Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/00431/B
Page 1 of 4
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/00431/B Applicant : Brian Edward Cooke Proposal : Installation of glazed frames to existing open end wall of garage area Site Address : Douglas Head Apartments Douglas Head Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5BY
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 14.05.2015 Site Visit : 14.05.2015 Expected Decision Level :
Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is the footprint of the Douglas Head Apartment building. The building offers a mixture of smooth render finish and stone facing, and has an interesting history. Registered in 1989 by reason of its architectural interest, this was followed in 1998 by the approval of a planning application to demolish a large portion of the existing fabric and convert the remainder into an apartment block. One note on that approval notice indicated that the approval also constituted Registered Building Consent, albeit that no separate application seeking this was submitted.
1.2 The Registered Building file contains some correspondence in respect of the matter, and the Conservation Officer concludes in one letter (dated March 2007) that "...we [the Department] do not consider the modern part of the structure...to be Registered...".
1.3 This conclusion seems to be supported by a later appeal decision, in which the Inspector stated that "Douglas Head apartments are in a prominent and exposed location on the headland and incorporate a former herring tower that is a Registered building".
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the installation of three non-opening glazing panels in an existing aperture on the south western elevation of the newer part of the building. This aperture currently provides air circulation for an otherwise internal garage, which is stated by the applicant as allowing rain to come in - indeed, the submitted photographs from inside the building clearly demonstrate this.
2.2 The three panels would be white uPVC-framed, and would each measure just over 1.7m wide by 1.4m high; the aperture overall measures 5.2m by 1.4m.
2.3 The part of the building that would be altered by the proposal is not visible from any public position.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/00431/B
Page 2 of 4
3.1 As noted, the newer element of the building was constructed following approval to PA 98/00279/GB. An additional apartment was approved for construction atop the building under PA 07/01424/B, which followed an earlier approval to amalgamate two of the apartments under PA 05/92157/B. Approval was granted for a proposal to make window alterations to Apartment 22 under PA 06/02095/B. None of these applications is especially material to the determination of the current application, but are helpful in charting the recent changes to the building, and highlight the limited alterations that have been made to the building since the major redevelopment roughly 15 years ago.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 The site is zoned as a mixture of Residential and Offices under the Douglas Local Plan; with this in mind and reflecting on the nature of the proposal, it is considered that General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan is the most relevant to test the application against; paragraphs 7.26-7.28.1 inclusive do not directly apply.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Douglas Borough Council indicates that it does not oppose the application (26.05.15).
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 Although not apparent from the site plan, the site of the proposed works is not directly visible from public positions. The highway to the south is set significantly lower than the building and the cliff rising steeply from Marine Drive obscures the relevant part of the south west elevation. There are no public footpaths in the area.
6.2 Reflecting partly on this, it is considered that the proposed glazing is unobjectionable. The three units are utilitarian and do not reflect the surrounding architectural detailing - whether this is the existing windows' glazing bars or transoms, the railings of the projecting balconies, or the prominent render bands. However, the existing aperture is itself fairly utilitarian and, without much in the way of detailing, does not draw attention to itself and allows the other details of the building as mentioned above to be the more prominent features of the building as a result. As such, it could be considered that an attempt to reflect any of the detailing on the more decorative parts of the building would draw inappropriate attention to what is not intended to be an attractive part of the building in any case.
6.3 Consideration was given to suggesting to the applicants that a more decorative approach might be worth exploring, and that some details to match either the nearby windows' glazing bars or the railings might be more appropriate. However, in view of the above - and also noting that there are some low-level railings in the aperture that are proposed to be retained - it is considered that the clean and functional approach taken is actually more appropriate than a more decorative approach might be. Perhaps a single glazing panel might be even better, but it is considered that the visual improvement this might bring would not be sufficient to warrant putting the applicant to what would likely be a very significant increase in expense.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 On balance, it is concluded that an objection to the proposal when considered against the relevant parts of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan would be inappropriate and could probably not be sustained at appeal.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/00431/B
Page 3 of 4
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.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 26.05.2015
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 and information, date- stamped as having been received 22nd April 2015: the Site Plan (scale 1:500), the Location Plan (scale 1:1250), and the window detail (scale 1:40).
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; 27.05.2015
Determining officer (delete as appropriate)
Signed :... Chris Balmer
Senior Planning Officer
Signed : Sarah Corlett
Sarah Corlett
Senior Planning Officer
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/00431/B
Page 4 of 4
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