Officer Planning Report

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:149482}} {{table:149483}} {{table:149484}} {{table:149485}} ### Considerations ### Written Representations ### Consultations

Officer's Report

Site

• The application site is a mid-terrace property situated on the north side of Derby Square.
• To the rear of the property is an open yard which accesses onto to a rear lane.
• The application site is located within a Conservation Area.
• To the east of the application site is No.69 Derby Road.
• To the west of the application site is No. 67 Derby Road

Proposed Development

• The application is seeking planning permission for the creation of a single garage in a rear yard with a balcony.
• The garage will enclose an area of 6.5m x 5.65m. The height of the garage will be 2.5m
• The roof of the garage will be used as a balcony.

Planning Status And Relevant Policies

• Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Douglas Local Plan) Order 1998
• PPS1/01 – Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man

Planning History

• 87/01764/B - Conversion into 3 no. self-contained flats – granted

Representations

• Douglas Corporation – no objection
• Drainage services of Douglas Corporation has no objection in principle subject to comments about drainage matters
• Highways Division of the Dept of Transport have objected to the application on the garages that vehicles will not be able to manoeuvre out of the proposed garage into the rear lane.

Assessment

• In the determination of this application I consider there are three key issues. These are as follows:
• the impact on the adjoining properties;
• the impact on the Conservation Area; and
• the concerns of the Highways Division of the Department of Transport.

• In respect of the impact on No. 69 Derby Square, the application site is set to the west of the neighbouring property. The application is proposing to a 3m length of balustrade and trellis fencing along the boundary of No.69. The total height of the boundary treatment would be 1.8m. This is to prevent any overlooking to the rear back yard. The applicant could have continued boundary treatment to the rear boundary, which would have caused visually intrusive to the occupiers of the neighbouring property. I consider the proposed boundary treatment to be minimum needed along the boundary so as not to impact on the residential amenities of No.69 Derby Square.

• It should be noted that a further 3.2m length of balustrade and trellis runs in parallel with the boundary. However, this is set approximate 2m off the boundary. I do not feel this will cause any significant impact as it is set off the boundary of No.69 and would not be visually intrusive and overbearing.

• In respect of the impact on No. 67 Derby Square, the application site is set to the east of the neighbouring property. The applicant is proposing a 4.6m length of balustrade and trellis fencing along the boundary of No.67. The total height of the boundary treatment would be 1.8m. The rear year of No.67 is not enclosed. The yard is already overlooked from the lane and from the properties on the opposite side of the lane. The boundary treatment will prevent any overlooking from occurring. I consider the proposal will not adversely affect the residential amenities of No.67 Derby Square.

• In respect of the impact on No.23 Derby Road, the application site is set to the south. There is a 6m wide access lane between the two properties. The applicant is not proposing any screening along the rear boundary of the roof terrace. No.23 Derby Road has an approximately 2m high stone wall. There are outbuildings to the rear of No.23 which take up a large amount of the rear yard. I consider any overlooking will be minimal due to the built environment of No.23 Derby Road. I therefore consider the proposal does not require any screening along the rear boundary.

• In respect of the impact on the Conservation Area, the proposed works are set to the rear of the property and would not be visible from the main public areas of the Conservation Area. I

consider the proposed works would have a neutral effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

• In respect of the concerns made by the Highways Division, the applicant currently is able to park their vehicle in the rear yard of the site. I believe the DoT Transport of misinterpreted the plans. The plans only show a proportion of the lane and do not give the true representation of the existing width of the lane. I consider the existing width of the lane is satisfactory for vehicles to manoeuvre in and out of the garage. I do not believe the proposed garage will impinge on this movement. I therefore do not agree with the Department of Transport comments.

Recommendation

• I therefore recommend that planning application be granted subject to conditions in the attached schedule.

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.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation: 15.01.2007

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal

• : Notes attached to refusals

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This permission relates to the creation of a single garage in rear year with balcony as shown in drawing numbers PD-001, PD-002, PD-003, PD-004 and PD005 date stamped 5th October 2006

C 3. No facing materials shall be used other than materials similar to those used on the existing building.

C 4. Prior to the commencement of works, details of the trellis shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the planning authority. Thereafter, the erection of the trellis shall be in accordance with the approved details.

N 1. The Drainage Department of Douglas Corporation advises that the surface and foul water drainage from the new extension must be separated to the rear curtilage boundary and then combined into

the existing lateral connection as to comply with the Department of Transports Drainage Division requirements. Furthermore, they advise that a detailed engineering drawing showing the proposed drainage layout must be submitted to the Borough of Douglas Drainage Department for approval prior to any work commencing on site

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 : Permitted Date: 18/1/07 Signed: [Handwritten signature] M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control