Loading document...
Application No.: 16/00544/B Applicant: Mr Brian Douglas Proposal: Demolition of existing boathouse and erection of extension to dwelling to provide ancillary living accommodation (comprising amendments to PA 15/00612/B) Site Address: Derbyhaven House Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TS Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 15.06.2016 Site Visit: 15.06.2016 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Derbyhaven House, a two-storey dwelling that sits between two other forms of residential development - "Traa-dy-Liooar" to the north and the Marine Court Apartments to the south. The dwelling has attached to its front a single storey stone boathouse which extends from the house by 10.8m in front of an existing flat roofed outbuilding which comes out 8.0m from the side of the house. - 1.2 The existing boathouse sits some 3.2m from the front projection of the adjacent apartments, both buildings having windows that look towards each other. - 1.3 The boathouse is unique in the streetscene in terms of such a long building extending in front of the main dwelling, although given the proximity of the shore and boats, it is not out of keeping with the area.
2.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 2.1 Planning approval has twice been issued (PAs 14/01003/B and 15/00612/B) for the redevelopment of the boathouse to provide additional residential accommodation to Derbyhaven House, and for fairly similar schemes in terms of overall massing. The proposed development as outlined under the 2015 application also explained the differences between the two schemes:
"Proposed is the redevelopment of all of the buildings in front of the existing dwelling and the erection of a new building which is 1m shorter than the boathouse, the same height for a length of
"The new accommodation provided will be living and dining rooms, a utility and hall and a kitchen, all accessible from and ancillary to the main accommodation in Derbyhaven House.
"The front elevation which will face the road will appear similar to the existing except the timber doors will be replaced with glazing. The elevation on the higher part of the new building will have similar glazing looking towards the road but partly obscured by the lower part of the structure. Two
existing windows in the front elevation of the house are to be affected - one blocked up completely and the other blocked up in the lower half.
"Planning approval has already been granted for the redevelopment of the boathouse under PA 14/01003/B. The current application differs from that in that the pitch of the roofs on the new extension are now steeper and the ridges are now around 700mm higher, the glazing in the two front gables facing the road are now slightly different, previously the first floor windows was not to be reduced and blocked off and the building was to be less wide."
2.2 Other than the most recent applications referred to above, the site has been the subject of a number of applications, one of which is considered to be worthy of noting in light of the current proposal. - 2.3 PA 15/00741/B sought and gained planning approval for the erection of an extension to the rear (west) of the property. This is a single storey extension to provide a new dining room and patio, with the latter having a sloping mono-pitched roof and measuring just under 50sqm. To its approval was attached just the standard time limit condition. The case officer's assessment of the proposal's impact on neighbouring living conditions ran as follows:
"As the application site is to the south of Traa-Dy-Liooar, there may be occurrences of some loss of sun at light however this would be minimal given the minor protrusion of the extension above the existing boundary.
"It is considered that what would be visible of the extension from Traa-Dy-Liooar would not be of a level or scale that would result in harm to the amenity of the neighbouring dwelling with regards to the outlook from Traa-Dy-Liooar."
3.0 THE PROPOSAL - 3.1 Full planning approval is now sought for a similar scheme. The differences between the approved and extant 2015 scheme and this essentially comprise additional windows in the north, south and west elevations of the proposed extension, while the roof height would again be raised. - 3.2 On this occasion, the differences can be summarised as follows:
4.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as Existing Residential. The Plan provides further information about the Derbyhaven area at Appendix 4:
"(i) Description: Derbyhaven comprises a group of dwellings clustered around the junction where the Castletown Road meets the Fort Island Road. It is a compact group, having a well-defined boundary with the Airport and the Golf Course. There are no public buildings, but there is a sense of place arising from its geographical position facing the largely natural harbour, and the pleasant public foreshore. (ii) Assessment: The group is clearly not sustainable, there is little or no scope for infilling, and extension of the group into Airport or Golf Course land would be undesirable. Derbyhaven is not far enough from Castletown for there to be a valid argument for local housing need. Additional dwellings are not therefore proposed."
4.2 As such, and bearing in mind the previous approvals granted for similar schemes, the general standards of development set out in General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan are applicable in this case:
"Development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
"If the proposal was for a standalone dwelling then there would be concern that the parking area was going to be used for parking rather than amenity space due to the doors opening to the front and the cars blocking the view. This is less of a concern if the dwelling is only to be used in ancillary to the main dwelling as the adjacent car parking area is available.
"If the application is to be approved the following conditions should be attached:
"Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.
"Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety."
5.2 Malew Commissioners offered no objection to the proposal in comments received 02.06.2016. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The key issues in this case is the visual impact and that on the adjacent Marine Court Apartments from the changes which arise from the scheme compared with that which was approved under PAs 14/01003/B and 15/00612/B. In assessing the impact on the neighbours, the small section of roof that would be slightly raised would result in such a limited change as to almost be considered immaterial to the assessment. The case officer considering the previous scheme, which sought a rather more pronounced change in levels, did not raise any concern in this respect, noting
that "whilst the ridge height is increased, the eaves level which is the more critical of the measurements as it is closer to the windows in the property, is only marginally higher, resulting in no discernible different in impact on the adjacent apartments". The same conclusion is reached here.
6.2 The additional windows to the south-facing elevation will provide fenestration in this elevation for the first time. However, it is material that there are three existing windows in the boathouse, and these are much lower and larger than the two, high-level windows that are now proposed. Though not much lesser regard should be had to the perception of overlooking than to actual overlooking, in this case the proposed situation must be balanced against the existing. - 6.3 That said, in view of the perception of overlooking and the fact that the windows are clearly only proposed to provide additional light rather than outlook, the agent was contacted with a view to requiring these windows be lightly-obscure glazed by condition. He responded via email (which is on the application file) that this would be acceptable. It is noted that the windows proposed would have a limited impact on neighbouring living conditions, but it would be a discernible one: similarly, any such condition would also have a limited, but discernible, impact. - 6.4 None of the other windows, nor the rooflights, proposed are considered to be detrimental to neighbouring amenity any more so than the previously approved schemes on the site. They will also have the effect of improving light in the extension and this is welcomed. - 6.5 Finally, it is not considered that the approved rear extension (PA 15/00741/B) indicates a different approach should be taken with respect to the assessment of this proposal; if both were to be implemented, there would not be a negative cumulative impact in respect of either neighbouring living conditions or visual appearance. The extensions are on different elevations and are satisfactorily separated from one another in visual terms. It is also noted that the case officer in consideration of PA 15/00741/B issued no concern in either of these respects, in full knowledge of the fact that there were two extant redevelopment schemes for the boathouse at that time.
7.1 In view of the above, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to a condition requiring the high-level windows be obscured glazed to Pilkington Level 1. A similar condition requiring the extension be ancillary as was attached previously is also recommended on this occasion.
7.2 While logical and fairly unobjectionable, though, it is considered unreasonable to attach the first condition sought by Highway Services in view of the fact that it was not sought or attached to either previous application, both of which had essentially identical highway / parking implications as that under consideration here. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
Date of Recommendation: 23.06.2016
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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.
Reason: To ensure proper control of the development and to avoid any future undesirable fragmentation of the curtilage.
The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 1A, 2H, 3H Rev A, 4H Rev A and 5H Rev A, all date-stamped as having been received 13th May 2016.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 04.07.2016 Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
