Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00918/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 21/00918/B Applicant : Mr Alan Davies Proposal Construction of decking (retrospective) Site Address Flat 1 8 Fort William Head Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5BQ
Case Officer :
Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 24.01.2022
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. Within one month of this decision becoming final a scaled drawing (1:50) shall be submitted in writing to the Department for approval which shows the reinstatement of the former front boundary wall topping (matching neighbouring property Nr 9) and this approved scheme is required to be completed within 3 months of the approval of such works and retained thereafter.
Reason: In the visual amenities of the individual property.
C 2. Prior to the occupation of the decked area the front facing steel (harbour side - currently painted red) work below the decking area shall be painted/coloured a dark green colour and retained thereafter.
Reason: in the interest for visual amenities.
C 3. Prior to the occupation of the decked area the plinth/sides of base platform shall be painted/coloured a dark colour and retained thereafter.
Reason: In the visual amenities of the individual property.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is considered the proposal would not have a significant impact upon public or private amenities and therefore complies with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, Area Plan for the East and Residential Design Guide 2021.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00918/B Page 2 of 8
This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings all received on 03.08.2021.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
The owners/occupiers of 9 Fort William, Douglas as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).
The owners/occupiers of 8 Fort William, Douglas as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
The owners/occupiers of 11 Fort William, Douglas (1 Windsor Terrace, Douglas) as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.
Owners/occupiers of 6 & 7 Fort William, Douglas (M & P Legal) as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.
The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society The Isle Of Man Victorian Society
A Mr M Watson (address unknown)
As they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy; are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy; as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
0.0 PREAMBLE 0.1 This application was considered at the previous meeting and was deferred for a site visit.
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00918/B Page 3 of 8
1.1 The application site is within the residential curtilage of Flat 1, 8 Fort William, Head Road, Douglas which is a flat within 8 Fort William, a late 19th Century Town House. The flat encompasses all of the lower ground level and basement when viewed from Douglas Head Road. When viewed from the front elevation which faces North East the flat encompasses ground floor and basement level.
1.2 The red line of the application site includes the front garden area of the property and also the pedestrian footpath /section of land to north of pedestrian footpath. The footpath runs from the site (appears to also be shared with other Fort William properties) downwards to South Quay.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 This application seeks approval for the construction of decking (retrospective) to the front (north) of the existing front garden of the property. The decking would site beyond the existing front boundary wall of the property and sit above the pedestrian footpath which fronts the property. The decking would measure 3.4m in depth, a width of 6.8m and would have a 1.1m balustrades around the edge of the decking.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site of 8 Fort William has had several applications on it over the years, of which Flat 1 does not have any specifically. With regards to relevant applications PA96/00936/B is the most relevant and was for "Alterations to upgrade existing flats" and was Permitted.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential" on the Area Plan for the East, Map 4, Douglas. The property isn't within a Conservation Area, Flood Zone nor an area zones as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.
4.2 In terms of the Strategic Plan (2016), General Policy 2 (GP2) is the most relevant and 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; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
4.3 7.22.2 It may be necessary for a developer to undertake a specialist investigation and assessment to identify any remedial measures required to deal with ground instability. It may also be appropriate to carry out monitoring after the development has taken place. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that land is safe and suitable for development. Whilst the Department will try to ensure that a development will not be put at unacceptable risk, the subsequent liability for safe development and secure occupancy of a site rests with the developer and / or landowner.
4.3.1 Environment Policy 28: Development which would be at risk from ground instability or which would increase the risk from ground instability elsewhere will not be permitted unless appropriate precautions have been taken
4.4 Residential Design Guide 2021
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Douglas Borough Council have considered the application and have no objections. (08.10.2021)
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00918/B Page 4 of 8
5.2 Highway Services have considered the application and stated (06.08.2021); "The path at rear is private and likely to form part of the communal facilities rather than being within the demise of Flat 1 and mitigation may be necessary to provide alternative pedestrian access at the rear and fencing to secure and protect the decking. In part, this is a matter of the lease and the freeholder's permission may be necessary to undertake the work. Additionally, the appropriateness of using decking as a retaining structure for the bank is questioned and building control may wish to make comment. Recommendation: N/A."
5.2.1 Highway Services also comment (28.09.2021): "Highways Development Control notes the amendments uploads on 24 and 27 September 2021 and reiterate that the proposal obstructs the existing communal pathway and is likely to cause / has caused destablishing of the bank. The latter should be verified."
5.3 The owners/occupiers of 11 Fort William, Douglas (1 Windsor Terrace, Douglas) objects to the application which can be summarised as (31.08.2021): The proposed decking is somewhat intrusive and impinges on the Victorian integrity of the terrace; It is regrettable that the original capping of the garden wall has been destroyed and appears to be about to be replaced with a modern inappropriate design; The interruption of the footpath by a step up to timber decking is visually uncomfortable quite apart from the interruption to an access easement; and a limited extension might be considered acceptable if at the same level as the existing footpath.
5.4 The owners/occupiers of 9 Fort William, Douglas objects to the application which can be summarised as (25.08.2021): impact our living conditions including adversely impacting the outlook and visual amenity; loss of the privacy at the front of the property facing the harbour; will have a prejudicial effect on our property as set out in both the Strategic Plan and the Area Plan; Context is outlined in letter and how the properties evolved including shared pedestrian footpaths to the north of the properties which remains today; The 15 residential terraced properties constituting Fort William dominate and are highly visible from Douglas Harbour and all traffic using it as well as from the harbour area of town; contrary to Environment Policy 28, Urban Environment Proposal 3, Tourism Proposal 8; Though still incomplete the deck is highly visible and intrusive; Most of the extension is cantilevered out and unsupported resting solely on a small steel beam which is supported on several concrete block piles newly constructed on the bank; bushes including large rhododendrons on the bank have been cut down and partially removed leading to some soil destabilisation and risk of erosion; The decking may also block surface runoff from the communal pathway; The decking also covers the route of the main underground sewer serving Nos 7 - 13 running under the communal pathway and draining to the west towards No 6 thus hampering access in the event of blockage; The partially completed decking is plainly visible from the far side of Douglas Harbour including from Walpole Avenue, Lord Street, Parade Street and the Sea Terminal as well as from the Lifting Bridge and South Quay; It is inconsistent with the terrace constituting an eyesore and adversely impacting and grossly intruding upon the overall visual appearance of the terrace front elevation and associated landscaping; The creation of a very large (23 -24 m2) deck adversely impacts the visual amenity and the privacy of the garden and front ground floor of No 9; contrary to Residential Design Guide 2021; and Cabinet Office is at present conducting a consultation to whether the area should be proposed to be a Conservation Area.
5.4.1 Following amended plans the owners/occupiers of 9 Fort William, Douglas continue to object to the application on the following summarised grounds (19.10.2021): We do not believe that the amended plans address any of the concerns raised in our letter of 25 August which is herewith restated; The drawings are schematics and imply that the deck extension beyond the existing common path is mostly located on solid ground. This is incorrect; the creation of a raised deck and its proposed overhang has the potential to provide shelter to and further encourage rodents.
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00918/B Page 5 of 8
5.5 M & P Legal on behalf of the owners/occupiers of 6 & 7 Fort William, Douglas objects to the application which can be summarised as (20.08.2021); why is this application retrospective; plans are not accurate and not factually correct; has destroyed part of part wall and part of front wall; has little to no regard for the right of way over the pathway from South Quay to number 7; destruction of wildlife due to removal of bushes between March and August (bird nesting season); a tree has been removed without our clients permission; and proposal does not include any engineers or groundwork's as to the stabilising of the bank.
5.5.1 M & P Legal on behalf of the owners/occupiers of 6 & 7 Fort William, Douglas continue to objects to the application which can be summarised as (22.10.2021): The submitted amended plans are still incorrect/insufficient; ownership concerns by claiming land of Nr 7; the decking crosses a right of way and therefore the users of the right of way are at risk; Building Control approval should be sought; why is it retrospective; use of glass surrounding is not in keeping with the surrounding properties; do not overcome our concerns of destruction to wildlife; and proposal does not include any engineers or groundwork's as to the stabilising of the bank.
5.6 The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society object making the following summarised comments (15.11.2021); Society would wish to see this considered in the context of the street scene of Fort William as a whole site being within the recently consulted upon possibility of a Conservation Area for Douglas Head; The Society notes that the proposal is on the harbour side of Fort William and thus, particularly if vegetation is cut down, is very open to view from the harbour and quay areas of Douglas; it would appear totally out of context in the street scene and would set a precedent for other similar development on this side of Fort William which as two terraces are a strong visual focal point; and contrary to Isle of Man Strategic Plan General Policy 2b and 2c and the first part of Environment Policy 43 as well potentially Environment Policies 35 and 36, Planning Circular 1/01 Policy CA/1 and Section 18 subsection (4) of the Town & Country Planning Act. The proposal does not preserve or enhance the street scene / area.
5.7 The Isle Of Man Victorian Society object making the following summarised comments (24.11.2021); ownership issues; in planning terms we would aver that the proposals are totally out of keeping with the adjoining Redact Victorian properties in the use of timber and glass and if approved would form a dangerous precedent; The Douglas Head area is currently under consideration as being a Conservation Area and this should be taken in to consideration. The proposals do not preserve or enhance the street scene and in fact are detrimental to the ambience of the area and affect the enjoyment of other property owners.
5.8 A Mr M Watson (address unknown) comments (14.01.2022); the deck is created it should be at the same level as the path as I feel that the step up is visually disruptive. Indeed rather than a deck a terrace is to be preferred with appropriate quality paving and a retaining wall of quality material. What is proposed is rather mean and does not sit well with the substantial nature of an attractive Victorian terrace.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE 6.2 The proposed decking fronting the property is arguably unusual; in that the majority of terraced properties in towns would have a public footpath fronting them and therefore the owners of the property do not own the land in question/wouldn't get permission from DOI. This site is unusual, in that the pedestrian footpath which fronts the properties is private (not a public highway) and presumably is shared by the owners of Fort William. However, ownership
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00918/B Page 6 of 8
is not a material planning consideration and is not for consideration. If it transpired the works where constructed on the private footpath not owned by the applicants, then this is a civil matter between the relevant parties.
6.3 In this case the decking is not especially apparent from pubic views, which are from distance views and not highly prominent. The decking in its very nature is a low level form of development and with the balustrading made up of glass; this would reduce the visual impact further; being unnoticeable and certainly not have a prominent feature from public perspectives.
6.4 Overall, it is considered the proposal would be acceptable in this respect.
NEIGHBOURING AMENITY 6.5 The proposed decking does increase the amount of external amenities to the occupiers of Flat 1 and therefore there could be concerns of impact (overlooking) to neighbouring properties. However, it is noted there is already a significant level of mutual overlooking given the front gardens of the properties along Fort William are fairly open in nature and therefore little in the way of privacy already. Further, the decking level is set below that of the finished floor level of the neighbouring dwellings. Therefore views into the dwellings are limited. Accordingly, it is not considered the proposed decking would have a significantly greater impact to neighbouring amenities to warrant a refusal.
Other Issues 6.6 It is noted there are concerns of ownership; however, as outlined in paragraph 6.2 of this report this is a civil matter between the relevant parties. For information, the decking would not prevent any person crossing over it (single step) to cross from onside to another; albeit it was noted when visiting the site there is a 'dead end' to the west of decking as the path to from Nr 8 to Nr 7 has been blocked (blockwork wall) a number of years ago.
6.7 In terms of cliff stabilisation, this is generally a Building Control matter. However, in discussion with the Departments Head of Building Control they have confirmed that their permission wouldn't be required, given the scale of the development. As outlined in Environment Policy 28 where there would be at risk from ground instability or which would increase the risk from ground instability elsewhere permission will not be granted. Currently, there is no evidence to indicate the proposal would/has an impact upon ground instability. Furthermore, as outlined by paragraph 7.22.2 it is; "Ultimately it is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that land is safe and suitable for development" and "Whilst the Department will try to ensure that a development will not be put at unacceptable risk, the subsequent liability for safe development and secure occupancy of a site rests with the developer and / or landowner". Accordingly, the Department considers without any evidence at this stage that there is any ground instability issues and as Building Control do not consider a Building Regulations application is needed, the Department is satisfied that the works in this respect are acceptable.
6.8 The removal of any hedgerows do not require planning approval. Impacts upon nesting birds are matters for the Wildlife Act 1999 and the Departments Ecology Team would be able to assist further on this matter.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons the proposal is considered the proposal would not have a significant impact upon public or private amenities and therefore complies with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, Area Plan for the East and Residential Design Guide 2021. The application is recommended for an approval.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/00918/B Page 7 of 8
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 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: 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 the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 02.02.2022
Signed : C BALMER Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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.
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/00918/B Page 8 of 8
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 02.02.2022
Application No. : 21/00918/B Applicant : Mr Alan Davies Proposal : Construction of decking (retrospective) Site Address : Flat 1 8 Fort William Head Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5BQ
Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer
Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee approved the application (02.02.2022) subject to the additional condition;
Within one month of the decision becoming final a scheme shall be submitted in writing to the Department for approval to highlight the step from the decking to the footpath to the west of the site/decking and this approved scheme shall be completed prior to the occupation of the decking area and retained thereafter.
Reason: in the interests of pedestrian safety.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal