Loading document...
Application No.: 08/01677/A Applicant: Mr & Mrs Martin Proposal: - Loss of light - Loss of privacy - Insufficient parking - Too much noise #### Seacliffe Old Castletown Road Ballaveare Braddan - Interest expressed #### 64 Derby Square Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 3LR - Objects to the proposal - Insufficient parking ### Consultations Consultee: Drainage Division Notes: Has no objection in principle subject to: Consultee: Highways Division Notes: Do not oppose Consultee: Douglas Corporation Notes: No objection Consultee: The Isle Of Man Victorian Society Notes: Strongly oppose Site Address: - Vine Villa - 8 Derby Square - Douglas - Isle Of Man - IM1 3LS ### Considerations Case Officer: Mr Ian Brooks Photo Taken: - Site Visit: - Expected Decision Level: ** - Planning Committee ### Written Representations #### 77 Derby Square Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 3LR - Objects to the
The application site is the curtilage of No. 8 Derby Square, which is located on the eastern side of Derby Square. The site is zoned as predominantly residential in the Douglas Local Plan 1998. The site is also located within a Conservation Area. To the north of the application site is No. 2 Derby Square, which is a single storey flat roof commercial building. To the south of the site is No. 10 Derby Square and to the east is the public highway of Derby Square Lane. To the west of the site is the public highway of Derby Square. On the opposite side of the road is No. 77 Derby Square.
The application is seeking approval in principle to demolish the existing dwelling and construct four terraced townhouses. The indicative layout shows the overall footprint of the development would be .
Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 35 and 39 and Housing Policy 6.
Environment Policy 35 states that "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area, and will ensure that he special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
Environment Policy 39 states that "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area."
Housing Policy 6 states that "Development of land which is zoned for residential development must be undertaken in accordance with the brief in the relevant area plan, or, in the absence of a brief, in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 6.2 of this Plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive."
Section 18 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 states that "Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act."
Within Planning Policy Statement 1/01, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: Policy CA/2 and CA/6
Policy CA/2 states that "When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application.
Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected."
Policy CA/6 states that "Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the
character and appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, in particular of the wider effects of the demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole."
The following previous applications are considered relevant in the consideration of this application: 02/02464/8 - Demolition of existing buildings (except no 10) and redevelopment of site to create 50 apartments with parking - refused on review 30th October 2003. The reason for refusal was as follows: "The proposal would constitute an over-development of the site which would have the following adverse impacts:- a) the building would dominate this corner of the square and would result in the loss of the existing attractive open aspect; and b) the use would generate increased local traffic and on-street waiting and parking; the development would thus fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Windsor Road Conservation Area."
Douglas Corporation and the Highways Division of the Department of Transport do not object to the application.
The occupier of 64 Derby Square has objected to the application on the following grounds: the property is of historic interest and adds charm to Derby Square, the existing parking problem will be made worse, the properties will be over-populated, Modern construction within a Victorian area will not have the same appeal as the existing buildings.
The occupiers of No. 77 Derby Square have objected to the application in that the proposal will result in a loss of light, overlooking, loss of privacy if the properties are higher, wider and/or closer than the existing property. They are also concerned about the following issues: the loss of their views of the bay and sea, increased parking and congestion problems, drainage is not able to cope with additional homes, the removal of mature plants including trees will impact on the visual amenities of the locality.
The Isle of Man Victorian Society have commented that Vine Villa is unique on the Island by virtue of its design of appearing to look like a single storey property at the front but have a two storey section to the rear. The property also still retains its original chimney pots and other features having an ambience rarely found in the centre of town. They consider the building is undoubtedly a jewel in Derby Square as well as the whole Conservation Area and is worthy of registration and should not be demolished. A previous application for the property was submitted to demolish the property along with the adjoining bath showroom and replace them with a larger terrace extending the full distance between No'2 and 10 Derby Square. To the best of their recollection this was approved but then the decision was reversed at Review. The developers sought Appeal but withdrew the appeal request leaving the application as a refusal. They strongly oppose this application on the ground that it would result in the loss of a building of significance to the island's historic stock and that there is nothing in the application submitted to indicate that the Conservation Area would be enhanced by the proposal.
Standard comments have been received from the Drainage Department of Douglas Corporation.
A resident of Port Soderick notes that although the property is not registered, aspects of it were considered of sufficient interest for it to be considered for registration. It is considered that Environment Policy 39 is relevant to the determination of this application. It is considered that it will nee a special proposal to make a more positive contribution to the area albeit that it is acknowledged that the layout and nature of the existing building limits the potential for making best use of it for residential use.
The assessment of this application can be split into two distinctive elements. These are;
First of all, it is important to consider Environment Policy 39 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 which states that "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area."
Policy CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (PPS 1/01) provides further guidance in how to assess this application. The policy states "Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, in particular of the wider effects of the demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole."
The application should be assessed against similar criteria to those in Policy RB/6 of PPS1/01. These are as follows.
"The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. An applicant must show that real effort has been made, without success, to continue the present use, or to find new uses for the building. This may include the offer of the unrestricted freehold of the building on the open market at a realistic price reflecting the building's condition." "The merits of alternative proposals for the site. Subjective claims for the architectural merits of a replacement building should not justify the demolition of a registered building. There may be very exceptional cases where the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the
community; these would have to be weighed against preservation. Even here, it will often be feasible to incorporate registered buildings within new development, and this option should be carefully considered. The challenge presented by retaining registered buildings can be a stimulus to imaginative new designs to accommodate them."
The applicant has not carried out any proper assessment to justify the demolition of the building in relation to the Conservation Area Policy in PPS 1/01 or Environment Policy 39 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. Furthermore, the application only provides an indicative layout of the proposed redevelopment with no elevational details. It is very difficult to assess the merits of the redevelopment scheme in order to determine whether the replacement buildings would be acceptable in terms of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the proposed Conservation Area. The existing building sits on a noticeable plot of land within the Conservation Area. The building has some architectural merit and contributes significantly to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The loss of the building is considered to be unwarranted and would adversely affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It is considered that this application is premature in advance of full details of the replacement building and should be refused for this reason also.
The other principal issues in assessing this application are a) land use, b) parking provision and c) the impact on neighbouring properties. The following paragraphs deal with these issues in the above order, followed by consideration of other matters of detail.
The proposed redevelopment would be compatible with the area since the area is zoned as predominantly residential in the Douglas Local Plan. It is considered the principle of residential use to be acceptable in this locality.
Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states that "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards." The car parking standard for a typical residential development is 2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling. The indicative layout shows that each of the townhouses would have two car parking spaces. The parking provision is adequate and accords with the parking standards in the adopted Strategic Plan.
In respect of the impact on no. 77 Derby Square, the application site is to the east, on the opposite side of the road. No. 77 Derby Road has a number of windows on the side elevation of the building, serving both habitable and non-habitable rooms. Some of the windows are the primary source of light to the rooms. The application does not provide full details of the proposed dwellings and therefore it is very difficult to assess the true impact on No. 77 Derby Square; however, the indicative plans do show the dwellings would be set approximately 10 m back from the pavement and approximately 26 m to 30 m away from the side elevation of No. 77 Derby Square. Using this information, it is unlikely the proposed dwellings would cause any significant harm in terms of overshadowing, loss of light, overlooking and loss of privacy.
In respect of concerns from the occupiers of No. 77 Derby Square regarding the loss of view of the bay and sea, these are not material considerations and can not be considered in the determination of this application.
In respect of the Mews House to the rear of No. 10 Derby Square, the application site is to the north of the property. The nearest window, on the west facing elevation of the Mews House, to the boundary of the application site serves a staircase; while the window further away from the boundary serves a kitchenette. Due to the orientation of the site, the proposed development would not cause any significant harm to the residential environment of the Mews House in terms of overshadowing and loss of light. However, it is difficult to assess whether the proposal would be overbearing and
visually intrusive since only an indicative layout plan has been provided with the application. No proper plans of the development have been provided to assess accurately, the impact on the development on the residential environment of the Mews House.
In respect of the impact on No. 10 Derby Square, the application site is to the north of the property. The nearest habitable window would be 5.8 m away from the side elevation of the proposed dwellings and is at 2 nd floor level. Due to the orientation of the site, the proposed development would not cause any significant harm to the residential environment of 10 Derby Square in terms of overshadowing and loss of light. However, it is difficult to assess fully, the impact on the development on the residential environment of the No. 10 Derby Square since only an indicative layout plan has been provided within the application.
The notes suggested by consultees are not material planning considerations and for that reason are not attached to the report, as part of the recommendation.
It is recommended that this application be refused for the above reasons.
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.
The occupiers of No. 77 Derby Square have commented on planning matters and live opposite to the application site. It is considered they should be afforded party status in this instance.
The occupiers of No. 64 Derby Square have commented on planning matters, but given their distance from the application site are not granted Interested Party Status under the provisions of Planning Circular 1/06.
Mr Jessop of Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Port Soderick, given his distance from the application site is not granted Interested Party Status under the provisions of Planning Circular 1/06.
In summary, it is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded interested party status:
Douglas Corporation Highways Division of the Department of Transport The occupiers of No. 77 Derby Square Accordingly the following parties are not afforded interested party status: Mr Jessop of Seacliffe, Old Castletown Road, Port Soderick Isle of Man Victorian Society The occupiers of No. 64 Derby Square
Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 02.12.2008
The proposed redevelopment of the site would be contrary to Policy CA/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 and Environment Policies 35 and 39 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that no proper assessment has been carried out to assess the merits/justification for the demolition of the existing building. In the absence of such an assessment it is considered that the demolition of the existing building would adversely affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Furthermore, there is insufficient information from which to conclude that the replacement buildings would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : Committee Meeting Date :
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown