Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00084/B
Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00084/B Applicant : Marathon Court Nursing Home (1989) Ltd Proposal : Erection of an extension to rear elevation Site Address : Marathon Court Nursing Home Victoria Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4RQ
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level :
Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Marathon Court Nursing Home, which is a large detached building set to the east of Victoria Road. The western boundary of the site adjoins the highway and has a row of mature trees which soften the edge of the development, while to the northeast the land falls away very significantly down towards Mona Drive.
1.2 Following an upper storey extension approved in 2011, the building is two-storey almost throughout (two single storey and flat-roofed buildings are present at the northeast boundary), while a single storey standalone building also sits within the curtilage. The window openings are generally vertically proportioned and fitted with uPVC casements.
1.3 There are two vehicular accesses to the site, one at the southern extent and another at the northernmost point. Both accesses lead from Victoria Road and the site offers off- street parking for staff and visitors. The surrounding area is characterised by predominantly residential development comprising a mixture of house types.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Approval is sought for a single-storey extension to the northeast elevation and immediately abutting the northeast boundary of the site. This would provide a new entrance hall, a new kitchen, two new en-suite bedrooms and a very small storage room.
2.2 The extension would be rendered and coloured to match the existing building, and would have a very shallow-angled monopitch roof sloping downwards in a northeastern direction. However, this roof would not be visible as to both the front and rear of the extension would be a monopitched roof, offering a parapet-style mask to the monpitched roof behind them. The windows and doors would be white uPVC, while the new walls and roof would be finished in such materials as to tie in with the existing building.
2.3 The extension is proposed to replace the existing flat-roofed buildings, which provide a kitchen and pantry that are evidently later additions to the nursing home. A building housing oil tanks and providing a staff room has been recently removed.
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00084/B
Page 2 of 5
2.4 Following concern raised by the Department, the proposed new entrance doors were amended to have a projecting gable porch supported by brackets. Copies of the amended plans were circulated to the interested parties as the application was, at the time of receipt of those amended plans, still some 16 days away from the end of its consultation period.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, one of which is considered specifically material to the determination of this proposal. In 2014, planning approval was granted to PA 13/91395/B, which sought approval for "Alterations and erection of a two storey extension". This was approved, with the case officer concluding on the design as follows:
"The design, as intimated in the Proposal section of this report, provides for the replacement of two rather unlovely late additions to the building, the loss of which would be welcome. That the proposal is itself likely to tie in successfully with the existing building in terms of mass and form, with the extension of existing (and successful) detailing proposed, is further welcome. It is also noted that the arched and glazed opening to the rear (southeastern) elevation would pick up on three existing arched windows in that elevation, and this goes further in the scheme's favour. A chimney would be removed and not replaced, which is unfortunate, but the flue is not connected to a working fireplace and the building does not offer other chimneys such that no objection is raised on this point or the proposed design as a whole. The provisions of General Policy 2 are therefore considered to be met."
3.2 Other proposed alterations have been approved and refused over some time:
o 91/01774/B - Extension to increase accommodation - REFUSED. o 92/00922/B - Extension to increase accommodation - APPROVED. o 94/00636/B - Construction of a conservatory - APPROVED. o 95/01322/B - 2 No single storey extensions to provide office and enlarged buildings - APPROVED. o 98/01165/B - Extension to nursing home - APPROVED. o 00/01151/B - Kitchen extension to nursing home - APPROVED. o 03/00543/B - Erection of a single storey six bedroom extension with link and terrace over - APPROVED. o 07/01477/B - Erection of a single storey extension to south east elevation to provide 6 additional bedrooms - APPROVED. o 11/01546/B - Alterations and erection of a first floor extension - APPROVED.
4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
4.1 The application site is located within an area that is designated as being Predominantly Residential by the Douglas Local Plan 1998. The site is not within a Conservation Area and the building is not Registered. Within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, two policies are considered relevant, in addition to paragraph 10.11.1, which states: "Health care facilities such as nursing homes, residential homes, or training centres are usually sited within residential areas, but can generate activity and traffic which has detrimental effects on the amenity and character of these areas. The following policy is therefore adopted".
4.2 General Policy 2 states (in part): "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:
(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00084/B
Page 3 of 5
(c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape, and (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality"
4.3 Community Policy 6 states: "New community health care facilities and extensions to existing facilities will be permitted provided that they:
(a) would not result in an over concentration of such uses in a particular area; (b) would not have an unacceptable effect on the residential or prevailing character or amenity of the area; (c) would be easily accessible, and (d) would not have an unacceptable impact on the local highway network."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection (received on 18.02.2015)
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 Community Policy 6 sets out the principles required to be tested in respect of the application, while General Policy 2 addresses the design matters.
6.2 Turning to the principle first, and addressing the four matters that are outlined in Community Policy 6 in turn, the area is predominantly residential in land use terms and there is not an over concentration of nursing homes in this part of Douglas. No objection is therefore raised on this point.
6.3 The building is an existing feature of the area. It is partly screened from public view by the band of trees along the western boundary, and the proposed development is concentrated on a part of the site largely invisible from the public due to the topography and dense vegetation present at the northeast side. The small addition of bedrooms and useable space within the building is therefore unlikely to result in an unacceptable effect on the residential or prevailing character or amenity of the area.
6.4 As noted, the building has two vehicle accesses. The proposed extension will not remove any parking or turning space and is not adjacent to a highway. It is therefore judged that the accessibility of the building would not be negatively affected by the proposal.
6.5 The application has been assessed by the Department's Highways Division and has met with no objection. The additional four bedrooms are unlikely to result in greatly increased need for parking spaces due to the nature of their occupation.
6.6 The principle is therefore acceptable.
6.7 The design of the previous scheme was superior to this. At two-storeys, it reflected the form, mass, proportion and detail of the main building and it is unfortunate that the land stability situation is such that the 2013 scheme cannot be implemented. However, this should not mean that any new design should be assessed against that previous approval, but instead against the policies of the Development Plan.
6.8 The new scheme is of a smaller scale and thus sits fairly reticently alongside the existing building. The provision of a gable/porch above the entrance doors is a welcome design feature that provides an important 'gateway' to the building - without this, the frontage would have appeared rather flat and utilitarian, and also not given much in the way of clarity as to where the main entrance to the building from this side was actually situated.
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/00084/B
Page 4 of 5
The building is a mixture of styles and period alterations and it is considered that the extension now proposed would sit satisfactorily against this context. The use of materials to match the existing building is similarly judged appropriate.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 In view of the above, it is recommended that the application be approved.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application, or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested, as their comments have been deemed material and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 24.02.2015
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
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.
--
The development hereby approved relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 26th January 2015 and 3rd February 2015: 14-J060-JW 01 Rev 2, 14-J060-JW 02 Rev 2, 13-J025-JW 03 and 13-K025-JW 04.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/00084/B
Page 5 of 5
Decision Made : Permitted Date; 25.02.2015
Determining officer (delete as appropriate)
Signed :... Chris Balmer
Senior Planning Officer
Signed :...S CORLETT...
Sarah Corlett
Senior Planning Officer
Signed :... Michael Gallagher
Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed :... Jennifer Chance
Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal