material to the assessment of this application nor does it warrant seeking by condition. A note will be added to remind the applicant of additional mitigation which they may wish to consider installing.
7.7 Statutory Test - The Act 1999 7.7.1 Section 18 of The Act seeks works to ensure Conservation Areas are suitably preserved or enhanced. The proposals in this case are considered to have an acceptable impact both in terms of traditional appearance of the conservation area in this area, and on its predominantly residential character here. Works to the frontage result in the most notable change to the overall appearance of the building, however the works proposed are still considered to be in- keeping and harmonising with the overall traditional appearance of properties along Hope Street and preserving the wider Conservation Area. The loss of timber materials to windows and doors is considered a loss, however the prevalence of UPVC in the area means that the impact is expected to be less than substantial on the overall character and appearance of the Conservation Area which is to be preserved.
7.8 Response to No. 33 7.8.1 The neighbours have raised issues in respect of construction noise and parking issues in the street. Problems occurring during construction such as noise, dust, vehicles is not a material planning consideration and not relevant to the decision making process. Parking and highway safety impact is addressed at 7.4 of this report and concluded as acceptable. The proposal is also providing off street parking within the site meeting with the two space requirement of Appendix 7 of the IOMSP. They have highlighted general traffic and parking issues but minded of the extant commercial use of the property the proposal is not considered to make comings and goings any worse. In fact it could see a reduction to numbers of visitors coming to and from the property. No. 33 is within 20m and have raised material considerations in respect of traffic, however they have not specifically stated how the proposal would impact the lawful use of their land and thus it is not considered that they meet all of the tests to be awarded right to appeal in this case.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 By reason of its acceptable residential use, acceptable and in-keeping alterations across the frontage and its acceptable size, scale and design of the works to the rear the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact in terms of its principle, visual impact on site and
==== PAGE 8 ====
25/90239/B Page 8 of 8
conservation area surroundings, and neighbouring amenity impact. The highway, ecology and flood risk impacts are also considered to be acceptable and accordingly three notes will be added in respect of each to remind the applicant of their obligations under separate legislation and possibility of additional flood mitigation measures in their own interest. Conditions will be added to ensure the front elevation windows are installed in sliding sash, front elevation door in four panel design and roof lights with recessed flashing kits in accordance with the details submitted.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 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.
9.5 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given the Right to Appeal.
__
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, and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 25.04.2025
Determining Officer Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
Customer note
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