Loading document...
1.1 The application site is No. 108 Castlemona Avenue, Douglas. It is a traditional three storey town house with basement forming part of the frontage to the north east end of Castlemona Avenue. There are adjacent town houses, Nos. 110 to 114, to the north east side. To the south west side is the substantially larger Spectrum Apartments building. There are further properties across the road from the site to the northwest.
1.2 At the rear of the site is a wide alley serving the back of the town houses as well as the rear of properties fronting the Promenade. There is a narrow alley next to the Spectrum Apartments providing access to the Promenade which is a very short walk from the site to the south east.
1.3 The building has a traditional appearance and is finished in render. The building has traditional sliding sash timber windows.
2.1 No. 108 Castlemona Avenue currently accommodates six bedrooms over four floors, with two small lounges, a kitchen and dining area on the lower floors. It is understood that it has previously been used as shared living accommodation, but the building now appears to be unused. Planning approval is sought to alter and extend the building to provide additional living accommodation via a three-storey rear extension. These works replicate what was proposed under PA 13/90956/B, which was refused at Planning Committee, contrary to the officer recommendation. That refusal was subsequently upheld at appeal. The sole difference between the current proposal and that refused is in terms of the use: under PA 13/90956/B, it was proposed to internally sub-divide the building into four flats. This is no longer proposed, and so there are also some internal differences between the previous and current application, but, being internal, none of these requires planning approval to be undertaken.
2.2 The proposal therefore comprises the erection of a large, flat-roofed, three-storey extension at the rear to support the reconfiguration of the accommodation. The existing timber windows would be replaced with uPVC framed sliding sash windows. A roof light
would be inserted at the rear, while a fourth floor rear window would be modified to incorporate the rear extension. 2.3 Also proposed is the installation of UPVC framed sliding sash windows to the front elevation in replace of the existing windows. This element of the proposal would comply with the provisions set out under Class 24 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2013.
3.1 Previously, planning approval was sought under PA 13/90956/B for alterations and extension of building to create four apartments. This previous planning application was refused at appeal for the following reason: "The proposal, which includes an extension to the building, not only does not provide any parking in contravention of Policies GP2, HP17 and TP7 of the Strategic Plan, but would result in an increase demand for parking in an area where there is already strong competition for spaces and no alternative provision can be made as a result of the positioning of the extension."
4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the site lies in an area zoned as predominantly residential under the Douglas Local Plan 1998. The site also lies on the periphery on the periphery of Douglas Promenades Conservation Area. 4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains two policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
General Policy 2 states: "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:
This is preceded by the following: Paragraph 8.12.1 states "As a general policy, in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general."
Environment Policy 36 states: "Where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area."
5.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection to the current planning application (17/12/2014) 5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highway Services do not oppose the current planning application and state, "As a family house highways do not oppose however conversion to apartments would require parking" (17/12/2014).
6.1 On the previous use of the property, the agent stated in respect of PA 13/90956/B the following: 'The existing building was originally a 7 bed boarding house and then latterly over the last 10 years has been used a 7 bedroom bedsit being used by building trade contractors. The property until our client took ownership was latterly owned by the Dandara Group and used as accommodation and site office while large Spectrum development was undertaken. Our client is now looking to create four apartment units, with two of the units being owned by his sons who have dyslexia and dyspraxia. This allows them home in the capital within walking distances, as neither son can or will ever drive.' This application, as previously mentioned, is for the extension to the rear only. No internal alterations, change of use or conversion of the building are proposed. 6.2 Given the recent decision on the application which reflected almost exclusively on the issue of parking, it is appropriate to conclude that the physical alterations proposed are acceptable for the same reasoning as previously. On many occasions flat-roofed extensions are not normally considered favourably, however, the site's situation relative to its surroundings are such that an objection on these grounds could not be sustained. 6.3 Under PA 13/90956/B, the Case Officer identified that the extension would be set to the backdrop and context of the extremely substantially blank gable of the Spectrum apartments immediately next door to the south west. The rear of this row of properties on Castlemona Terrace is not considered to have any particular architectural merit and the Case Officer concluded that on balance, the design of the rear extension, in terms of its visual impact, would be considered acceptable and would not detrimentally affect the character and quality of Douglas Promenades Conservation Area. 6.4 In terms of the impact of the extension upon neighbouring residential amenity, there are two neighbours who would be most affected by the proposal. Firstly, No. 110 Castlemona Avenue, which is the immediate neighbouring building to the north east elevation of the application site. Secondly, No. 1 Castle Terrace, the rear of which faces the back of the site to
the other side of the rear alley. The Spectrum apartments would not be affected as the large facing gable is blank. 6.5 Dealing first with the impact on the amenity of No. 110 Castlemona Avenue next door. The Case Officer for PA 13/90956/B acknowledged that the extension would impact on the outlook of the nearside second floor rear window of No. 110 and also result in a loss of day light. However, a site visit was conducted to No. 110 Castlemona Avenue and it was recognised that these nearside windows serve a landing and stairs which are not be considered to be a habitable rooms or principal areas of a dwellinghouse/residential unit. It was also accepted that the extension would be quite towering when viewed from the yard but it is considered that the impact would not be excessively harmful. 6.6 Turning to No. 1 Castle Terrace, this building currently appears to be empty. However, planning approval was granted in 2012 to convert the building into an 'apart hotel'. The approval limits occupancy of the units to no more than four weeks at a time with no return within two months. The rear of the extension and rear of No. 1 Castle Terrace would face each other across the rear lane. The elevation to elevation distance would be just less than 7 metres. There would be no overlooking at lower ground floor given the rear boundary wall. However, there would be potential for overlooking at second floor, and potentially the first floor, ground floor as labelled on the submitted drawings. 6.7 The second floor window would serve a bedroom and the first floor window would serve a kitchen/dining area. Since the units in No. 1 Castle Drive provide tourist accommodation only and are not permanent apartments, it is considered that any potential overlooking is a less sensitive issue. The drawings indicate that the lower half of the upper floor windows as being obscured glazed which would reduce any potential impact of overlooking and reduce the perception of being overlooked. It is considered that the impact on amenity, in terms of both the site and No. 1 Castle Drive, are not so substantial to warrant refusal of the application on this issue. 6.8 The parking issue that the previous application was refused on is not relevant to this current planning application; the parking requirements are no different as no change to the nature of the use of the site is proposed. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable from a parking and highway safety point of view. 6.9 While the planning history of the site cannot be ignored in coming to a view on this application, and it is possible that the site may come to be used in a similar manner to that previous proposed, it must be noted that any such use of the site would require a fresh planning approval. As such, to refuse the application on the grounds of what the site might be used for in the future would be unreasonable since such a use (indeed, any sub-division of the dwelling) would require independent planning approval.
7.1 For the reasons set out above, the planning application is recommended for approval.
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of 18.02.2015 Recommendation:
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
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.
C 2. No approval is hereby granted to the use of the flat roof of the rear extension hereby approved as a terrace area or private amenity space.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers from overlooking and loss of privacy.
This approval relates to Drawing No:687.10 date stamped as received on 27th November 2014.
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control /Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Permitted Date; 24.2.15
Signed : Cris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed : Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed : Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed : Jennifer Chance Head of Development Management
14/01357/B Page 6 of 6
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
