Loading document...
Application No.: 24/90978/B Applicant: Mr David & Mrs Rachel Thomas Proposal: Erection of two Bay window extensions with roof balconies above to front elevation Site Address: Deansgate Lucerne Court Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 6BJ Planning Officer: Vanessa Porter Site Visit: 11.09.2024 Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 17.09.2024 _________________________________________________________________
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.
Reason: In the interests of the living conditions of 10 Montreux Court with particular regard to overlooking to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan 2016.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason.
On balance the proposal is deemed to be acceptable from a character and appearance point of view and also from a neighbouring amenity point of view, as such the proposal is deemed to comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the following plans and drawings, date stamped received on 20th August 2024;
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: DOI Highways - no objection Douglas Borough Council - no objection
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria: No.10 Montreux Court ___________________________________________________________________
Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is within the residential curtilage of Deansgate, Lucerne Court, Douglas, which is a two storey detached property situated to the Northern side of Lucerne Court which is a three way cul-de-sac, with the application site being situated within the Eastern side. - 1.2 To the Western side of the property is the driveway for the property situated to the rear (Fairhaven). The overall streetscene where the proposed property is situated is high walling to the front of the properties, to the Northern side the properties are large with small gardens and to the other sides the properties are large with large gardens. - 1.3 Due to the orientation of the properties is the streetscene, there is some overlooking from the windows in the application site and the neighbouring properties. It should also be noted that Fairhaven, the property situated to the rear of the site is situated at a higher level than the application site and No. 9 & 10 Montreux Court are situated to a lower level than the application site. - 1.4 There is a decorative red brick wall to approximately a metre high and mature hedging situated to the Eastern side of the property, a high red brick wall, due to the ground level being higher on the driveway side than the application site side, situated to Western elevation and during the officers site visit there was no boundary wall situated to the Northern side as works has started on the property. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The proposal within this application is the same as per PA24/00488/B, apart from the conditioned 1.8m high glazing panel has been added onto the application drawing. The reasoning for the application is due to a procedural error. - 2.2 PA24/00488/B's description is as follows, "2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the installation of two bays to ground floor level adjacent to the existing porch which have a width of 1.237m, with the installation of a glass balustrade and sliding doors to first floor level."
3.1 The following are relevant applications upon the site;
4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Area Plan for the East, Map 4 - Douglas. The site is not situated within a Conservation Area nor a Flood Risk Zone.
4.2 Given the nature of the residential property and the land designation paragraph 8.12.1 and General Policy 2 from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are most relevant to its assessment which set out the general standards towards acceptable development. - 4.3 The recently released Residential Design Guidance 2021 is also a material consideration particularly those parts in respect of good neighbourliness and overlooking. - 4.4 Furthermore consideration shall also be given to Community Policies 7 and 11 in respect of reducing outbreak of fire and preventing criminal activity and Infrastructure Policy 5 in respect of water conservation.
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 The following representations can be found in full online, below is a short summary;
5.2 Highway Services have considered the proposal and state, "No Highways Interest." (27.08.24) - 5.3 Douglas Borough Council have considered the proposal and state, "No objections." (30.08.24) - 5.4 Kinrade Associates have written in on behalf of No.10 Montreux Court to object to the proposal on the basis of overlooking. (2.09.24)
PRE-AMBLE
6.1 It should be noted that this application is the same as PA24/00488/B, apart from the addition of Condition 2, which was for a 1.8m high glazed panel, this application has been resubmitted due to a clerical error and there have been no changes that would affect the recommendation since PA24/00488/B was recommended for approval. ASSESSMENT - 7.1 There is a general presumption in favour of extensions and alterations to existing properties as per Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, where such works would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent properties or the surrounding area in general.
7.2 In the case of this application the works are only viewable when driving down the cul-de-sac where the application site is situated, as such the proposed works will be read within the context of it's surroundings and would have a minimal impact on the overall streetscene/ the dwelling itself. - 7.3 With regards neighbouring amenity, due to the topography of the land and the window situated within the East bedroom to the first-floor level there is already a certain amount of overlooking to the North West of the site, when looking out of the window and the addition proposed is not considered to increase the existing level of mutual overlooking that exists here and in most suburban/urban areas. - 7.4 The applicants were accepting of a 1.8m high glazing panel to the side of the eastern elevation, which was initially conditioned with PA24/00488/B. This follow on application shows
8.1 Overall the proposal is considered to be acceptable, as it is deemed that the proposal would not result in an impact on the visual amenity of the streetscene nor impact the neighbouring amenity above and beyond what is currently in place. RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE
8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted). - 8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to:
8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10. - 8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required):
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Acting Head of Development Management 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: 17.09.2024 Determining officer
Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan Acting Head of Development Management
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
