Officer Planning Report 06/01633/B

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:145291}} {{table:145292}} {{table:145293}} {{table:145294}} ### Considerations {{table:145295}} ### Written Representations ### Consultations

Officer's Report

Description Of Application Site

• The application site is the two storey residential property situated on the north western side of Allan Street.
• The property forms part of a row of 15 terraced properties.
• The application site is not within a Conservation Area.

Proposal

• The application is seeking permission to remove the cornice to the front and replace the existing render

Relevant Planning History

• 98/00951/B - Installation of uPVC windows to replace existing to front elevation – granted 22.10.1998

Development Plan Policies

• Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Douglas Local Plan) Order 1998

Statutory Consultation Responses

• Douglas Corporation – no objection
• Highways Division of the DoT do not oppose the application
• SPMCE have commented that no indication of the reasoning behind this proposal. Though not in a Conservation Area, the Society considers the despoliation of classical features regrettable. We object.

Public Responses

• Press notice were posted on 5/10/06
• SPMCE have commented that no indication of the reasoning behind this proposal. Though not in a Conservation Area, the Society considers the despoliation of classical features regrettable. We object.

Issues

• The key issue here is the impact on the character and appearance of the street scene.
• The property is already rendered. I have no objection to the re-rendering of the property. I feel this would improve the appearance of the property within the street scene.
• However, I am concerned about the proposed removal of the cornice. A number of properties within the street still retain a cornice. I consider the cornice has architectural merit and gives the property some character instead of just a flat front elevation onto the street. I am of the opinion that the removal of the cornice would affect the character and appearance of the street scene to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality.
• The rafters of the roof sit on the existing cornice. Therefore the removal of the cornice would potentially require stripping back part of the roof and the rebuild part of the front wall to allow the roof to be partially rebuilt. The application does not contain any of this detail and may require more structural details to be submitted. The applicant has not provided any justification of the removal of the cornice.
• Due to the insufficient detail in the application and the architectural merit of the cornice I consider the application should be refused.

Conclusion

I therefore recommend that application be refused for the above reasons.

Party Status

The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.

It is considered that all parties who made representations to the planning application comply with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 – Determination of Interested Party Status with exception of the SPMCE.

Recommendation

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

R 1.

The removal of the cornice would result in the loss of an architectural feature from which has some merit to the property and the street scene. The removal of the cornice would affect the character and appearance of the street scene to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality.

Furthermore, the removal of the cornice would result in substantial structural work which may require planning permission and the application does not contain this detail to assess accurately the impact on the character and appearance of the street scene.

I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)

Decision Made: Refused Date: 28/11/06

Signed: M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control