Loading document...
Application No.: 17/00248/B Applicant: Mr Anthony Faragher Proposal: Replacement of garage door, entrance door and first floor window Site Address: Marina Cottage 17 - 18 Shore Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1NH Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 06.02.2018 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions 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.
This decision relates to drawings 03A received on 20th December, 2017 and the location plan and 02 received on 1st March, 2017.
_______________________________________________________________ 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 6(4):
The owners of 10, Duke Street and 19, Shore Road, both of which are very close to or adjoining the site. _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICANT IS RELATED TO A MEMBER OF THE DIVISION'S STAFF
1.1 The site is the curtilage of 17 and 18, Shore Road - Marina Cottage, which faces towards the western end of Shore Road - the promenade which runs along Peel's sea front and beach. The property is a traditional two storey Manx cottage although also has a substantial flat roofed dormer on the front and rear pitches which provides a rather more top heavy character compared with a traditional Manx cottage. The property has distinctive timber work on the front elevation which is painted black, contrasting against the white painted smooth render finish otherwise on the property. - 1.2 To the east of the property is an attached flat roofed garage which has a garage door, pedestrian door and window fronting onto the promenade and footway alongside. This sits parallel with the road, facing north, whereas the cottage turns through around 50 degrees to face towards the north west. - 1.3 The garage and store are a simple structure, also finished in a white painted render with a black painted fascia defining the flat roof and a short black line creates the impression of a small plinth which continues around the front of the cottage. The pedestrian door is painted black as is the cill under the window, matching those on the cottage. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The application originally proposed the creation of accommodation on top of the garage and store in the form of a glazed structure. Following concerns, this element has been removed and the application simply proposes the replacement of the garage door, pedestrian door and window. The garage door will become a horizontally sectioned up and over door, the pedestrian door will become a brown coloured uPVC door matching that on the main house and the present single light window will be subdivided in a fixed fashion to match the windows in the main cottage although these are opening sliding sash. It is assumed that the annotation indicates that the glazing will replicate the half and half subdivision of the adjacent windows, not the opening style. PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site lies within a large area of Mixed Use on the Peel Local Plan of 1989 and also within the town's Conservation Area. As such, the key policy in this case is Environment Policy 35 of the Strategic Plan. Whilst the original scheme involved a more significant development which may have affected those in neighbouring property, invoking various parts of General Policy 2, as the works now are confined to the replacement of outward facing elements of the single storey part of the building, the only parts of GP2 which are considered relevant are those relating to the impact on the streetscene and character of the area (GP2 b,c and g). PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The replacement of windows was approved under 12/00122/B, 11/01691/B having previously been refused. The approval granted permission for sliding sash windows. The 2011 application was refused as the opening style did not replicate the existing or original style of opening. REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 The owners of 19, Shore Road object to the application on the basis that it would make the painting of their gable impracticable and this is essential due to the prevailing weather. They are concerned at the structural ability of the existing garage to support a first floor and they are concerned that there may be damage to the conservatory were they to undertake repairs to their property. They are also concerned as to how rainwater will be discharged (21.03.17).
5.2 The owners of 10, Duke Street objects to the application as they believe that the enjoyment of their property will be materially and negatively affected. They consider that the applicant's allegation that they have spoken with the neighbour at 19, Shore Road is clearly untrue as these parties have objected to the application. They are concerned that no dimensions or levels are shown on the drawings. Whilst the applicant has indicated that they have a relation in the Planning and Building Control Section, this is not clarified further and they enquire as to what the procedures are in relation to ensure there is no conflict of interest in the decision-making. They ask whether clarification of the consultation with the Conservation Officer can be made available and suggest that the proposal involves demolition in that roof coverings and doors and windows are to be removed so this amounts to demolition. For all these reasons the application should be withdrawn and re-submitted with the procedural matters resolved. - 5.3 They provide photographs of their property including a window which they suggest looks directly over the proposed development. They are aware that there is an opinion that there is no right to a view, but point out that they may well not have purchased their property if they had known that the proposed extension was to go ahead particularly as, due to the general lack of amenity space with terraced properties, the value of a view is important and that the proposal is over-intensive and unneighbourly. The addition of a first floor structure will ensure that there is little or no light to the rear elevation or yards of their property or those of their neighbours and they do not believe that this has been taken into account by the applicant. - 5.4 They are concerned that this may be the start of further proposals to increase the mass of the property and end up with a new dwelling where the garage currently sits. They consider that the existing structure has no architectural merit and is out of keeping with the surrounding area: substituting one poor situation for another is not and should not be considered a good argument to promote approval as the site lies within a Conservation Area. They conclude by stating that if the application were for the changing of the garage door, window and door they could not object as it would improve the appearance of the structure. If the application is approved for the first floor addition, they recommend conditions (28.03.17). - 5.5 Peel Town Commissioners initially objected to the application as the appearance of the structure would be inappropriately modern and prominent in Peel's Conservation Area (15.03.17). - 5.6 Highway Services have no highway interest in the application (28.03.17). - 5.7 Following the submission and circulation of the amended drawings, no further correspondence has been received from any of the above parties.
6.1 The proposal now proposes only the replacement of the garage door, pedestrian door and window. The test is whether the proposed works enhance or preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area in which the property sits and it is particularly relevant that the site is prominent within an area well used by the public who may pass the site on foot as well as in a vehicle.
6.2 The existing features are not particularly appropriate to a Conservation Area and whilst a more appropriate style of garage door -perhaps a sectional timber door which slides sideways, a sliding sash window and a painted four panel Victorian style door, what is proposed is no more inappropriate than what exists so is considered to preserve, with a neutral impact on the character of the area. - 6.3 The applicant has explained that in respect of the garage door, the existing door swings out over the footpath when opening whilst the proposed one would roll up and not have this disadvantageous impact on the footpath. They would prefer a powder coated plastic door to
7.1 The proposal is considered to accord with Environment Policy 35 and is recommended for approval. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : …Permitted. . Committee Meeting Date:…12.02.2018
Signed :………S CORLETT…………….. 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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown