Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/00364/B Page 1 of 13
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/00364/B Applicant : Mr Peter Bergquist Proposal : Erection of a detached garage and annex above. Site Address : Brae Villa Tromode Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 5EJ
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 02.08.2023 Site Visit : 02.08.2023 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 04.08.2023 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposed garage with annex over, by reason of its flat roof design, fenestration proportions and general appearance, is considered to be an unsympathetic addition to the application property and as a result the development would detract from the appearance of the property as it fails to take into account the existing site context in terms of building design, form, and appearance. The proposal, therefore, conflicts with General Policy 2(b and f), and Strategic Policy 3 (b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and Paragraphs 3.1.3 to 3.1.8 of the RDG 2021.
R 2. Due to the overall height, flat roof and block design, the proposal would fail to relate effectively with the locally distinctive patterns and form of development at the site and area, as it would fill the entire corner of the applicant's property, creating an incongruous feature that does not respect the original dwelling on site. The proximity of the development to the existing mature landscaping on the site boundary would also result in the removal of the existing mature landscaping on the site, leading to a decline in the character of the locality, noting the existing mature landscaping on the site and surrounding properties contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of the locality known for its verdant nature. The proposal is, therefore, considered to be at variance with the character and identity of the locality and townscape, contrary to Environment Policy 42, and General Policy 2 (b, c and g), and the latter part of Strategic Policy 3(b) of the Strategic Plan.
R 3. The proposed second floor bedroom window on the western elevation, by virtue of its proximity to the boundary and height above the ground level, would result in unacceptable levels of actual and perceived overlooking from the proposal site into 'Tromode Lodge', to the detriment of the residential amenity. Likewise, the scheme, by virtue of its proximity, two storey height, and overall mass, would result in overbearing impacts, particularly as the
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/00364/B Page 2 of 13
existing mature landscaping which would serve to soften any overbearing impacts is to be removed. In this respect, the proposed development is considered to be unacceptable when assessed against General Policy 2 (g) and the relevant sections of the Residential Design Guide. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Tromode Lodge, Tromode Lane, Tromode, Douglas, as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Brae Villa, a detached dwelling situated on the south western side of Tromode Road in Douglas. The existing dwelling on site is a single storey pitched-roof main dwelling with split levels accommodation a basement which serves as a service void.
1.2 The application site is set on a roughly 0.2 acre plot. The site is bounded by walling and a linear line of mature trees on the south western side, walling along the north eastern side and trees along the western and north western sides. To the north east of the dwelling are semi-detached dwellings, to the south east are a mix of detached and semi-detached properties and immediately to the west of the application site are two detached dwellings. A driveway separates the northern boundary of the site from 'Green Meadows', 9 Tromode Road, Douglas, to the east.
1.3 The immediate locality is characterised by mature trees and hedges along its property boundaries and roadside edge including large pockets of woodland groups which connects with the southern sections of the Douglas Rugby Club, and stretches further north as far as north- western end of the Tromode Park Football ground, thus giving a verdant nature to the street scene and locality.
1.4 The street scene along Tromode Road where the application site sits defined mainly by pitch and hipped roofed two storey dwellings, with the buildings tilting more towards 1920's architecture. The immediate vicinity also has hipped roofed bungalows, some of which have flat roofed integral garages. One of the dwellings has a flat roofed garage which is set back behind the rear building line. There are no two storey flat roofed buildings in the vicinity of the application site.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a detached garage and annex above. The proposed garage that would have footprint measuring 8.7m x 6.6m. This building which would be 5.84m tall in front and 5.36m tall at the back would accommodate a garage on the ground floor that would accommodate a standard sized car and a small sized car on the ground floor (being only about 4.4m wide in front with garage door 2.8m wide. A stairway and doorway would also occupy part of the ground floor.
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/00364/B Page 3 of 13
2.2 The first floor would serve an annex which would comprise a two storey apartment that would have an open plan lounge/kitchen area, a bathroom, a double bedroom, and a single bedroom.
2.3 The proposed garage would have a GRP Flat roof over with Black Aluminium trim Fascias/soffits, while the external walls would be finished in sand/cement Render painted white (Ground Floor) and Cedar Cladding or similar (First Floor). All installed windows would be Anthracite Grey uPVC window units. The front Doors would be Anthracite Grey Composite door, while the garage door would be Anthracite Grey Sectional up and over door.
2.4 The applicants have indicated that the proposal would not result in the removal of any trees on site and there would be no changes to the site level.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East, and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is largely not prone to flood risk although the site of the proposed development is within an area identified as being prone to medium to high surface water flood risks. The site is not within a registered tree area and there are no registered trees on site.
3.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered to be materially relevant in the assessment of this current planning application:
3.3 General Policy 2, which provides an overall requirement for all development, 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: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
3.4 Strategic Policy 3 and Environment Policy 42 both focus on the visual design of developments, and state that the design of new development should take account of the local materials, character and identity of its immediate locality, including landscape features.
3.5 Strategic Policy 4: Proposals for development must: (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations.
3.6 Strategic Policy 5: New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.
3.7 Transport Policy 7: The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. "Typical Residential: 2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling".
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/00364/B Page 4 of 13
3.8 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant in the assessment of the proposal are; Infrastructure Policy 5, Community Policy 7, Community Policy 10, and Community Policy 11.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDE 2021 4.1.1 Whilst not adopted planning policy, DEFA's Residential Design Guidance is a material consideration in the assessment of this application as, "It is intended to apply to any residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions". Sections 2.0 on sustainable construction, 3.1 on Local Distinctiveness, and 7.0 which deal with impact on neighbouring properties are considered relevant to the current scheme.
4.1.2 Paragraphs 3.1.3 to 3.1.8 are particularly relevant to the current application: "3.1.3 New residential development should be informed by the best qualities of our existing residential areas. However, this does not mean that all new residential developments should seek to replicate the appearance of older ones, and good quality contemporary design is encouraged.
3.1.4 Nevertheless, it is important that the design of new residential developments, including their scale (including height), form, layout/orientation, and detailed design (including the materials used) is informed by and respects both the nature of the development site and the character of the neighbouring buildings and surrounding area.
3.1.5 The character and context of any residential development is created by the locally distinctive patterns and form of development, landscape, culture, and biodiversity. These elements have often built up over a considerable time and tell a story of the site's history and evolution - the creation of a 'sense of place'.
3.1.6 The character and context of a site should influence design positively so that development does not simply replace what was there but reflects and responds to it, for example by allowing the long-term retention of existing mature landscaping features such as trees or water features.
3.1.7 The initial site context should also identify established building heights, lines, and orientation of buildings that are adjacent to the site and should have a positive relationship with established housing and other development, including ease of pedestrian and vehicular movement.
3.1.8 If the context to a development has been compromised by earlier development, this should not be seen as a reason to perpetuate what has been done before. Opportunities should be sought to deliver high quality sustainable development that reflects up-to-date technologies and aesthetics and creates a strong "sense of place"."
4.2 IOM BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY 2015 TO 2025 4.2.1 The strategic aims (In part): o Managing biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats. o Maintaining, restoring and enhancing native biodiversity, where necessary.
4.2.2 Habitat loss actions "21. DEFA will continue to promote a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for."
4.3 MANUAL FOR MANX ROADS 4.3.1 Appendix C - Parking Standards "Garages
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/00364/B Page 5 of 13
C.7.34 Garages located on plots for individual properties should be sited so that: o vehicles can park in front of the garage without obstructing the highway (including the footway). All garages should be set sufficiently far back from the highway boundary so that a vehicle can be parked in front of the garage (whilst garage doors are opened/closed) without causing any obstruction to the highway. All garages should therefore be set at least 6.0 m from the highway boundary o the garage doors can be opened without the car being moved
C.7.35 Where garages are provided they should be constructed to the internal plan dimensions in Table C.3. 7 Standard double: Length - 6.0m, width - 6.0m, Min door width - 4.2m."
4.4 OUR ISLAND PLAN 4.4.1 Section 17. An environment we can be proud of "Our environment is multi-dimensional and determining more clearly the boundaries and balance between people and nature will go a long way to improving our quality of life - and help achieve a sustainable Island for the future."
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The application site has been the subject of ten (10) previous planning applications, six of which are considered relevant to the current application.
5.2 PA 04/00105/A for Approval in principle for the erection of two residential buildings of up to ten apartments each, and parking to replace existing dwelling - Refused on review for the following reasons: R1: There is within the submitted application inadequate information to enable a full assessment of the proposed development; there should be a survey of existing ground levels and trees (on and over-hanging the site), and feasibility sketches indicating how as many as twenty flats could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site (together with adequate parking space and amenity space).
R2: Notwithstanding (1) above, it is self-evident that the proposed development would be out of keeping with the nature and density of adjacent residential development.
R3: It is not at this time possible to make available for the proposed development an adequate supply of potable water.
5.3 PA 06/00534/A for Approval in principle for the erection of block of ten apartments with associated basement parking facilities to replace existing dwelling - Refusal. The reasons for refusal are: R1: The indicative drawings illustrate a considerable over-development of the site which would result in a) a large building, close to the road and to the side boundaries, and covering much of the site; the development would thus be out of keeping with the surrounding area which is characterised by individual dwellings standing in their own green space; and in b) there being inadequate pleasant external space for the residents of the proposed flats.
R2: Having regard to the status of Tromode Road as a Local Distributor, and to the significant increase in use of the access from the site on to that road, there should be visibility splays of 2.0m x 90m; from the submitted plans, it appears that it would not be possible to provide such splays without relying on land outside of the site.
5.4 PA 07/01101/A for Approval in principle for a residential development with associated parking to replace existing dwelling - Refused. This was refused for the following reasons: R1: The indicative drawings illustrate a considerable over-development of the site which would result in:
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/00364/B Page 6 of 13
a) a large building, close to the road and to the side boundaries, and covering much of the site; the development would thus be out of keeping with the surrounding area which is characterised by individual dwellings standing in their own green space; and b) there being inadequate pleasant external space for the residents of the proposed flats.
R2: The indicative layout would be contrary to Recreation Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the development does not provide adequate open space provision within the proposed layout.
R3: The indicative layout would be contrary to Housing Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the development would not provide the necessary affordable housing in accordance with the policy and the Housing Assistance Scheme 2007.
5.5 PA 08/00421/A: Approval in principle to erect two detached dwellings in garden area of Brae Villa - Refused. This was refused for the following reason: R1: The proposed development would be contrary to General Policy 2, Environment Policy 42 and Housing Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the development of this backland site would result in the over-development of the site within an area which is relatively well spaced out and would not provide an adequate residential environment for the future occupiers of the site. Furthermore, any development would result in overlooking reducing the residential environment for the future occupiers of the proposed dwellings and the existing dwelling of Brae Villa.
5.5.1 Building 2 which was proposed as part of this scheme was to sit almost of the location of the proposed garage within the current scheme, although it was afforded more space due to the size of the site at that time. The current site is significantly smaller than the application site for this application which measured 1,126.8sqm, but is now 833.4sqm.
5.6 PA 09/00163/B: Erection of dwelling with garage in garden to rear of Brae Villa - approved. The Planning Officer made the following assessment in the Officer Report regarding the amenity of Brae Villa, the neighbours, impact on trees, impact on the street scene, and the amenity of the occupiers of the new dwelling: o The application is proposing to partition the grounds of Brae Villa retaining garden around the existing dwelling and develop the remaining part of the site with a two storey dwelling. The development site is located to the rear of Brae Villa and is backland in nature.
o Both buildings were to be on separate ground levels set 3m apart and would be set approximately 4.6m away but tapered away from each other to give a separation distance of 9.2m. A 2m high fence was also to be erected along the boundary line, so it was not considered that the relationship between both dwellings would create any concerns.
o It was noted that the proposal will result in a substantial reduction in the amount of private amenity space for the occupiers of Brae Villa; however, it was considered that the applicants are the owners of the Brae Villa, in addition to the fact that the remaining amount of private amenity space for Brae Villa would not reduce the residential environment of Brae Villa to an unacceptable level as to warrant a refusal o It was also considered that the proposal would provide adequate amount of amenity space for the future occupiers of the new dwelling.
o In respect of the impact on trees, it was noted that the proposal will result in the loss of 5 conifer trees within the site so as to accommodate the footprint of the dwelling and the garden area. However, as these trees are not of any particular importance, there removal will not adversely affect the visual amenities of the locality.
==== PAGE 7 ====
23/00364/B Page 7 of 13
o In respect of the impact on Tromode Lodge (the neighbouring dwelling to the west), the application site is set to the east of the neighbouring property, it was noted that the proposed dwelling will be set 19.4m away at its nearest point and that there are substantial landscaping between the proposed dwelling and that of Tromode Lodge. As such, these landscaping features will help to reduce any impact in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy to the occupiers of Tromode Lodge.
o In terms of impacts on the character of the locality, it was considered that, on balance, that the proposal will cause some harm to the visual amenities of the locality due to the removal of a number of conifer trees along the front boundary; however, not to a degree where a refusal would be warranted."
5.7 PA 09/01820/A for Approval in principle for the erection of two detached dwellings - approved. The principle of the proposed development for two dwellings was considered acceptable, although the officer noted that "as no details are submitted at this stage, as the plan indicates that it is illustrative, no approval should be conferred to the site or floor plans as indicated."
5.8 PA 14/00782/B for Erection of a detached garage with living accommodation over was refused on 11 September 2014. However, the decision to refuse the application was rescinded at appeal where the Appeal Inspector made the following assessment: o The inspector noted in Paragraph 10 that the main issues concern development's appearance in the street scene and the implications from having two self-contained residential units within one curtilage. o The Inspector also noted in Paragraph 11 that the proposed building would be modern, though perhaps more in the mainstream of modernism than anything wholly striking and innovative. o The Inspector noted in Paragraph 12 that the occupation of the building proposed and the main house would be problematic, if occupied by separate, unrelated households, whilst also noting that living conditions for both would be compromised by proximity, lack of separate outside space, a shared access and parking by the house residents being more or less bound to block access and parking below the other household. o The Inspector noted in Paragraph 14 that a condition seeking to require joint occupation of the self-contained units would be invalid, as it would be impossible to monitor and enforce. The inspector further notes that approval would bring with it unsatisfactory residential outcome, but that this risk would be a small one, and that the resulting harm would be material to planning management and would be limited to those concerned. The inspector further noted that refusal would frustrate what would probably in practice functioned satisfactorily as a multi-generational home, albeit in two buildings.
5.8.1 This application is considerably similar to the current application (PA 23/00364/B) as it proposed a flat roofed garage with two bedroom accommodation over. However, the site area has changed considerably around the proposed garage location which has shrunk by about 106sqm. The total site area has thus reduced from 833.43sqm in 2014 to 726.9sqm with the current application. On the southern boundary, the projecting strip has reduced by 6.1m, while the mid-section on the western boundary has shrunk by 2.4m.
5.8.2 Since the appeal decision was made, the Department's Residential Design Guide (2019 and 2021) have been published. The RDG 2021 sets out detailed explanations of the design considerations for Policies within the Strategic Plan such as General Policy 2, Environment Policy 42 and Strategic Policy 5, and give clarity to design requirements which are not illustrated or described within the Strategic Plan.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
==== PAGE 8 ====
23/00364/B Page 8 of 13
6.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking (7 April 2023).
6.2 DEFA Fisheries confirm that they have no objections to this development from a fisheries perspective, provided that there is no adverse effect on the adjacent watercourse. They note that as the proposed works are in close proximity to the watercourse, precautions will be needed to reduce the possibility of harmful materials such as concrete or washings entering the river (9 May 2023).
6.3 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Drainage have stated that allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. They note that as there are no levels displayed to determine overland water flow the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the clauses above (16 May 2023).
6.3.1 Having received further information from the applicant via correspondence dated 22 May 2023, (DOI) Highways Drainage have stated that they are satisfied that the information supplied by the agent meets their requirements (23 May 2023).
6.4 Douglas Borough Council has no objection to the current planning application (12 May 2023).
6.5 Given the proximity of the existing trees to the proposed building the Arboricultural Team was consulted for comments on the application. Their comment received 4 August 2023 is as follows: o The proposed area is surrounded by predominantly leylandii cypress trees, however there appears to also be 1 sycamore tree, a few hawthorn trees and a number of shrubs present. o The cypress trees have largely outgrown their setting and are unsuited for long-term retention. o The hawthorn trees appear to be reasonably good specimens however are of limited size. o The sycamore tree appears to have been somewhat suppressed by the adjacent cypress trees and its resultant form is sub-optimal. o The quality of the trees surrounding the proposed site is therefore relatively low and their amenity value is also low despite their high visibility. o The proposal is likely to disturb the rooting area of these trees and may lead to some crown dieback in the future. The proposal is also likely to lead to increased pressure to remove these trees in the future due to their proximity to the annex element of the building. o Despite the possible impact of the proposal, I am not in objection due to the limited arboricultural quality of the trees, and their relatively low amenity value.
6.6 The owners/occupiers of Tromode Lodge, Tromode Lane, Tromode, Douglas, has made the following comments regarding the application (17 April 2023/ 17 May 2023): o They note that the development is not in keeping with the area. o They note conflicts in parking for the annex and existing dwelling at Brae Villa. o They raise concerns with overlooking of their windows due to the elevated position of the proposed windows, as well as potential overshadowing. o They note that the fence which they erected on the boundary would not provide privacy when they take down the ailing (leylandii trees) on the boundary with the proposed building. o They note that the proposed building is actually a home on top of a garage and would detract from the current properties around the site. o With regard to the comment by the applicants agent that "There are currently no plans to remove these trees, and therefore the proposed development would likely present no changes to the immediate outlook from Tromode Lodge", they note that the reason they
==== PAGE 9 ====
23/00364/B Page 9 of 13
erected the 6ft fence on the boundary was to provide privacy to enable them remove the trees which are within their property and within their control.
6.6 In response to comments made by the owners/occupiers of Tromode Lodge, Tromode Lane, Tromode, Douglas, on 17 April 2023,the Applicants Agent has med the following comments on 22 April 2023: Potential Loss of Light/Overshadowing o The proposed development is to be constructed in the most easterly part of the plot owed by Brae Villa which is approximately 34m (as measured from OS Tile) from the nearest elevation to Tromode Lodge which would be on the existing conservatory approximately 4m away from the main dwelling. At a position 2m above ground level and a distance of 34m the proposed development would need to exceed 17.85m high to cause any detrimentally impact on loss of light. Potential overbearing impact upon outlook o They state that the proposed development is two storey with a flat roof ensuring that the proposed new build would be no taller than the main dwelling at Brae Villa. o They also state that there are a row of tall well established leylandii trees and other shrubs to the rear garden directly in front of the proposed development area, and that there are currently no plans to remove these trees, and therefore the proposed development would likely present no changes to the immediate outlook from Tromode Lodge. Potential overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy They state that in line with the residential design guidance the proposed windows facing in a westerly direction are o Not the primary habitable rooms as defined in the RDG o Not directly orientated towards Tromode Lodge, o They are approximately 38m away from the main dwelling of Tromode Lodge, o And, they are likely to be significantly screened by the existing vegetation. In keeping with area. o They state that the main thoroughfare has a wide mix of buildings with no strong unifying or defining characteristics, therefore it was decided that the proposed building would be modern in design, adding further interest and variety. Parking o They state that no off street parking is being lost and that two additional spaces are being created. o They also state that highways have not objected and that there is no intention to split the property as it is to be used by the applicants as a multigenerational home and guest accommodation.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider with this application are: i. The visual impact of the development on the street scene of Tromode Road and surrounding area; ii. The impact of the development on neighbouring residential amenity; iii. The potential conflict with use of the proposed building and occupants of the main building 'Brae Villa'; iv. Impacts on Trees; and v. Impacts on parking and highway safety.
7.3 VISUAL IMPACT (GP2, STP3, EP42 and STP 4) 7.3.1 In assessing the visual impact of the proposal, it is considered that the proposed layout of the scheme would see the erection of two storey flat roofed garage building over a spot on site which serves as additional parking on site and which is totally enclosed in mature landscaping, which contributes to the character of the locality. When read in conjunction with the site character which is defined by a building with traditional appearance, the limited land area, and the narrowness of the site, it is considered that the proposal would result in visual overdevelopment of the site, with the scheme resulting in an intensification over the previously
==== PAGE 10 ====
23/00364/B Page 10 of 13
approved garage building approved at appeal under PA 14/00782/B for a similar development on site.
7.3.2 Whilst it is noted that the proposed development is similar to that previously considered acceptable at appeal, the site area has reduced significantly by over 100sqm (from 833.43sqm in 2014 to 726.9sqm at present). With the reduced area, the building would be brought closer to the existing trees on the boundary which serve to define the character of this part of Tromode Road, being only between 1.2m to 1.7 from a number of the trees on the eastern boundary of the site and holding the potential to result in further removal of trees on the site to provide the required amenity for the occupants of the accommodation over the garage which would be enveloped by the trees which are over 7m in height. Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the development would fail the requirements of General Policy 2 (b) and Strategic Policy 3b in terms of character and the spaces between the dwellings. As well, the development would be contrary to the landscape character of this urban site, thus failing the requirements of Strategic Policy 4 (b) which seeks to protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban areas, given that it would be difficult to argue that the development as proposed would ensure the protection or enhancement the landscape quality of the site and area.
7.3.3 In addition, the scheme as proposed would alter the relationship between the existing building and landscape features on and around the site, by resulting in the existing green backdrop to the site with a solid built form forming the new backdrop when viewed from the immediate properties which would now have clear views of a new two storey built form towering about 5.8m on the elevated narrow strip on the site which houses over 70 percent of the existing greenery on site. This would result in the removal of the open and green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity of the area contrary to Environment Policy 42. As well, the scheme would involve the removal of a number of trees and possible removal of trees to be retained on the site in the future due to increased pressures, which would be at variance with the character of the area, given that the trees on the site and boundaries form part of the character of the locality.
7.3.4 Whilst the comments for DEFA forestry regarding the arboricultural value of the trees is noted, it would be vital to note that the existing trees on site, together with the neighbouring trees serve to define the character of the immediate vicinity of the application site, where the trees on site form an extension of the existing wooded areas which serve to define the area. This distinction is relevant as the trees on site serve to contribute to those environmental characteristics of the area that contributes to the pleasantness and attractiveness of the area as a place to live, work or visit.
7.3.5 Whilst the appearance of the street scene in terms of buildings is varied, there are no two storey flat roofed buildings in the immediate vicinity which would cause the new building to stand out uncharacteristically, given that the design is somewhat basic and not wholly striking or innovative. Besides, the new building does not reflect the design and character of the existing dwelling on site in terms of general appearance, roof design, window types, proportions and material finish. It has been considered that the flat roofed finish is not dissimilar to the flat roof finish of the single storey garages and extensions on some of the dwellings in the vicinity, as well as that approved in 2014 for the site. However, its scale and block design would be unmatched in the vicinity, making it a noticeable two storey flat roofed building. Besides, the 2014 approval pre-dates the Residential Design Guide introduced in 2019 (updated in 2021), and which seeks to give clarity to design elements of policies within the Strategic Plan, such as General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 3(b) and Environment Policy 42. This guide provides examples of good flat roofed developments, including contemporary approaches which the current proposal seeks to create but fails to replicate (being an almost exact copy of that approved at appeal in 2014), which would no longer pass as acceptable development. Thus, it is considered that the scheme would also fail the requirements of General Policy 2 (b) which stipulates that new development should respect the site and surrounding in terms of the
==== PAGE 11 ====
23/00364/B Page 11 of 13
siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them, as well as the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide.
7.3 NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTIAL AMENITY (GP2 & RDG 2021) 7.3.1 With regards to potential impacts on neighbouring amenity, the property most likely to be affected would be Tromode Lodge, Tromode Lane, which has its main garden area situated to the west of the windows to the bedroom and bathroom on the west elevation of the new building. Whilst it is noted that overlooking of bedrooms would not occur given the distance between both buildings which is more that 20m, nor overshadowing resulting. The scheme would result in significant overlooking of the private garden area, particularly as the main garden area of this neighbouring property would have almost no actual or perceived privacy since the garden space would be overlooked from window that serve a habitable room on the new annex over the garage. It should be noted that the owners of the neighbouring property have indicated that they intend to remove the mature planting on the boundary (within their site boundary) which serves to create privacy for their garden area, hence the move to install a new fence on the boundary which would offer no screening from a window set over 3.8m from the ground level.
7.3.2 Likewise, the new development would have an overbearing effect on the occupants of this neighbouring property when using the garden area given that the new building would sit just about 800mm from the boundary of this garden and tower about 5.8m from an elevated position which is more than 2m higher than the ground level of the neighbouring garden. It should be noted that the intervening vegetation which serves to screen the garden would be removed, thus making the new 5.8m tall building appear dominating from this garden area. This relationship will result in significant overbearing impacts; particularly as the garden area is the main garden area serving the neighbouring dwelling, and there would be no mature landscaping on this boundary to soften the impacts in this regard.
7.4 THE POTENTIAL USE CONFLICT BETWEEN EXISTING DWELLING & GARAGE (GP 2 g, h & k) 7.4.1 In terms of the potential conflicts that could arise from the use of the garage and existing dwelling should the garage serve as a separate dwelling unit on site, it is considered that the design which has a prominent entrance door, its layout which would facilitate its operation as a separate dwelling unit on site, and position of the garage on site which would enable such future segregation of use, would make future segregation possible, with planning having no capacity to control future segregation via planning conditions restricting use or the avenues to enforce such conditions. However, it is noted that this element of the proposal has been thoroughly assessed by the Appeal Inspector under PA 14/00782/B, who considered that the occupation of the building proposed and the main house would be problematic, if occupied by separate, unrelated households, whilst also noting that living conditions for both would be compromised by proximity, lack of separate outside space, a shared access and parking by the house residents being more or less bound to block access and parking below the other household, but accepted this element of the proposal on the ground that refusal would certainly frustrate what, more probably than not, would in practice have functioned satisfactory as a single home, albeit in two buildings and perhaps intergenerational. Given that the relationship and circumstances for the site has not changed considerably in this regard since approval (now lapsed) was granted for a garage building of similar scale, design and proportion, this element of the proposal is considered to weigh in favour of the proposal.
7.4.2 Notwithstanding the above, it would be vital to note that the site area has reduced considerably by about 106sqm since the 2014 approval, which would increase the potential for conflicts to occur in the future should both buildings serve as separate residential units (given the diminished amenity for the occupants of both buildings that would result from inadequate private amenity space provisions). In fact, future segregation would result in a new dwelling (within the garage/annex) that would have almost no amenity space provisions as the only
==== PAGE 12 ====
23/00364/B Page 12 of 13
garden area still available to the site is to the west and southwest of the existing dwelling on site, and detached from the garage/annex location.
7.5 Impact on Trees (GP 2, EP 42, EP 3) 7.5.1 In considering potential impacts on trees on the site, it is noted that the current scheme holds the potential to result in future removal of the trees around the proposed building given the proximity of the proposed building to the existing trees, and the fact that the proposed building would disturb the rooting area of these trees and may lead to some crown dieback in the future, and these weigh against the proposal. However, DEFA Arboricultural Team have advised that they do not object to the proposal despite the possible adverse impacts on the adjoining trees due to the limited arboricultural quality of the trees, and their relatively low amenity value.
7.5.2 Given the above, it is considered that any impacts that result would be acceptable in arboricultural terms. The above however does not in any way prejudice the assessments regarding the contributions the trees offer to the general character of the area identified by its verdant nature.
7.6 IMPACTS ON PARKING AND HIGHWAY SAFETY (GP2 & TP7) 7.6.1 In terms of highway safety impacts, it is noted that the proposed works would provide two new parking spaces within the proposed garage (albeit of a standard below that stipulated for garages within the Manual for Manx Roads), with provision still made for at least two additional parking spaces within the site, which would be sufficient for the residential use of the property.
7.6.2 Granting the use of these parking spaces would be jeopardised by the future use of the site as two independent dwelling units, should the garage be made to operate independent of the main dwelling, the application is being assessed on the current submission for use of the garage as an ancillary accommodation on site. As such, it is considered that any impacts on highway safety would be acceptable.
7.6.3 Further to the above, DOI Highways consider that they find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking. Given the above, it is considered these elements of the scheme comply with the requirements of General Policy 2 (h & i) and Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The following issues weigh in favour of the proposal; the zoning of the area for residential development, the acceptable highway safety impacts, the acceptable arboricultural impacts on the existing trees. Conversely, the following issues weigh against the proposal; the potential adverse impacts upon the character of the site, the impacts on the visual amenities of the area and townscape, and adverse impacts on the amenities of Tromode Lodge, Tromode Lane.
8.2 On balance, it is considered that whilst there are factors which weigh in favour of the proposal, the nature of the proposed development which would conflict with site character, the fact that the development holds the potential to create adverse impacts on the character of the immediate locality and townscape to which it is to be established, and the adverse impacts on the neighbouring amenity, the application is recommended for refusal, as it would fail the requirements of General Policy 2 (b, c, & g), Environment Policy 42, and Strategic Policy 3(b), and Strategic Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
==== PAGE 13 ====
23/00364/B Page 13 of 13
(b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
9.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status
9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 21.08.2023
Signed : P VISIGAH
Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal