Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00620/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00620/B Applicant : Mr Terry Yau Proposal : Conversion of 2 existing flats into 4 residential apartments with additional tourist use and change of use of basement to an office Site Address : 2 Marathon Terrace Queens Promenade Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4NH
Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken :
Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 07.01.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed rear extension given its height, scale and proximity to the neighbouring property 1 Marathon Terrace, would result in a significant adverse impact through loss of light and have an overbearing impact upon the outlook from 1 Marathon Terrace, resulting in a adverse "tunnel effect", all contrary to General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2021.
R 2. The proposed rear extension given its siting, design, inappropriate window fenestration design, and scale of the rear extension would adversely affect the rhythm of the existing terrace (Marathon Terrace), negatively impact the appearance of the street scene (Switzerland Road) and neither preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area., all contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide 2021.
R 3. The proposed front bin storage, given its design and location to the front of the property, would negatively impact the appearance of the street scene (Queens Promenade) and neither preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __ Officer’s Report
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00620/B Page 2 of 6
1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The application site is 2 Marathon Terrace, Douglas, a four-storey mid-terrace building located on the northwest of Queens Promenade, close to its junction with Switzerland Road.
1.2 The terrace is set back from the Promenade, with a ground floor extension projecting to the Promenade. The ground floor extension is used as a shop whilst the flat roof is being used as decking for the flats. There are two flats at the moment: one occupies the ground and first floor, the other occupies the second floor and the third floor. There is also a basement.
1.3 There is a two-storey flat roof extension on the rear of the terrace. Switzerland Road is on a higher level than the site. The entrance at the rear has stairs leading down to the ground floor and up to the second floor.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The planning application seeks approval for the change of use of the terrace, not including the front extension, to four apartments, with an office in the basement.
2.2 The proposal also includes the installation of three retractable balcony/rooflights on the roof of the front elevation. In addition, there will be a three-storey pitched roof rear extension on the rear elevation, next to the existing two-storey extension. The flat roof of the second storey will be converted to a platform that leads to the entrance to second and third floors.
2.3 Flat 1 and 2 will be accessible from the front elevation. Flat 1 will have a living room at the front, two bedrooms with en-suite and a toilet. Flat 2 will have a living room on the front floor, three bedrooms with en-suite and a toilet.
2.4 Flat 3 and Flat 4 will be accessible from Switzerland Road. There are stairs leading up to the entrance on the rear elevation of the terrace. Flat 3 will have a living room at the front, two en-suite and a toilet. Flat 4 is open plan with a study and bed area at the front and the en- suite and kitchen at the rear.
2.5 The bin storage for Flat 1, 3 and 4 is in the rear yard. The bin storage for Flat 2 is at the bottom of the entrance stairs on the Promenade.
2.6 There is bike storage on the platform leading to Flat 3 and 4 connected by stairs.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 Conversion of second floor into self contained flat was APPROVED under PA 87/00396/B.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
4.1 In terms of the local plan, the site is designated as Mixed Use in the Area Plan for the East. The site is also within the Douglas Promenade Conservation Area.
4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
4.3 General Policy 2:
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00620/B Page 3 of 6
"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; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan."
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 Housing Policy 17 states: "The conversion of buildings into flats will generally be permitted in residential areas provided that: (a) adequate space can be provided for clothes-drying, refuse storage, general amenity, and, if practical, car-parking; (b) the flats created will have a pleasant clear outlook, particularly from the principal rooms and (c) if possible, this involves the creation of parking on site or as part of an overall traffic management strategy for the area."
4.6 Transport Policy 7: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7."
4.7 Appendix 7.1: "High levels of car ownership have led to an increase in the level of parking expected for residential development, and outside of town centre locations, these standards should not be relaxed. New-built residential development should be provided with two parking spaces per dwelling, at least one of which should be within the curtilage of the dwelling and behind the front of the dwelling ... the Department will consider reducing this requirement having regard to: (a) the location of the housing relative to public transport, employment, and public amenities; (b) the size of the dwelling; (d) the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area."
4.8 Appendix 7.1 continues: "Where new dwellings are created by the conversion of existing buildings, parking space should be formed by the clearance of outbuildings and low-grade annexes or 'outlets' if it is reasonable and practicable so to do. However, in general, the need to find a use for redundant buildings which are in sound condition will outweigh the drawback of any shortfall in parking provision."
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00620/B Page 4 of 6
4.9 Appendix 7.6 states typical residential dwelling should have "1 space for 1 bedroom; 2 spaces for 2 or more bedrooms." For offices, there should be "1 space for every 50 square metres of nett floor space"
4.10 Appendix 7.6 also states: "These standards may be relaxed where development: (d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on-street parking in the locality."
5.0 REPRESENTATION
5.1 Douglas Borough Council support this application (18/10/2021) after revised plan was received.
5.2 Highway Services does not object this application (07/07/2021) after revised plan was received.
5.3 The Principal Registered Building Officer objected to the original proposal of balconies and dormer at the rear elevation.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key issues to consider are the principle of the development, its impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, on the user's amenities, on neighbouring amenities and on highway and parking provision.
Principle of the Development 6.2 The site is located on Queens Promenade. The Area Plan for the East designates the area as being Mixed Use. Therefore, the proposal of Class 3.4 is considered acceptable.
Visual Impact on the Conservation Area 6.3 It is considered that the proposed covered bin storage and rooflights will have a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
6.4 As mentioned by the PRBO, the terrace consists of five part, the part at each end is the same but are different from the three parts in the middle, of which are similar in design and size. It is considered that the proposed rear extension would disrupt the rhythm of the existing terrace and negatively impact the appearance of the Conservation Area. However, as it is at the rear elevation, the impact alone is not enough reason to recommend a refusal.
6.5 The proposed bin storage for first floor flat is on the Promenade. It is considered that, although covered, it would still create a negative impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. However, as the impact might be minor, it is not enough reason to recommend a refusal.
User Amenities 6.6 According to Douglas Borough Council, the proposed bin storage acceptable. Therefore, it is considered that refuse storage provision is acceptable.
6.7 There are four proposed flats. Flat 1-3 has a living room on the front elevation. Flat 4 has open-plan and retractable balcony/rooflight. The front elevation is facing the Promenade, which area considered primary outlook. Therefore, the outlooks of the four flats area considered acceptable.
Neighbouring Amenities
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00620/B Page 5 of 6
6.8 The proposal is within a mixed-use area and the proposed residential use will not generate more noise than existing business and residence nearby so the impact on neighbours is considered acceptable.
6.9 The proposed three-storey rear extension would increase the existing "tunnel effect" on the rear elevation of 1 Marathon Terrace. As it is a northwest elevation, any further reduction in sunlight will have a more drastic impact on the sunlight intake of this elevation. Therefore, it is considered that the overbearing and overshadowing impact is not acceptable.
Traffic and Parking 6.10 There is no specific parking to be allocated for this development. Whilst there is undoubtedly pressure on kerbside parking in the vicinity, Highway Services have confirmed that they have no objection, so the impact on parking is considered acceptable.
Office 6.11 It is considered that there is no negative impact on neighbouring amenities, traffic or parking created by the proposed office in the basement.
Summary 6.12 The proposed use is principally acceptable. The amenities for its further occupants are acceptable. However, there is negative impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area created by the proposed bin storage and rear extension. And there is negative impact on 1 Marathon Terrace due to intensify "tunnel effect" created by the rear extension.
6.13 The assessment is whether the combination of these negative impacts overwhelm the benefit it brings, e.g. two additional flats. It is considered they do, particularly the impact on 1 Marathon terrace.
7.0 CONCLUSION
7.1 This proposal is considered failing to comply with General Policy 2, Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan. Therefore, it is recommended for a refusal.
7.2 The proposed bin storage and rear extension would negative impact the character of the area and the rear extension would worsen the sunlight intake to 1 Marathon Terrace.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land which the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00620/B Page 6 of 6
o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner 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.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 17.01.2022
Determining officer Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal