Loading document...
Application No.: 24/00782/GB Applicant: Mr & Mrs Phillip & Ashley Evans Proposal: Alterations and refurbishment works to dwelling and creation of parking area off Victoria Place (in association with RB consent application 24/00784/CON) Site Address: 10 Victoria Terrace Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4EU Technical Officer: Tom Sinden Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 11.09.2024 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposals are considered to pass the statutory test within section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 as the building's architectural and historic special interest is being preserved. Whilst some alterations are proposed to the building's plan form, any harm from these alterations is judged to be offset from the removal of the secondary glazing, the restoration of the internal panelling around the windows, the replacement of modern roof lights with low-profile conservation style roof lights and the overall renovation and long-term safeguarding of the building. The proposals are also judged to be in accordance with Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policy 32 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016, together with Policies RB/3 and RB/5 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 as the building's special interest is being protected and preserved. The
creation of an off-street parking area at the rear of the property is very similar in form to those in place at number 7 and number 9, and is therefore judged to respect the site and its surroundings. While the loss of the existing trees is regrettable, the proposed landscaping is judged to mitigate this loss and the overall impact on the site's ecology is considered to be acceptable. With all of the above factors in mind, the application is judged to be acceptable.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to drawings 318/001, 318/002, 318/010 and 318/021 received 16th July 2024, and 318/020revA received 27th August 2024. _______________________________________________________________
The resident of 11 Victoria Terrace and Boxwood Cottage, 14 Victoria Place, should not be granted Interested Party Status as their comments do not relate to relevant issues as set out in section 2C of the Operational Policy. ___________________________________________________________________
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site (no 10) forms part of the Registered Building Victoria Terrace (RB 187) which is a row of six pairs of semi-detached houses. Designed in a neo classical style by John Robinson in 1843 the pairs have twin front doors set in shared pedimented porches that are faced directly on to the pavement. The buildings have hipped roofs with deep eaves; their interlocking side entrance pillars and railings along with the varied later side additions give the impression the buildings forming a single terrace. The properties follow the contour of the road and are stepped in pairs to reflect this, which gives rise to some of the properties having half and full basements and others not. The Buildings have long gardens which run through to the rear access lane Victoria Place, with some of the properties having garages or sheds others with parking spaces in front of walls, with no's 1 and 2 having more substantial buildings facing onto Victoria place including a small dwelling house.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 This application seeks approval for alterations and refurbishment works to the dwelling and creation of parking area off Victoria Place. The application is concurrent with RB consent application 24/00784/CON.
3.1 The site is designated in the Area Plan for the East as predominantly residential. The property is not located within a Conservation Area, and is not located within a flood risk area. - 3.2 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 S16 Registered buildings: supplementary provisions
(3) In considering —
3.2 National policy: THE ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN 2016
4.1 There are no previous planning applications on the property. - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Douglas Borough Council had stated that they have no objections to the proposals (25.7.2024).
5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division - After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, as the proposed parking is welcomed and situated on a slow speed cul-de-sac. Therefore, additional parking in this area outweighs any reduced access visibility due to adjacent property wall constraints. (19.7.2024). Following the circulation of revised information, the Highways Division stated that they had no further comments to make (8.9.2024). - 5.3 DEFA Ecosystems Policy Officer - A number of trees and bushes are to be removed from the back garden in order to accommodate the new parking spaces, all of which will be providing habitat for a variety of wildlife including nesting birds, feeding bats and invertebrates in this largely built-up area. However, no mitigation replanting is proposed, this application is therefore contrary to Strategic Policy 4 - Proposals for development must: (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas. Prior to determination of this application the Ecosystem Policy Team recommend that updated plans are provided which show new native or near native tree or hedge planting on site to mitigate against the loss of established vegetation. We also at least 1 nest box is provided to mitigate against the loss of nesting habitat (1.8.2024).
As a result of these concerns, the applicant has submitted an amended site plan outlining proposed landscaping within the scheme. After review of these updated proposals, the Ecosystems Policy Officer has provided the following updated comments via email to the case officer and the applicant's agent:- "The Ecosystem Policy Team can confirm that we are content with the updated landscaping details contained in the Proposed Site Plan (Drg No. 318/020a). We request that these are secured via a condition on approval." (23.08.2024).
5.4 Resident of 11 Victoria Terrace - I do not object to the planning application in principle but I do have concerns which I expressed in comments I submitted for application number 24/00784/CON which to date have not been addressed. While the owner of the property has assured me this is the case I have seen nothing to support it. One of the site notices should have been placed on the back gate, it wasn't and this places owners of property directly behind in Victoria Place at a disadvantage. From a security point of view the street light at the rear has
6.1 Section 16 of the Act requires that when considering whether to grant registered building consent, the Department must "have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses." In this instance, the application proposes numerous internal and external alterations. As described in section 1.1, the property forms part of a terrace of 12 properties protected under a single registration (RB 187). The properties were registered as a terrace constructed in 1843 in a neo-classical style, with pedimented porches, distinctive entrance pillars and railings on their front elevation, and a distinctive form featuring hipped roofs with deep eaves. It is judged that any alterations that have the potential to alter these elements of the property are of primary importance in terms of preserving the building's special interest. Replacement roof tiles and roof lights
6.2 Externally, the application proposes to replace the existing roof tiles, replacement windows, replacement roof lights, replacement of rear elevation basement windows with doors, and making good of the painted render wall finishes. The existing roof tiles are concrete, with nonconservation roof lights. The replacement roof tiles would be Redland concrete tiles, to match those recently installed on the adjacent property (number 9) that forms the other half of this pair of semi-detached properties. Although the historic roof finish would have been natural slate, as the proposed tiles would be the same material as those that currently exist, and would match those on the other semi-detached property, it is judged that the replacement roof tiles would preserve the building's special interest. In relation to the replacement roof lights, as the existing units are not in a conservation style and the proposed units would be conservation style with a recessed flashing detail, this element of the proposals is considered to preserve and partly enhance the building's special interest. Replacement windows - 6.3 Two types of replacement windows are proposed within this application. On the front elevation, at ground and first floor level the application proposes to replace the existing windows with timber-framed double glazed units in a style, form and opening method to match the existing windows. Prior to submission of the application, two meetings on site have taken
place with the owners and their agent. The existing windows were inspected during these two meetings, and it was apparent that parts of the frames of each window were in need of replacement due to the perished nature of the timber. As the material, style and opening method of the ground and first floor front elevation windows is proposed to be replicated, it is judged that these windows would preserve the building's special interest. At basement level on the front elevation, and at all levels on the rear elevation, the application proposes to replace the existing windows with UPVC framed sash opening units. The existing windows on the property's rear elevation are UPVC casement opening units, and it is understood that these units were in place at the time of registration in 2001. As the historic windows on the rear elevation are no longer in place, and the proposed windows would reinstate the historic opening method even though UPVC is being retained, it is judged that the proposed rear windows would preserve the building's special interest. With regard to the two basement level windows on the front elevation, within the light well, that are proposed to be replaced. Although the existing windows are timber framed, the units are not historic. Although the use of timber would be preferable, there is very limited visibility of these windows externally and these windows are not an element that is noted as contributing to be building's special architectural interest, it is judged that the basement level front elevation replacement windows would preserve the building's special interest.
Rear elevation basement doors
6.4 The application proposes to replace the rear elevation windows at basement level with two glazed doors. There are a number of instances along the terrace where the basement or ground floor openings on the rear elevation have been altered to doors. These alterations have been permitted on the basis that the intervention has not had any significant adverse impact on the terrace's special interest. With this in mind, the creation of doorways within these existing window openings is considered to preserve the building's special interest. Policy Tests - 6.5 Strategic Policy 4 requires that 'proposals for development must protect or enhance the fabric and setting of registered buildings', while Environment Policy 32 states that 'extensions or alterations to a Registered Building which would affect detrimentally its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest will not be permitted.' As discussed within sections 6.1 to 6.5 above, it is judged that overall the proposals within the registered building consent application will preserve the special interest of the building. Whilst some alterations are proposed to the building's plan form, any harm from these alterations is judged to be offset from the removal of the secondary glazing, the restoration of the internal panelling around the windows, the replacement of modern roof lights with low-profile conservation style roof lights and the overall renovation and long-term safeguarding of the building. It is therefore judged that the application would preserve and protect the building's character and special interest. - 6.6 General Policy 2(b) states that development should respect "the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;" while 2(c) requires development to "not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape". In terms of the alterations to the building itself, as discussed within sections 6.1 to 6.5, whilst there are both positive and negative aspects to the proposals, overall the application is judged to respect the scale, form and design of the existing building. - 6.7 The owner of 11 Victoria Terrace states that they believe standards at the Department have dropped, as there is 'plastic everywhere.' With regard to the use of plastic that I believe to be implied by this statement, I have to have a large amount of sympathy with this viewpoint. In comparison to adjacent jurisdictions, the island's policy permits the use of UPVC in the historic environment to a far greater degree. However, the merits of Department policy in respect of UPVC is not a matter that can or should be assessed within this application. The UPVC within this application is judged to comply with current policy as it would replace existing UPVC units, or replace non-original units.
6.8 The creation of an off-street parking area will require alteration to the boundary walls at the rear, adjoining Victoria Place. Several other properties along the terrace have created a similar parking area, including number 9 and number 7. Concerns have been raised by the resident of number 11, the adjacent property to the north-west, regarding the stability of the boundary wall as a result of the proposed works. The sections of boundary wall that are proposed to be removed as part of this application are those that bound the carriageway, and not the section against the boundary with number 11. Storage areas are proposed abutting the boundary wall with number 11 adjacent to the proposed parking area that would be likely to assist the wall's stability. The concerns regarding the boundary wall are not therefore judged to be a matter that would warrant refusal of the application. D.O.I. Highways have stated that they do not object to the proposed parking area as the 'additional parking in this area outweighs any reduced access visibility due to adjacent property wall constraints.' Given the comments from the Highways Authority, and the presence of similar parking areas along the terrace, the concept and layout of the parking area is considered to be acceptable. - 6.9 Whilst concern has been raised regarding the loss of the existing trees at the Victoria Place end of the property's garden, an amended site plan has been submitted to include landscaping within the garden. The Ecosystems Policy Officer has stated that they are content with these proposals, and have requested that these measures be secured by condition. Although the loss of existing mature planting and trees is regrettable, given the Ecosystems Policy Officer's comments, it is judged that the revised landscaping scheme would mitigate the loss, and that the overall impact on the site's ecology is acceptable. - 6.10 Given the nature and scale of the proposals, the application is judged to comply with Community Policies 7, 10 and 11 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.
7.1 The proposals are considered to pass the statutory test within section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 as the building's architectural and historic special interest is being preserved. Whilst some alterations are proposed to the building's plan form, any harm from these alterations is judged to be offset from the removal of the secondary glazing, the restoration of the internal panelling around the windows, the replacement of modern roof lights with low-profile conservation style roof lights and the overall renovation and long-term safeguarding of the building. The proposals are also judged to be in accordance with Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policy 32 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016, together with Policies RB/3 and RB/5 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 as the building's special interest is being protected and preserved. The creation of an off-street parking area at the rear of the property is very similar in form to those in place at number 7 and number 9, and is therefore judged to respect the site and its surroundings. While the loss of the existing trees is regrettable, the proposed landscaping is judged to mitigate this loss and the overall impact on the site's ecology is therefore considered to be acceptable. With all of the above factors in mind, it is recommended that the application be approved. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSONS STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status as per section 3.2.4 of the Operational Policy. _____________________________________________________________________
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 and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 12.09.2024 Determining Officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton Principal Planner
Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown