Loading document...
Application No.: 20/01325/LAW Applicant: Ian Joseph Killey Proposal: Certificate of Lawful Development for the installation of replacement windows and doors and the installation of a replacement fire escape Site Address: 43 Woodbourne Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3AD Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 15.01.2021 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. Having assessed the application, it would appear the evidence provided sufficiently demonstrates that installation of replacement windows and doors and the installation of a replacement fire escape have been in place in excess of 4 years.
This decision relates to the drawings referenced; Site Plan, Location Plan, and supporting photos and letter all received on 30 October 2020.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
not applicable _____________________________________________________________________________
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 43 Woodbourne Road, Douglas which is a traditional two storey mid-terraced property located on the western side of Woodbourne Road and opposite the Freemasons Hall. To the rear of the property is a two storey outrigger and a glazed dormer on the rear roof pitch.
2.1 The proposed is for a certificate of lawful use/development for the installation of replacement windows and door and the installation of a replacement fire escape all within the rear elevation of the dwellinghouse.
3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE - 3.1 In terms of land use designation the application site is predominately residential under the Douglas Local Plan Order 1998 and Area Plan for the East adopted in December 2020. The application site falls within the Windsor Road Conservation Area. - 3.2 In accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4, Part 1, paragraph 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 ("the Act"), a development carried out in breach of planning control shall become immune from enforcement action after a certain period of time, provided that formal enforcement action has not already been taken. The relevant time periods are set out below:
3.3 Section 24 of the Act makes provision for the submission and issuing of a Certificate of Lawfulness to establish the lawfulness of a breach of planning control. - 3.4 An application for a Certificate of Lawfulness is determined on the basis of fact. Unlike an application for planning approval, it is not concerned with land-use planning considerations or the impacts of the development upon the public realm. - 3.5 The principal test is whether, on the balance of probabilities, the breach of planning control has occurred continuously for the given period. The burden of proof rests with the applicant and their evidence must be both precise and unambiguous. If the Planning Authority has no evidence of its own to contradict that provided by the applicant, then provided that the applicant's evidence is sufficiently precise and unambiguous, a Certificate of Lawfulness may be issued. It is not usually necessary for the Planning Authority to corroborate the applicant's evidence.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 18/00635/B - Replacement of existing windows on front elevation with sliding sash UPVC units. Approved.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 None have been received.
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The assessment of the application requires the examination of the information available in order to determine whether there is either sufficient or insufficient evidence, that on the balance of reasonableness the development has been in excess of 4 years. Under Schedule Part 1, Paragraph 3 (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 no enforcement notice may be issued in respect of a breach of planning control consisting of the carrying out without planning approval of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, after the end of a period of 4 years beginning with the date on which the operations were substantially complete.
7.0 EVIDENCE - 7.1 Whilst the level of information supplied is sparse, the applicants (former owners son) supporting letter explaining the situation, details the ownership of the property and how the replacement windows came about. - 7.2 The owner has since passed away and the siblings are in the process of selling the property as part of the probate. The property has been marketed and effectively sold subject to agreement. However a financial retainer has been held back until the planning issue is resolved and probate is settled. During this proposes it has a risen that permission whilst sought for the front windows in 2018, the rear windows, door and fire escape do not benefit from any planning permission. - 7.3 The applicant has stated that the property was his late parents' house since 1987 and growing up there recalls the original windows on the rear elevation were the top bedroom dormer window and side panels, first floor toilet, bathroom, bedroom, ground floor kitchen and dining room were all rotten timber framed windows which leaked and crumbled. The fire escape was replaced around the similar time from the first floor. These were all replaced around 2005 the remaining window and rear door were around the same time. He states that they didn't think planning consent was required for the rear elevation as in 2018 they applied for permission to replace the windows on the front elevation and this has just been an honest misunderstanding. - 7.4 Photographs have been included showing the current windows that were installed which sits within the existing reveals and are mainly upvc casement windows in a 50/50 glazed pattern with the upper window frame hinged on the top. Similarly the replaced door is Upvc with the upper proportions being glazed and a panel to the lower proportion and fan light above the door. - 7.5 Being on the rear elevation, the department does not have any library pictures of the rears of the streetscene but only the front elevations. An aerial image from 2009 confirms the presence of the fire escape but it is difficult to ascertain a clear image of the windows. Nevertheless, whilst it is not possible to determine how long they have been in place and the siblings are unable to located any paperwork to verify when they were installed, given the condition of the current windows and the weather appearance and in some rooms the failed double glazed units, it is clear these windows and doors have been installed for more than 4 years and not recently replaced.
8.0 CONCLUSION - 8.1 Based on the evidence which has been submitted as part of the application, it is considered that on the balance of reasonableness it has been adequately demonstrated that the installation of replacement windows, door and fireescape to the rear have been in situ for a period of time in excess of 4 years. As such it is recommended that the application be permitted and a Certificate of Lawful Development be issued.
9.0 RECOMMENDATION 9.1 It is considered that the development is lawful and as such a Certificate of Lawful Development should be issued.
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.
Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan Principal Planner
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
