Officer Report

Application No.: 15/00248/B Applicant: Forest Homes Developments Ltd Proposal: Conversion of existing office building into two dwellings including the construction of a two storey rear extension and replacement windows throughout Site Address: 35 - 36 Derby Square Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 3LW Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 18.03.2015 Site Visit: 18.03.2015 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is a pair of mid-terraced buildings lying to the south of Derby Square in Douglas. To the front elevation, the dwellings appear identical. In terms of massing and form, they are slightly different to the rear with the westernmost of the two dwellings having an additional pair of extensions - one of which is flat-roofed, the other with an angled roofed. The fenestration is also different on the rear elevations, with some sliding sash and some casement units on display. - 1.2 Derby Square, which is within a Conservation Area, comprises primarily dwellings, but there are some units - such as the application site - that have been converted to other uses such as a day care centre (the application site) or a museum. However, it is known that each of the buildings would originally have been erected as private dwelling houses. - 1.3 The lane to the rear is a public highway (Cambridge Terrace Lane), rather than a nonpublicly-accessible service lane as is often the case with urban terraced dwellings. It does, however, give the impression of being a service lane and has a number of rear extensions of very varying form - some pitched outriggers vie with others of a flat-roofed design, while there does not appear to be any homogeny of window opening styles present.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the change of use of the buildings to residential use, along with the creation of a two-storey extension to the rear. This extension would elongate the existing two-storey outrigger to the rear, and would provide parking for two cars for each dwelling at ground floor level and an additional bedroom above. Also proposed are replacement windows throughout and two new rooflights to the rear roof pitch. A number of internal changes to alter the office-style layout into one more akin to a residential layout are also shown but, as neither property is Registered, these changes do not require any Planning approval. - 2.2 The physical changes, aside from the replacement windows, would all be to the rear of the properties. The two existing flat-roofed extensions would be removed, resulting in a more symmetrical appearance, while the new extension would have a pitched roof appearance to

• continue that of the existing two-storey pitched roof outriggers on both dwellings. The double garage doors would be multi-panelled and of indeterminate material and colour, while the garages themselves would measure roughly 5.5m by 6.0m. They are of slightly different sizes due to the properties being set at a slight angle to the rear lane, although each would have an aperture of 4.3m in width. No bin storage arrangements are shown.
• 2.3 The proposed replacement windows would be uPVC sliding sash windows throughout.
• 2.4 Also proposed is the making good of the existing dwarf wall with railings atop that are to the front of the building.
• 2.5 As originally submitted, the proposed rearward extension had a flat roof and topopening casement windows. Concern was raised with the agent to the application in respect of both of these issues and following a letter of objection received. A revised plan was submitted and circulated to the interested parties, carrying a 21-day consultation period.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The buildings were originally changed a Blind Day Centre in 1986, and this use was subtly changed in 2001 to a different user. It is not clear as to the extent to which those two uses are materially different to one another, but an application was submitted nonetheless. Alterations, including the creation of two parking spaces to the rear, were approved under PA 02/00376/B.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 In terms of land use designation the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as predominantly residential use under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Douglas Local Plan) Order 1998. - 4.2 The site is located within a Conservation Area. - 4.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. 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;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;

• (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".

4.4 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."

4.5 Planning Circular 1/98 sets out the Department's policy for of the alteration and replacement of windows. In respect of buildings within Conservation Areas it states: "If the original windows are in place they should preferably be repaired. If repair is impracticable, replacement windows which would be readily visible from a public thoroughfare MUST HAVE THE SAME method of opening as the original. Whatever the material used in their construction, the windows MUST HAVE THE SAME pattern and section of glazing bars and the same frame sections as the original windows.

"Windows not readily visible from a public thoroughfare must have the same or similar pattern of glazing bars as originals, but not necessarily the original method of opening, whatever the material to be used in the construction."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Douglas Borough Council offered no objection to the application on 27th March 2015. No further comment was received following the circulation of the amended plan. - 5.2 Highway Services offered no objection to the application on 30th March 2015. No further comment was received following the circulation of the amended plan. - 5.3 The owner / occupier of 34 Derby Square, which is adjacent the application site to the east, objects to the application. Their initial objection (dated 22nd March 2015) can be summarised as raising concern with: restriction of light into kitchen at rear; concern about increased use in a proposed dressing room resulting in loss of privacy, and that could be overcome by a condition requiring the window to be obscure-glazed; there has been no precedent to build an extension to abut the building line at the rear, and indications were previously given that no such proposal would be acceptable to the Department during the owner / occupiers' own renovation works approximately 6 years ago; the only similar recent extension was at 11 Cambridge Terrace, which had a Victorian extension abutting the lane that was deemed to be a dangerous structure; the use of uPVC material and casement windows is not in keeping with the Conservation Area.

Following the circulation of the amended plan, a second letter of objection on 13th April 2015 was submitted. Their new points raised representation on this occasion can be summarised as: the pitched roof will soften the appearance but does not get away from the fact that the extension will severely restrict the light to the kitchen. They reiterated concerns about precedent in the area, previous advice given to them by the Department regarding their own development proposals and also the concern regarding the use of uPVC material and casement lights.

5.4 The Manx Utilities Authority commented on 31st April 2015 as follows: "Contact the Manx Utilities, Planning Department (Tel. 687781), to discuss the electricity supply for this application." No further comment was received following the circulation of the amended plan.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The principle of new residential development in what is an otherwise residential area and zoned as such - is acceptable. It is not known to where the existing tenants / occupants of the building would be re-locating. What the application will turn on, then, is the extent to which the proposed alterations are acceptable in terms of both private and public amenity. - 6.2 It must be remembered that Cambridge Terrace Lane is a public highway and so the proposed alterations will be more visible than might normally be the case with respect to proposed alterations at the rear of Victorian dwellings. Equally, however, both Derby Square to the north and Cambridge Terrace to the south back onto Cambridge Terrace Lane such

• that the streetscene offered is somewhat akin to a rear service lane. There have been a number of extensions to the rear in the past, and there are almost no two extensions the same. A proposal that would fit in with these various forms on show could be said to preserve the appearance of the Conservation Area, which is the key test in respect of this application.
• 6.3 The original flat-roofed design was considered to be inappropriate primarily in respect of its design but also being mindful of the impact it would have on the outlook and light available to the occupiers of the adjacent buildings. The proposed top-opening casement windows were also judged unacceptable, but only on balance, and perhaps not to a degree sufficient enough to formally object to the application.
• 6.4 The amended design is more acceptable on all these counts. Their being "better" is not a reason to recommend the application be approved, however, and the issue is whether or not the amendments are appropriate in their own right when judged against the relevant policies. Public amenity, including design and highway safety
• 6.5 The private representation received has stated that advice given previously by the Department was that two-storey extensions to the rear of buildings on this side of Derby Square would be resisted. This advice would have been provided following the Strategic Plan's adoption and so would have been made in the context of the current Development Plan, albeit some 8 years previously. It is unfortunate that no written record of this advice exists.
• 6.6 There are existing two-storey examples along the Cambridge Terrace Lane, and on both sides of the highway. While some of these are flat-roofed and are visually harmful as a result, others have a pitched roof with a gable end fronting Cambridge Terrace Lane. As noted, there is very little homogeneity in the form of the rear outriggers fronting this Lane, and while in some ways this can be considered harmful, in other ways the variety is not uncommon for areas where two residential streets back onto one another. What is uncommon is that Cambridge Terrace Lane is a public highway and therefore access to / views of this area are more readily available than would normally be the case in such a circumstance.
• 6.7 Against this context, it is not considered that the proposed two-storey element would be sufficiently harmful in the streetscene to warrant the application's refusal. A slight setback from the highway might be preferable in order to reduce the massing immediately abutting the highway and thereby retain some sense of openness, but this is not considered a matter serious enough to object to the proposal. In addition, the removal of the existing and in the case of one in particular, extremely unsympathetic - extensions is judged to be a welcome improvement on the current situation. It is therefore judged that the proposed extension would satisfactorily preserve the appearance of the Conservation Area and would be sufficiently respectful of the design and massing of the existing building to conclude that it is not in conflict with Environment Policy 35 or parts (b) or (c) of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
• 6.8 Also important to consider under the guise of public amenity is the parking provision proposed. In the first instance, it is noted that Highway Services offer no objection to the proposal. This is important to note since the garages proposed are not of the size expected of double garages. The door widths of 4.3m are quite narrow, albeit that the internal dimensions are more generous. Each double garage is shown with two cars inside and with roughly 0.6m between them; they appear to be small family cars and so are not necessarily

• representative of all cars available. Manoeuvring into and out of the garages for the second car would be problematic.
• 6.9 The existing parking situation is poor, and haphazard: space is available for three cars to park off-road, but one of these is at an angle to the other two and the arrangement is not judged to be especially successful or safe. As such, even though it is arguable as to whether two cars could easily access the proposed garages, it is concluded that the best effort has been made to provide parking for two vehicles. It is also noted that Derby Square has parking around the central square, and that this is an area where parking discs are required. Although the Square is usually quite busy, especially at peak times, from visiting the area numerous times and at numerous times of the day / week it is evident that some small capacity exists. It is concluded that an objection on grounds of highway safety could not be sustained, although a condition requiring the garages be used only for the parking of cars and not for other uses (e.g. storage).
• 6.10 The other minor alteration proposed in respect of the railings and walling to the frontage is judged likely to provide an enhancement to the appearance of the properties and Conservation Area as a whole. The plans are not clear on which railings are "missing details" as annotated on the plan, which is unfortunate, but the intention to return the situation to its original - or, at least, more traditional - format is welcomed.
• 6.11 Finally with respect to public amenity and design issues, the proposed replacement windows to the front elevation accord with the relevant provisions of Planning Circular 1/98 and are therefore considered to be acceptable. While timber is always preferred, it is unfortunately the case that uPVC has become common almost to the point of ubiquity through the sensitive urban areas of the Island - Derby Square being no exception - and it is not considered that there are sufficient grounds on which to object to the material proposed. Private amenity
• 6.12 The objection received from those living in the neighbouring dwelling is understandable. Having visited the property, it was evident that the only outlook and natural light offered to the kitchen is via the roof. A fairly substantial roof lantern provides this outlook, and natural light. To obscure this would be harmful. However, it was evident from the site visit - which admittedly was on a clear, sunny day - that the proposed extension would be unlikely to reduce the outlook or light entering the kitchen to a degree sufficient enough to have unduly harmful effects on the living conditions of those residing at 34 Derby Square.
• 6.13 The proposed extension would continue the existing angled roof downwards towards

• 34 Derby Square. The existing pitched roof section would not be altered, and it was noted from the site visit that the roof itself could not be seen from within the kitchen of 34 Derby Square. The proposed extension would be nearer to (indeed, seems to sit on) the boundary and so there would clearly be an additional built form nearer to the no.34 than is currently the case. However, all that is likely to be visible to any great degree is the walling for the extension: the roof would be at the same angle as the existing roof that, as noted, cannot be seen. Therefore, the issue is the extent to which both natural and ambient light would be obscured by the proposed extension: the rear of the site is south-facing and so is particularly susceptible to having light lost or blocked.

6.14 The kitchen to no.34 could not at present be said to enjoy significant levels of light, although the roof lantern does provide a good and perhaps surprising level of ambient light. (Although this could have been due to the weather being particularly good on the day of the site visit, it is also worth noting that the site visit was carried out in mid-March, when light is not at its greatest level.) This can be viewed in two ways: either the existing, limited level of

• light is such that a reduction in it would not be unduly harmful, or the existing, limited level of light is such that any reduction at all would be unduly harmful.
• 6.15 It is considered that the former approach should be taken. This conclusion is reached having regard to the sufficiently limited extent of the proposed extension with regard to the massing that would be adjacent the existing roof lantern. The largest part of the extension would be adjacent the garage of no.34 and, although it would very definitely be discernible from the kitchen of no.34, it would not be of a size or extent likely to result in such a significant interruption or either direct or ambient sunlight to have an unduly harmful effect on the living conditions of no.34 Derby Square.
• 6.16 Were the proposed extension to be of the same - broader - width for its entire length, or were the proposed extension any higher than the existing, it is likely that a different conclusion would have been reached. In reaching this conclusion, regard has also been had to the fact that a kitchen is not as sensitive as a living room or bedroom to loss of light.
• 6.17 It should be noted that the dwelling on the opposite side of the application site has no side windows overlooking the site, and the roof plane is angled away from it such that there would be limited or no impact on the living conditions of those living in that dwelling.
• 6.18 The comments made with regard to the likely increase in activity in the dressing room looking down upon the kitchen window are logical. The suggestion of obscure glazing in this window is equally logical, and a condition to this effect would be appropriate to attach to any approval that may be forthcoming. The condition should also include the window to serve the bathroom adjacent to the dressing room, even if this is likely to be obscure glazed in any case.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 The proposal has been found to be, on balance, acceptable in respect of its impacts on both public and private residential amenity. It is therefore concluded that the proposal is not in so significant a conflict with Environment Policy 35 or the relevant parts of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan to warrant the application's refusal. - 7.2 It is therefore recommended that approval be granted, subject to one condition requiring the garages be kept free at all times for the parking of private motor vehicles, and another requiring that the window serving the proposed dressing room in 35 Derby Square be obscure glazed and retained as such thereafter.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order

• 2013, 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) The Highways Division of the Department; and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order 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.

In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person:

• o The owner / occupier of 34 Derby Square, Douglas, which is adjacent the application site.

It is further considered that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:

• o The Manx Utilities Authority

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation:

28.04.2015

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.

• C 2. The garages hereby approved shall be used for the parking of private cars only.

Reason: To safeguard the residential character and amenities of the area and in the interest of highway safety.

• C 3. The proposed dressing room window and bathroom window shown on the eastern elevation of

• 35 Derby Square shall be glazed with obscure glass to Pilkington Level 4 or equivalent and permanently retained as such.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers from overlooking and loss of privacy.

The approval hereby issued relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received 4th March 2015: 2450/PL01, 2450/PL03 and the plan entitled "Bygone Symphony

• 2014 Cross Sections", and the plan 2450/PL02 Rev A, date-stamped as having been received 26th March 2015.

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.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 01.05.2015 Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed :…………………………………….. Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :…………………………………….. Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed :…………………………………….. Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Signed : Jennifer Chance Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management