Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/00526/B Page 1 of 21
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/00526/B Applicant : Care Developments Ltd Proposal : Demolition of former nursing home and outbuildings, and the creation of five new 4 bedroom dwellings with associated garages, parking, amended access, amended drainage, and landscaping Site Address : Former Eastfield Mansion House Eastfield Douglas IM1 4AU
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 04.07.2023 Site Visit : 04.07.2023 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 22.09.2023 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The demolition of the Eastfield Mansion house which is judged to contribute to the character and appearance of the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area is considered to be unacceptable as the application has not demonstrated that all reasonable efforts have been made to preserve the building nor provided sufficient justification for its total loss. Therefore, it is considered that the proposals would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and are contrary to Section 16 (3) and Section 18 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999), Environment Policies 35 and 39, Strategic Policy 4 (a), and Paragraph 7.32 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; policies RB/6, CA/2 and CA/6 of PPS1/01, and Urban Environment Proposal 3 and 4 of the Area Plan for the East. Accordingly, it is recommended that the proposals be refused on these grounds.
R 2. The proposed first and second floor windows on the rear (north) elevation of the proposed terrace dwellings, by virtue of their proximity to the neighbouring dwelling and boundary, and height above the ground level, would result in unacceptable levels of actual and perceived overlooking from the proposal site into Emsdale,' Hawarden Avenue, Douglas, to the detriment of their residential amenity. In this respect, the proposed development is considered to be unacceptable when assessed against General Policy 2 (g) and the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide 2021.
R 3. Whilst it is noted that the proposed terrace has been designed to bear some traditional features, it is not considered that the design, form and appearance of the proposed dwellings would serve to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the site and
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/00526/B Page 2 of 21
Conservation area as an appropriate replacement, given that it is not truly traditional, and fails to integrate a number of the key features on the existing terraces around the allotments that serve to define the character of this part of the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area. The scheme is, therefore, considered to fail the requirements of Environment Policy 35 and Policy CA/2 of Planning Circular 1/01.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
Manx Utilities Authority Drainage
It is recommended that the following Organisation should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not 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):
The Isle of Man Victorian Society, as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not 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):
12 Eastfied, Douglas, as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRINCIPAL PLANNER
0.0 PREAMBLE 0.1 This application was considered by the Committee on 2 October 2023 and deferred for a site visit.
0.2 The Officer report remains unchanged. Any further representations received or any other information will be confirmed via verbal update to the Committee.
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing property Eastfield Mansion House, Eastfield, Douglas, which is part of a row of two storey terraced properties located on the northern side of Eastfield, situated east of Westbourne Drive. This property can be accessed via Mount Bradda at the eastern end and Brighton Terrace at the western end.
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/00526/B Page 3 of 21
1.2 This site was previously in use as a residential care home and was formally a large detached dwelling. Its front boundary has significant sections enclosed with hedging and some mature trees which open up at the vehicular entrance.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for demolition of former nursing home and outbuildings, and the creation of five new 4 bedroom dwellings with associated garages, parking, amended access, amended drainage, and landscaping.
2.2 The first works will involve the demolition of the Eastfield mansion house and its replacement with a terrace of five three storey dwellings. Four of the new dwellings would have a dining room, kitchen, lounge, entrance porch and WC on the ground floor, two bedrooms with ensuite, with the Master bedroom provided with a wardrobe closet on the second floor, while there would be two bedrooms and a large bathroom on the third floor.
2.3 The fifth dwelling which is set adjacent to No. 14 Eastfield, would have its rear elevation recessed from the rear building line of the other dwellings, with layout accommodating enclosed porch, a lounge, and open plan kitchen/dining room on the ground floor, two bedrooms with large ensuites on the second floor, and two bedrooms with large ensuites on the third floor.
2.4 The other works will involve the following: a. Reinstating No.14 which as a separate single dwelling linked to the existing terrace on Eastfield Terrace. b. Erection of a pitch roofed garage block comprising five garages with storage over. c. Removal of a number of trees on site to facilitate the development of the garage.
2.5 The application is supported by a Design Statement which seeks to describe the proposal, provide a description of the site (including nature of tree and plantings within the site), and character of the locality, discuss the site history, and structural Appraisal of the existing building on site. o The Statement notes that a structural survey of the Care Home buildings was carried out by Manx Structural Solutions Ltd and a report was issued dated 19th January 2023, which recommends "...demolition of the existing structure to be the safest and most viable solution to allow suitable redevelopment2, and state that this application is proposing the demolition of the Care Home buildings in accordance with the recommendation of the Structural Report.
o The Statement further notes that House No. 14 Eastfield is part of the Care Home, and it will require its party/gable wall to be reinstated following the demolition of the Care Home.
2.6 A Built Heritage Statement prepared by Pegasus Group and dated October 2023 has been submitted with the application. This Report concludes by stating the following: "7.3 Eastfield House's contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area is mainly through the architectural interest of its surviving historic fabric and its historic interest as one of the early developments in the area. Nonetheless, it should be reiterated that the Conservation Area covers a large area of Victorian townscape, and the site only comprises one small part. Furthermore, there are no notable designed or intended views to or from the site.
7.4 The current proposals include the demolition of Eastfield House and its modern link extension, the retention of No. 14 Eastfield and the redevelopment of the site with 5no. Self- contained dwellings with associated parking and private gardens. The proposals have been driven by the internal layout, poor condition and financial viability of the site as it presently stands, even with an approval for its conversion to a single family dwelling, and the financial viability of the site to be converted into flats. Overall, the proposals will result in some negative impact to the significance of the Conservation Area through the demolition of an early dwelling. However, as per POLICY CA/6 in Planning Policy Statement 1/01, this negative impact should
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/00526/B Page 4 of 21
be weighed against the merits or public benefits of the proposals, including any heritage benefits. These include: o Reinstatement No. 14 as a self-contained, single family dwelling; o Removal of an empty, dilapidated dwelling from the streetscene; o Removal of the three-storey link and other modern inappropriate extensions, which are considered to detract from the Conservation Area; and o The provision of 5no. dwellings to the local housing stock in an appropriate layout and scale to the townscape in which it is sited."
2.7 A Planning Statement prepared by Sarah Corlett Planning Consultancy also accompanies the proposal. This statement argues that: o Retention and re-use of the existing building is neither economically nor structurally sensible. o Whilst the most recent application for demolition of the building was refused, they understand that at least part of that decision was based upon there being no detailed scheme for replacement to enable an assessment to be made of the benefits of the proposed scheme, its acceptability in planning terms and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and that this information has now been provided. o The building is not in its original condition, has been physically attached to the terrace to the north east by a modern, unattractive link building and has also had unattractive additions attached to the rear and front. o The proposed development aims to provide modern standards of living including car parking and energy efficiency whilst at the same time, presenting a traditionally styled building which continues important architectural elements such as height, finish materials, orientation and proportion. o The development will provide much needed, sustainable accommodation in the Island's principal settlement in a form which visually complements the area.
2.8
The Structural Report prepared by Manx Structural Solutions Ltd, and dated 19th
January 2023 concludes by stating the following:
o
The condition of the load bearing elements is poor and the majority needs replacement.
There is evidence of poor construction and signs of structural movement.
o
The timber roof, load bearing studwork walls and majority of timber floor joists require
replacement.
o
Retention of the external random rubble masonry walls has been explored. This would
require extensive propping and temporary works to facilitate.
o
The potential for movement of the retained random rubble masonry during the
construction period is hazardous.
o
Remedial works required to ensure the future stability of the external walls would result
in extensive reconstruction of existing features due to installation of temporary works.
o
The retention of the external masonry walls is not the safest solution to facilitate the
redevelopment of Eastfield House.
o
Taking all of the above into account, in our opinion the, the retention of the building is
not economically viable.
o
Retention of the building would only be possible through replacement of the majority of
the components of the current build structure (i.e. masonry, floor and roof timbers, roof
coverings windows etc.) and therefore the finished product whilst similar in appearance would
effectively be a new build.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the East (Map 5 - Douglas Central) as 'Predominantly Residential', and the site is within the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area. The site is not prone to flood risks or within a Registered tree area, and there are no registered trees on site.
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/00526/B Page 5 of 21
3.2 In terms of Strategic Plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
3.2.1 General Policy 2: "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; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (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."
3.2.2 Housing Policy 6 states: "Development of land which is zoned for residential development must be undertaken in accordance with the brief in the relevant area plan, or, in the absence of a brief, in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 6.2 of this Plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive."
3.2.3 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.
3.2.4 Housing Policy 4: New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10; (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14.
3.2.5 Strategic Policy 1 (In part): Development should make the best use of resources by: (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/00526/B Page 6 of 21
(c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.
3.2.6 Strategic Policy 3 (In part): Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by: (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character.
3.2.7 Environment Policy 42 (In part): New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality.
3.2.8 Transport Policy 1: New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes.
3.2.9 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards.
3.2.9.1 Appendix A.7.6 sets out Parking Standard. Typical Residential 2 - spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling.
3.2.10 Environment Policies 4 and 5 seek to protect the ecology of sites and important habitats.
3.2.11 Environment Policy 35: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
3.2.12 Strategic Policy 4: Proposals for development must: (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings(1), Conservation Areas(2), buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest;
3.2.13 7.32 Demolition in Conservation Areas "7.32.1 Under Section 19 of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act, Conservation Area designation introduces control over the demolition of most buildings within Conservation Areas. Buildings which are subject to other controls, are summarised below: a) Registered buildings; b) a building for the time being the subject of a preservation order under Section 11 of the Manx Museum and National Trust Act 1959; c) a building for the time being included in the list of monuments prepared under Section 13 of the Manx Museum and National Trust Act; d) any buildings, a description of which is specified in a direction issued by the Department under Section 19 sub-section (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, which are by virtue of such direction, excluded for the time being from an order designating a Conservation Area; or e) buildings which are known to be the place of shelter for protected species or be used for nesting by a protected bird (Wildlife Act 1990).
7.32.2 The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. When considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant
==== PAGE 7 ====
23/00526/B Page 7 of 21
building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to: o the condition of the building; o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions); o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; o the merits of alternative proposals for the site."
3.2.14 Environment Policy 39: The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
3.3 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant to the proposal are; Infrastructure Policy 5, and Community Policies 7, 10 and 11.
3.4 The following sections of the Area Plan for the East 2020 are relevant for consideration: 3.4.1 Paragraph 6.8 states: "The historic built environment Local character and key features within the built environment, such as Registered Buildings and other heritage assets play a significant role in promoting economic and social prosperity by providing attractive living and working conditions. In addition, they provide economic opportunities through tourism, leisure and recreational uses. It is therefore essential that local character is safeguarded, particularly those features which fundamentally define the historic built environment in the East. Particularly: o the buildings and structures associated with the roles of Douglas and Laxey as historic seaside resorts; o the harbours of Douglas and Laxey; o the historic infrastructure of the Steam Railway, Electric Tramway and Horse Trams; and o the historic grain of Douglas and Laxey old towns, including their street layouts, town yards, plot sizes and landscape settings. The significance of Manx heritage assets in the built environment is increased by their relative scarcity. Registered Buildings and Conservation Areas which might not necessarily achieve such status in the United Kingdom have gained a higher status in the Isle of Man where their contribution to national identity and the Island's story is highly valued. Existing and new development can exist side by side, even with some visual differences presented by old and new building styles. New development should not seek to mimic existing development but be of its own time. Such innovation is crucial and with good precedent: some of the Island's best architectural examples emerged from the building design competitions of the Edwardian era."
3.4.2 Urban Environment Proposal 3 states; "Development proposals must make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Traditional or contemporary approaches may be appropriate, depending upon the nature of the proposal and the context of the surrounding area."
3.4.3 Paragraph 6.9 states: "Creative Re-use As stated in the Strategic Plan, Paragraph 7.25: 'Conservation of the built environment and archaeological features should be viewed as an asset to be promoted and not as a constraint to be overcome'.
It is recognised that retaining the best examples of built heritage for future generations benefits the resident population by celebrating its unique national identity and increasing the sense of wellbeing and improved quality of life brought about by beautiful surroundings. The value of mid and late-20th Century architecture should not be ignored as the best examples of these periods contribute to a rich and vibrant built heritage. Supporting the continued use and retention of these buildings requires a pragmatic and dynamic understanding of different
==== PAGE 8 ====
23/00526/B Page 8 of 21
potential uses. A proposed use which retains a building of heritage value, but requires modification to that building, is superior to a proposal which leads only to demolition or decay of that building."
3.4.4 Urban Environment Proposal 4 states; "Proposals which help to secure a future for built heritage assets, especially those identified as being at the greatest risk of loss or decay, will be supported."
3.4.5 Paragraph 6.3 states: "Area Plan Objectives; iv. To identify and celebrate the historic urban environment so that it retains an active and productive role in contemporary life."
3.4.6 Paragraph 6.4 states: "Area Plan Desired Outcomes v. There will be greater recognition of the contribution the East's historic value to the local and visitor economy and to the quality of life on the Island. vi. The long term future of valuable heritage assets will be assured by creative reuse."
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Town and Country Planning Act (1999) 4.1.1 Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) states, "(4) Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act".
4.1.2 Section 19(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, in providing guidance on the control of demolition in Conservation Areas, states that sections 15 and 16 apply to a building proposed to be demolished in a Conservation Area as they apply to a registered building. Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 requires the Department to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
4.2 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 4.2.1 POLICY CA/2: SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS "When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application".
4.2.2 POLICY - RB/1 REGISTRATION OF BUILDINGS The Department shall identify those buildings on the Island which are of special architectural or historic interest and take the necessary steps to progress their entry in the Protected Buildings Register. In considering such buildings the special and particular context of the Isle of Man as a separate entity, will be a material consideration in assessing the particular value of a building. This may result in some buildings being registered which would not be judged worthy of such protection if assessed outside of the local context of the Isle of Man. In assessing the merits of a building relative to potential registration, the Department shall have regard to the following considerations:
o ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST AND/OR AESTHETIC QUALITY: The register is intended to include buildings which are of importance to the Island for the interest of their architectural designs, decoration, craftsmanship, or by virtue of the eminence of the architect; this would include important examples of particular building types and techniques (e.g. buildings displaying technological innovation or virtuosity, as might be found in structures connected with the historic railways of the Island) and significant plan forms;
==== PAGE 9 ====
23/00526/B Page 9 of 21
o HISTORIC INTEREST: This includes buildings which illustrate important aspects of the Island's social, economic, cultural, religious, agricultural, industrial or military history; this importance might also be assessed in the particular local context of the town or village in which the building is located;
o CLOSE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION: with Nationally important people or events;
o LANDMARK QUALITIES: Some buildings will be clearly recognisable as having such qualities whether they be located in isolated coastal or rural locations, or as focal points within a busy local townscape;
o GROUP VALUE: Especially where buildings comprise an important architectural or historic unity or a fine example of planning (e.g. Squares, Terraces or Farm Groups).
4.2.3 POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION "Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole."
4.2.4 POLICY RB/6 DEMOLITION There will be a general presumption against demolition and consent for the demolition of a registered building should not be expected simply because redevelopment is economically more attractive than repair and re-use of an historic building; or because the building was acquired at a price that reflected the potential for redevelopment, rather than the condition and constraints of the existing historic building. Where proposed works would result in the total or substantial demolition of a registered building, an applicant, in addition to the general criteria set out in RB/3 above, should be able to demonstrate that the following considerations have been addressed:-
In judging the effect of any proposed alteration or extension to a Registered Building, it is essential to have assessed the elements that make up the special interest of the building in question. They may comprise not only obvious features such as a decorative facade, or an internal staircase or plaster ceiling, but may include the spaces and layout of the building and the archaeological or technological interest of the surviving structure and surfaces. These elements can be just as important in the simple vernacular and functional buildings, as in grander status buildings. Cumulative changes reflecting the history of use and ownership can themselves present an aspect of the special interest of some buildings, and the merit of some new alterations or additions, especially where they are generated within a secure and committed long-term ownership, are not discounted.
The destruction of historic buildings is in fact very seldom necessary for reasons of good planning: more often it is the result of neglect, or failure to make imaginative efforts to find new uses or incorporate them into new developments.
==== PAGE 10 ====
23/00526/B Page 10 of 21
o The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use. Any such assessment should be based on consistent and long term assumptions. Less favourable levels of rents and yields cannot automatically be assumed for historic buildings and returns may, in fact, be more favourable given the publicly acknowledged status of the building. Furthermore, historic buildings may offer proven performance, physical attractiveness and functional spaces that in an age of rapid change, may outlast the short-lived and inflexible technical specifications that have sometimes shaped new developments. Any assessment should take into account possible tax allowances and exemptions. In rare cases where it is clear that a building has been deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition, less weight should be given to the costs of repair;
o The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. An applicant must show that real efforts have been made, without success, to continue the present use, or to find new uses for the building. This may include the offer of the unrestricted freehold of the building on the open market at a realistic price reflecting the building's condition.
o The merits of alternative proposals for the site. Subjective claims for the architectural merits of a replacement building should not justify the demolition of a registered building. There may be very exceptional cases where the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the community; these would have to be weighed against preservation. Even here, it will often be feasible to incorporate registered buildings within new development, and this option should be carefully considered. The challenge presented by retaining registered buildings can be a stimulus to imaginative new designs to accommodate them.
4.3 Woodbourne Road Conservation Area Character Appraisal 2003 4.3.1 Paragraph 3.23 and 3.24 states: "3.23 It is clear that in the planning of the Gardens and Squares in the Conservation Area, there was an overriding intention that the gardens are in harmony with the architecture that evolved around them. House frontages with their decorative features such as railings, gates, cornices, etched glass and ridge tiles were intended to be seen and appreciated for their individuality and splendour. The open Properties benefit from retention of plaster mouldings, sliding sash windows, the variety of bays, stuccoed quoins, string courses and hooded mouldings, all adding to the richness of architectural forms. The abundance of high quality fabric is a major contributory factor to the distinct character of the area. These qualities have survived many generations and enrich the quality of our built environment. Despite the increasing intrusions of modern day living. It is very difficult to draw a definite edge to the Conservation Area, as the buildings continue in typical design and quality detail into adjacent roads and avenues. The repetition of form along arterial and secondary routes, combined with a variety of detail, serves to draw these adjoining thoroughfares into a cohesive whole which is worthy of recognition and protection. The 'green elements of this environment and their immediate surrounds provide an obvious centre on which to base an appraisal of this fine array of predominantly nineteenth century architecture."
3.24 The area of Eastfield, Mount Bradda, Brighton Terrace and Westmount corresponds to that shown on a plan dated 1851 prepared by George Raby, Architect and Surveyor and titled 'Plan of Building Ground situated at Rosemount'. The area was part of the Joyner estate and the plan shows layout of 53 dwellings. Fourteen were built and from what is now known as Eastfield, but the remainder were not built in their original form. The 1869 Ordnance Survey Map shows the present street pattern with central gardens and with Eastfield House and Rose Lodge occupying corner positions at the east and west side of the square. The terrace known as Eastfield was an early approach to Town Planning in that covenants were incorporated into deeds of sale in an endeavour to control the design of properties and the retention of open space. The evolution of the remaining properties fronting onto the gardens happened predominantly in the 1880's and resulted in an interesting and lively mix of architecture. The retention of private allotment gardens is a survivor of the original plan."
==== PAGE 11 ====
23/00526/B Page 11 of 21
4.4 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025 4.4.1 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.
4.4.2 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."
4.5 DEFA's Residential Design Guide 2021 4.5.1 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 Local Distinctiveness, and 7.0 which deal with impact on neighbouring properties are considered relevant to the current scheme.
4.5.2 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"."
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 This application runs contemporaneously with PA 23/00527/CON for the demolition elements relating the current application.
5.2 Other applications relevant to the current application are: 5.2.1 PA 92/00095/B for Alterations and extensions & construction of 35-bed nursing wing, Eastfield Residential Home, Eastfield, Douglas - Refused on Review.
==== PAGE 12 ====
23/00526/B Page 12 of 21
5.2.2 PA 92/01197/B for alteration, first floor extension and construction of nursing wing. This was refused on review but approved at appeal in January 1994.
5.2.3 PA 99/01614/A for approval in principle to construct 4 apartments building. This application was refused on review on 31 January 2000, and refused at appeal on 6 October 2000.
5.2.4 PA 20/00280/B for Conversion of former care home to residential dwelling - Approved on 6 May 2023. The approval was the subject of four conditions (three of which related to external finish) in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. This application ran contemporaneously with PA 20/00281/CON which was also approved.
5.2.4.1 The Design statement which sought to provide justification for the scheme stated the following Regarding Thermal Performance and Carbon Footprint in Section 3.4: o The Structure will exceed the minimum statutory requirements by reducing energy use, CO2 emissions, water use and production of pollution/waste during construction and use. Materials and construction methods will be chosen for minimum environmental impact and greater durability...It is intended to increase the buildings energy efficiency by influencing materials of construction and delivering passive engineering solutions wherever possible within the constraints of the buildings comfortable operation. o It was also stated that the 'Fabric first approach' and other steps detailed in this section of the report would serve to improve the thermal performance and reduce the carbon footprint of the property.
5.2.5 The most recent application for the site for Demolition of all existing buildings on site under PA 22/01326/CON was refused on 6th December 2022. The application was refused for the following reasons: "1. The application fails the tests of Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 as the proposals would fail to preserve the building and the features of special architectural and historic interest which it possesses.
The application fails the tests of Section 18 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 by removing a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the Douglas (Woodbourne Road) Conservation Area, thereby failing to preserve or enhance the conservation area's character.
The application fails the tests of Strategic Policy 4 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as the proposals would fail to protect or enhance the fabric of the conservation area. 4. The proposals include removing a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the area, and therefore the application fails the tests of Environment Policy 35 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as it would fail to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area.
The application fails the tests of Environment Policy 39 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 as the proposals would not retain a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the Conservation Area."
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that the proposal does not raise significant issues for road safety or network functionality. Accordingly, they raise no opposition subject to condition for the access, visibility splay and layout to accord with Drawing: PO2 rev B. The Applicant to note the need for
==== PAGE 13 ====
23/00526/B Page 13 of 21
separate permissions relating to use of the highway during construction and a s109(A) highway agreement for works in the public road (24 May 2023).
6.1.1 Following review of amended plans for the proposed scheme, DOI Highways states that they raise no opposition to the proposal subject to a condition for the access, visibility splay and layout to accord with Drawing: PO2 rev C on any approval. The Applicant to note the need for separate permissions relating to use of the highway during construction and a s109(A) highway agreement for works in the public road (11 August 2023).
6.2 DEFA Ecosystem Consultation Comments. 6.2.1 Comments made 24 May 2023: o They state that they have no objections to this application, but note that the proposals will result in the loss of areas of trees. o They state that mitigation is proposed in the form of new hedge and tree planting, and confirm that they are happy with the proposed tree species, but note that no species list has yet been provided for the hedge creation. o They request that either the applicant provides confirmation of the hedging species to be used prior to determination of this application, or that a condition is secured for a landscape plan to be provided which contains this detail. o They request that no invasive non-native species listed on Schedule 8 of the Wildlife Act 1990 (this includes Griselinia), or cherry laurel, should be used in the planting. o They request that the standard Planning condition securing the tree and hedge planting and replacement of trees in the event that they become damaged of defective should also be applied. o They request that Due to the short term loss of wildlife habitat on site, through the loss of a number of trees, and because of the amount of time it will take mitigation tree and hedge planting to develop, that the applicants either provide details of bird bricks to be installed in the new properties prior to determination of this application, or a condition is secured for a bird brick/box plan to be secured as a condition on approval. o Their recommendation is for universal swift nest bricks, (at least 2) to be installed high up under the eaves of the north east elevation of the end terrace (unit 5). They also recommend the installation of bat bricks, high up under the eaves of the south west elevation of the end terrace (Unit 1) as an enhancement for wildlife on site. o The applicants are advised that there is potential for roosting bats and nesting birds in the Eastfield Mansion House, and the need to undertake thorough checks for nesting birds and roosting bats prior to demolition, which will require all external holes, crevices, lead flashing or loose tiles and roof voids, if present, to be investigated.
6.2.2 Comments made 14 August 2023: o They confirm that they are content with the number, type and locations of the bat and bird nest bricks to be built into the new property, as shown on the updated Proposed floor plans, elevations and sections drawing (Drawing No. P01 Rev A) and Proposed garage block - plans, elevations and sections (Drg no. P04 Rev -). o They request that a suitably worded condition is secured on approval for these features. o They note that they are not sure if the applicant misread their original response in which they requested hedge planting not to be undertaken with any invasive species listed in Schedule 8 of the Wildlife Act 1990, or cherry laurel, and state that as the Because the amended plans show that the new hedge is to be laurel, contrary to our request, they request that either an updated landscaping plan is provided prior to determination which removes all reference to use of plant species on Schedule 8 of the Wildlife Act 1990, or cherry laurel, or a condition is secured for an updated landscape plan to be provided, which removes all reference to use of these species, prior to works commencing.
6.3 Manx Utilities Drainage have made the following comments regarding the application (22 August 2023):
i. They have no objection to the application subject to the following condition/s:
==== PAGE 14 ====
23/00526/B Page 14 of 21
o There must be NO discharge of surface water (directly or indirectly) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s) so as to comply with the requirements of Manx Utilities and the Sewerage Act 1999. o The proposed dwelling must be connected to the public sewer(s) in a manner acceptable to Manx Utilities. All drainage works must conform to the requirements of "Manx Sewers for Adoption", any necessary CCTV surveys are to be carried out at the developer's expense. o In accordance with the Sewerage Act 1999, 5 communication fees will be payable to Manx Utilities Authority in respect each property being connected (directly or indirectly) to the public drainage system.
ii. They state that they will require the surface water to be separated and for this to be attenuated. They state that on this occasion they will condition this, and note that if planning is approved, they would require a full design of attenuation that will meet MU requirements.
6.4 Douglas Borough Council Consultation Comments 6.4.1 Comments made 25 May 2023: They state that they have no objections to the application.
6.4.2 Comments made 19 June 2023: They state that the application was considered by Douglas Borough Council's Environmental Services Committee at a meeting held on the 19th June 2023 when it was resolved to support the application subject to the applicant providing detailed drawings of the bin storage areas to the satisfaction of the Council's waste services management team prior to any approval being granted or that any approval granted be subject to a planning condition that the bin storage areas must meet the standards required by the Local Authority.
6.4.3 Comments made 18 August 2023: They state that they have no objections to the application.
6.5 The Isle of Man Victorian Society have made the following comments regarding the application (10 June 2023): o No 14 Eastfield. They fully support the retention of the property as it forms the matching book end of George Raby's plan for the terrace.
o Demolition of the former infill extension to the former nursing home: They fully support this part of the application.
o Demolition of Eastfield: They state that the house has been much altered over the years and is certainly not the best example of George Raby's house design extant, and as such they have no objection to its proposed demolition.
They state that if the five dwellings were all the same width and set back further this would be better achieved.
o They object to the positioning of the new terrace as being too close to the original Eastfield Terrace and thus distracting from it.
==== PAGE 15 ====
23/00526/B Page 15 of 21
o They state that the four sides of 'The Square' of Eastfield are all of different architectural styles having been built at different times - Mount Bradda, Brighton Terrace and the newest West Mount.
o They state that the proposed terrace has the living room facing on to a small rear yard on the north facing side of the building thus missing both the morning and evening sun.
o They note that if the terrace was built on the same plane as Westmount, the living rooms would benefit from the afternoon and evening sun which would be a better selling point and note that the terrace could be stepped to run with the back lane rather than being down below the rear lane as proposed.
o They state that the garages could run parallel backing on to No 14.
6.6 DEFA's Assistant Registered Building's Officer has made the following comments regarding the application (20 August 2023: o Section 19 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999, concerning the control of demolition in Conservation Areas, states that sections 15 and 16 apply to a building proposed to be demolished in a Conservation Area as they apply to a registered building. o Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 requires the Department to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. o The heritage report submitted with application 22/01326/CON (for which I was the case officer), concludes in section 5.40 on page 30 that although the modern extensions and alterations diminish the building's contribution, the property does still make an "overall positive contribution to the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area." I have no reason to disagree with the applicant's own qualified heritage consultants. o It is therefore considered that preserving the building is desirable in terms of the tests within section 16 of the Act, and demolishing the building would clearly fail to preserve its features of architectural and historic interest. o Demolishing the building would also fail the tests within section 18 as it would not preserve the conservation area's character. o By demolishing a building that the applicant's own heritage consultants have concluded makes a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area, the application clearly also fails the tests of Strategic Policy 4, Environment Policy 35 and Environment Policy 39 within the Strategic Plan, as the application fails to protect the fabric of the conservation area, fails to preserve the character of the conservation area, and fails to retain a building which makes a positive contribution to the character of the conservation area.
6.7 The Owners/occupiers of 12 Eastfield, Douglas, the abutting property to the application site have written in with the following comments in a letter dated 8 September 2023: o The building of 5 x four bedroom dwellings is excessive for the area. o They note that the site is within a Conservation Area yet the designs show 1 garage and parking space per property, and state that this would reduce the parking space to 1 space per dwelling as most garages are used for storage as opposed to car parking. o They state that the disc zone for the area is saturated and that it can be very difficult to park at times, and note that the building of these 5 properties would exacerbate the problem.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider with the current application are: a. The principle of the demolition of former nursing home and outbuildings, and replacement with new dwellings; b. The impact of the proposal on the existing dwelling itself; c. The impacts on the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area; d. The impact on the amenities of the neighbouring dwellings; e. The impact on Parking and Highway Safety; and
==== PAGE 16 ====
23/00526/B Page 16 of 21
f. Potential Impacts on site ecology and Trees.
7.2 THE PRINCIPLE (TCPA 1999, EP 35, EP 39, Paragraph 7.32, PP1/01, Character Appraisal - Woodbourne CA, HP 4 and SP1)
7.2.1 In assessing an application such as this, the fundamental issue is to first make the statutory test to determine whether the proposal in its current form would be acceptable, given that this has significant material planning consideration as outlined within the Town and County Planning Act 1999. Section 16 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 requires the Department to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) also stipulates that where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance with respect to any buildings or other land in a Conservation Area. The need to preserve the building is further reiterated by Section 19 (3) of the Act which states that sections 15 and 16 of the Act apply to a building proposed to be demolished in a Conservation Area as they apply to a registered building.
7.2.2 From review of the submitted documents, particularly the Heritage Statement which was submitted with the application, it is clear that the existing building would pass for a building that warrants retention and preservation. This statement in assessing the contributions of the existing building to the character of the conservation area is clear that "Eastfield House's contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area is mainly through the architectural interest of its surviving historic fabric and its historic interest as one of the early developments in the area" (See Paragraph 5.40 on page 30). This Heritage report goes further to conclude that "As one of the earliest buildings to have been built in the area with surviving historic detailing, Eastfield House makes an overall positive contribution to the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area. These clearly point to the overall benefits of retaining, preserving and enhancing the existing building.
7.2.3 Whilst the Heritage report argues that "its current condition is very poor, and the modern extensions and alterations, removing characteristics such as its detached nature or its original form, have diminished this contribution", it is clear from the recent planning history of the site that the existing building on site could be restored and put into productive use. It should be noted that only in 2020, a planning application was submitted under PA 20/00280/B for Conversion of former care home to residential dwelling. This application sought to demolish the unsightly extensions, reinforce its fabric to make it thermally efficient, and add modern single storey elements at the rear to make it suitable for a modern family. In fact, it was argued within the submitted Design Statement that "the structure will exceed the minimum statutory requirements by reducing energy use, CO2 emissions, water use and production of pollution/waste during construction and use. Materials and construction methods will be chosen for minimum environmental impact and greater durability...It is intended to increase the buildings energy efficiency by influencing materials of construction and delivering passive engineering solutions wherever possible within the constraints of the buildings comfortable operation."
7.2.4 Granting the Structural Report submitted by the applicants has sought to diminish the
desirability of preserving or enhancing the existing Eastfield Mansion House by stating that
"Retention of the building would only be possible through replacement of the majority of the
components of the current build structure (i.e. masonry, floor and roof timbers, roof coverings
windows etc.) and therefore the finished product whilst similar in appearance would effectively
be a new build, there is nothing within the document that precludes dedicated steps to
restore and enhance the existing building; which would be in the interest of the existing
dwelling and the Conservation area given its historic and architectural contributions to the
area.
==== PAGE 17 ====
23/00526/B Page 17 of 21
7.3.5 It is, therefore, considered that preserving the building is desirable in terms of the tests within section 16 of the Act, and demolishing the building would clearly fail to preserve its features of architectural and historic interest.
7.2.6 Another factor which is vital for consideration is the replacement of the existing with more dwellings and detached garages. The site is designated as being within a Predominantly Residential area under the Area Plan for the East, and therefore the proposed use for multiple dwellings complies with this designation.
7.2.7 The site is also within the settlement boundary and adjacent to and surrounded by existing residential dwellings; conditions which would ensure that residential development here broadly aligns with Strategic Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4. It is vital to note that the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 seeks to locate new housing and employment close to existing public transport facilities and routes, or where public transport facilities are, or can be improved, thereby reducing the need to use private cars and encouraging alternative means of transport, and it is considered that the site would meet this goal given its proximity to existing routes within Douglas. While this does not signify a presumption in favour for all forms of housing development, it points to the fact the proposal would generally accord with the Strategic Plan goals for new housing on the Island. Therefore, in terms of the acceptability of the use of the site for residential development it is concluded that the proposal basically accords with the goals of Strategic Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
7.2.8 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that as the application aligns with the zoning of the area within the Area Plan for the East, and the development of the site for residential purposes would be acceptable in principle. It is, however, worth noting that any positives in terms of housing provision would be overridden by the need to preserve the existing Eastfield Mansion House which is judged to contribute positively to the character and appearance of the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area.
7.3 THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL ON THE APPLICATION SITE (EP 35, GP2, EP 42, STP 3, and Urban Environment Proposal 4 (TAPE).
7.3.1 In assessing the visual impact of the proposed works on the character of the site it is noted that the existing dwelling which is a key feature of the site and which reinforces the prominence of the site as a major contributor to the character of the Conservation Area as detailed within the character appraisal is to be demolished. As such, it is considered that the scheme as proposed would be contrary to the provision of Environment Policy 35 which requires that the special features contributing to the character and quality of the Conservation Area (such as the Eastfield Mansion House) are protected against inappropriate development.
7.3.2 Whilst the proposed scheme seeks to erect a terrace in place of the existing building which is thought to respect the application site, it would be difficult to argue that the proposed dwellings bear the key features and detailing that make the Eastfield mansion House or the adjoining terraces which sit around the allotment gardens such as Eastfield Terrace, Bradda Mount, Westmount and Brighton terrace unique, as the design and appearance would not pass for a truly traditional terrace nor does it bear any special features or characteristics that would ensure it preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as an appropriate replacement. The scheme is also not a reflection of a modern/innovative terrace which could be judged acceptable as a true representation of its time as required by Paragraph 6.8.3 of the Area Plan for the East.
7.3.3 The contributions of the existing building is clearly evident even in its poorly managed state. During the site visit for PA 20/00280/B, it was clear that although the building was in need repair works, it was not in an irreparable state and its key features were still noticeable. The sale brochure by Cowley Groves Estate Agents which was produced after the approval under PA 20/00280/B which is online (https://www.cowleygroves.com/properties/518/print),
==== PAGE 18 ====
23/00526/B Page 18 of 21
also has photos which would serve to reinforce the argument that the building was not beyond repair and still retains its key elements. Likewise, recent photographs taken during the most recent site visit carried out on 4 July 2023, shows the building to retain original features as well as being in a state that could be restored.
7.3.4 It would be vital to note that the proposed terraced building does not have chimney stacks (which are a key feature of the existing dwelling or the immediate locality), and their two storey bay window projections and cottage style entrance doors are not features of the immediate street scene. These buildings also do not have the rear courtyards which serve to define the dwellings here by providing enclosures for other less important detail. It is also noted that the distinct feature mouldings around the windows such as the hood mouldings (on Bradda Mount), render bands (on Brighton Terrace and Westmount), the Cobbled window mouldings (on Eastfield Terrace) are not in any way represented on the new dwellings. The roof pitch is also steeper than the pitch angle of the existing dwellings on Eastfield terrace which it would sit directly parallel to. Likewise, the buildings bulk and massing is in no way similar to those in the immediate locality which are narrower, with rear outriggers providing avenues for creating additional accommodation, as it spans 12.3m (12.6m including depth of bay windows) and as such would have a depth 3.3m wider than the adjacent buildings on Eastfield terrace which are 9.3m wide (excluding the outriggers).
7.3.5 It is also noted that the scheme would result in the removal of a significant number of trees on site which in their current context serve to contribute to the grandeur of the existing Mansion House within its setting as a large dwelling on generous grounds, and replace them with a garage block and hardstanding for parking. This would result in the removal of the open and green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity of the existing site contrary to Environment Policy 42 and Strategic Policy 4 (b).
7.3.6 Based on the foregoing, it is not considered that the scheme as propose would respect the character of the existing site and the contributions it offers the immediate locality and conservation Area.
7.3.7 With regard to the potential impacts on the character of the surrounding street scene and Conservation Area, it is noted that views to the existing dwelling are limited by its position relative to the surrounding buildings and the existing vegetation on site. It is, however, worth noting that views to the existing Eastfield Mansion House are still achievable from the surrounding street scenes along Westmoreland Road, Ballakermeen Road, Hawarden Avenue, and the rear lane which connects Hawarden Avenue to Ballakermeen Road. Limited views can also be achieved when walking along Eastfield. It is also worth noting that a good number of the trees on site which serve to screen views to the existing dwelling on site would be removed to facilitate the erection of the proposed garage within the scheme. As such, it is considered that any impacts on the immediate street scene and conservation area would be adverse and significant.
7.3.8 The applicants argue in their Planning Statement that "the development will continue the rhythm of the existing terrace to the North West through the incorporation of two storey square bays, rendered walling and vertically proportioned windows" (See Paragraph 4.4 of Planning Statement). However, a thorough review of the surrounding architectural style in the immediate vicinity would reveal that none of the dwellings within the adjoining terraces have box bay windows, given that the existing bay windows are canted bay windows. Besides, the only terrace with two storey bay windows is the Westmount terrace which has buildings with a prominent gable over the bay windows. As such, it is not considered that the current scheme is a true reflection of the architectural rhythm within the immediate vicinity, although it must be noted that variety is not unacceptable if it reinforces the traditional appearance of the immediate locality.
==== PAGE 19 ====
23/00526/B Page 19 of 21
7.3.9 Overall, it is considered that although the scheme provides an alternative form of development which they argue would preserve the character of the Conservation Area (as it would have a pitch roof with artificial slate and integrate dentils below the eaves), it is clearly articulated in the Heritage Statement provided by the applicants that the "The negative impact would be through the loss of one of the earliest buildings in the area, and thus the complete removal of its historic interest". Thus, the proposal is considered to represent an unwarranted development which would result in adverse impacts on the immediate locality and Conservation Area, contrary to Environment Policy 35, Strategic Policy 4, and Planning Policy Statement 1/01.
7.4 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITY (GP2 & RDG 2021) 7.4.1 In terms of impacts on neighbours, it is noted that the orientation of the buildings on site, the position and distance of the proposed windows relative to neighbouring dwellings, the situation of the existing garage between the proposed dwellings and neighbouring dwellings on Westmount and the retained vegetation on site would serve to diminish any concerns with regard to the dwellings on Eastfield and Westmount.
7.4.2 On the other hand, it is considered that new overlooking impacts would result from the proposal, particularly for 'Emsdale,' Hawarden Avenue which is situated to the northern boundary of the proposed terrace and which would be directly overlooked from the first floor and second floor rear windows (which would serve habitable rooms on the new dwellings). It should be noted that the only first and second floor windows on the existing dwelling which have views to this neighbouring dwelling are a window to a bathroom on the first floor, and the stairway on the second floor. Therefore, the introduction of twenty (20) new windows which serve habitable rooms, and at a distance of about 17m from the windows on the rear elevation of this neighbouring dwelling (10m from the rear garden which is the only private garden for this neighbour) is considered unneighbourly and at variance with the requirements of General Policy 2 (g), and the principles promoted by the Residential, Design Guide.
7.5 THE IMPACT ON PARKING AND HIGHWAY SAFETY (GP2, TP6 & TP 7) 7.5.1 With regard to on-site parking provisions, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan - Appendix 7 indicates that generally two off road parking spaces are required for a single dwelling. The proposed development would provide ten (10) off street parking provisions; five within the garage and five on the hardstanding areas in front of the garage. Therefore, it is judged that the parking provisions within the scheme would accord with the parking standards stipulated in the Strategic Plan.
7.5.2 It is also considered that a suitable vehicular access to and from the site to Eastfield is could be achieved for the site. Moreover, the width of the driveway is such that would easily accommodate incoming and outgoing traffic from the site, and this is acceptable. The creation of a designated pedestrian access to the site linked to Eastfield would also ensure that there is adequate segregation between pedestrians and vehicles exiting and entering the site. These aspect of the development would ensure that the proposal accords with Transport Policy 6 and GP2 (h&i).
7.5.3 The comments from the occupants of 12 Eastfield point to the potential parking challenges for the immediate locality as the proposed dwellings would only have access to two parking spaces which would most likely be utilized by the occupants of the new dwellings. It is noted that there are no provisions for visitor parking within the current scheme which would place pressure on available on-street parking in the area, particularly as the dominant parking for the immediate vicinity is via on street parking. However, Highway Services have reviewed the proposal and advice that they raise no opposition to the proposal subject to a condition for the access, visibility splay and layout to accord with Drawing: PO2 rev C on any approval. As such, it is considered that any concerns with on street parking in the immediate locality is not sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme.
==== PAGE 20 ====
23/00526/B Page 20 of 21
7.6 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON SITE ECOLOGY AND TREES (GP2, EP4 & EP5) 7.6.1 In terms of impacts on trees, it is considered that the current scheme seeks to remove a number of category C and U trees which would be unobjectionable from the Arboriculture perspective due to the limited arboricultural quality of the trees. As well, the scheme also holds the potential to result in future removal of a number of trees to be retained on the site, due to increased pressures to provide better amenities for the occupants of the proposed dwellings, which would be at variance with the goals to retain the trees marked for retention. However, the scheme seeks to plant a number of replacement trees and proposed hedging, which would serve to ameliorate for the loss of trees on site.
7.6.2 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 site as detailed in paragraph 7.3.4 of this report.
7.6.3 In terms of impacts on biodiversity, it is considered that the scheme would result in the removal of mature landscaping (including shrubs and hedging) within the site. This has been acknowledged by the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team who refer to the tree loss but confirm that they are content with the mitigation proposed in the form of new hedge and tree planting, although they state that no species list has yet been provided for the hedge creation and request that this be secured via a planning condition.
7.6.4 As well, the application is supported by details of bird bricks to be installed in the new properties to mitigate for the loss of a number of trees which could serve as habitat for bats on site. This plan has been reviewed and commented on and accepted by DEFA Ecosystems Officer and in this respect it is felt that the application has satisfied the principles of Environment Policy 4. Conditions would, however, be imposed to ensure that the required mitigation measures are as detailed in the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Consultation comments are implemented, should approval be granted for the proposal.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 As has been outlined in this report, the main concern of the application centres on the demolition of Eastfield Mansion house which is judged to contribute to the character and appearance of the Woodbourne Road Conservation Area. The buildings in question is one of the oldest building in the area whose contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area is mainly through the architectural interest of its surviving historic fabric and its historic interest, and it has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the loss of this building would not be to the detriment of the conservation area as no clear and convincing justification has been made for the loss of the building. It has also not been demonstrated that the building could not be retained as a single dwelling or converted for similar/alternative uses. Therefore, it is considered that the proposals would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and are contrary to polices Section 16 (3) and Section 18 (4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999), Environment Policies 35 and 39, Strategic Policy 4 (a), and Paragraph 7.32 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; policies RB/6, CA/2 and CA/6 of PPS1/01, and Urban Environment Proposal 3 and 4 of the Area Plan for the East. Accordingly, it is recommended that the proposals be refused on these grounds.
8.2 If the loss of the existing Eastfield Mansion House is accepted, it is not considered that the proposed dwellings would represent an appropriate replacement for the existing building on site for the reasons that have been articulated within this report. Likewise, the impact of the proposal on the amenities of the existing dwelling at 'Emsdale,' Hawarden Avenue, Douglas, due to significant levels of perceived and actual overlooking that would result from the proposal.
8.3 The following factors weigh in favour of the scheme; the acceptable impact in terms of parking/highway safety, the acceptable impacts on biodiversity and the impacts on trees.
==== PAGE 21 ====
23/00526/B Page 21 of 21
However, it is not considered that these positives would outweigh the detrimental elements of the proposal.
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); (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: 16.10.2023
Signed : P VISIAGH
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