106729

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      18/00398/B                                     Page  1  of  14

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 18/00398/B Applicant : Kirindolam 4 Ltd Proposal : Removal of existing buildings and erection of building containing seven apartments, with associated parking and landscaping Site Address : Warehouse and Store Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane Douglas Isle of Man IM2 4AX

Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken : 31.05.2018 Site Visit : 31.05.2018 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 19.06.2018 __

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

C 3. The development shall not be occupied or operated until the bicycle store and/or motorcycling parking bays have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. The bicycle store and/or motorcycling parking bays shall be retained at all times thereafter.

Reason: To promote sustainable travel in the interests of reducing pollution and congestion.

C 4. The development shall not be occupied or operated until details of the bins stores have been submitted to and approved by the Department and the approved bin stores have been provided in accordance with the approved details. The bin stores shall be retained at all times thereafter.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      18/00398/B                                     Page  2  of  14

Reason: To ensure appropriate bin storage is provided and in the interest of neighbouring amenities.

C 5. No development shall take place until full details of soft and hard landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include details of new planting showing, type, size and position of each. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of a unit, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. Details of the hard landscaping works include footpaths and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of a unit hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

C 6.One parking space shall be allocated to each apartment and retained to that apartment thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking in the interests of highway safety.

C 7. Prior to the commencement of any works a full detailed scale plan should be submitted to and approved by the Department which details how the area of Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane which fronts parking spaces of the apartment building is to be improved including; pedestrian access along Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane to the site - the provision of continuous footway to the site and to provide a pedestrian access from Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane to the site. This approved plan and scheme is required to be implemented prior to the occupation of the apartments. The applicant is strongly recommended to discuss these matters with Department Of Infrastructure Highway Services.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety

C 8. The development shall not be occupied or operated until the fence line and landscaping along the north western boundary of the site as shown on drawing P2001 and P004 REV A have been provided in accordance with the approved plans and shall be retained at all times thereafter.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development and I the interest of neighbouring amenities.

C 9. No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place an arboricultural method statement, including a schedule of site supervision and monitoring, is prepared in accordance with the recommendations of British Standard BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction -Recommendations) and agreed in writing by the Department. All existing trees shall be retained, unless shown on the approved drawings as being removed.

The development must be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise requested by a condition. In the event that trees become damaged or otherwise defective due to events outside of the applicant's control the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented. No alterations or variations to the approved tree protection scheme or working methods shall be made without prior written consent of the Department.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      18/00398/B                                     Page  3  of  14

Reason: To ensure that all trees to be retained are adequately protected from damage which may be detrimental to their health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity.

C 10.The completed schedule of site supervision and monitoring of the arboricultural protection measures, as approved in condition (9), shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Department within 28 days from completion of the development hereby permitted. This condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development, subject to satisfactory written evidence of compliance through contemporaneous supervision and monitoring of the tree protection throughout construction by a suitably qualified and pre- appointed tree specialist.

Reason: In order to ensure compliance with the tree protection and arboricultural supervision details submitted under condition 9 & 10.

Plans/Drawings/Information:

This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers P0001, P0002, P0003 A, P0004 REV B, P0006, P1001, P2001, P2002 and Design and Access Statement prepared by Endless Design received on 17th April 2018 and 18th June 2018.

__

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following persons 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 6(4):

Cynara, Poplar Road, Douglas

It is recommended that the following persons 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 6(4):

Mount Pleasant, Victoria Road, Douglas - Do no physically adjoin the site and are not substantially affected by the development in terms of amenities. __

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the existing warehouse store and lock up garages which currently front onto Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane. The existing building is a large detached pitched roof building of brick construction with smaller garage buildings arranged alongside.

1.2 To the southwest of the application site are Flats 1-6 of The Arthur Bell Estate which is an elderly persons' housing complex. The existing garden/parking area of this site is also included within the current application site.

1.3 The site is situated within a courtyard area, with residential properties surrounding the site. To the north are a row of two storey terraced dwellings which run along Upper Duke's

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      18/00398/B                                     Page  4  of  14

Road, to the east are semi-detached and detached dwellings which run along Poplar Road, to the south are detached and semi-detached properties which run along Victoria Road/ Falcon Cliff Terrace, and to the west of the site is the two storey The Arthur Bell Estate and beyond that apartment block are the semi-detached and terraced dwellings which runs along Falcon Cliff Terrace.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the removal of existing buildings and erection of building containing seven apartments, with associated parking and landscaping.

2.2 The proposed block of apartments would be 'horse shoe' in shape, set over two storeys. The building would have a maximum width of 18.8 metres, a maximum depth of 30 metres and a maximum height of ridge height of 7.9 metres, with an eaves height between 5 & 6.2 m. The building's elevations would be finished with Light cedral cladding contrasted with dark raised sections around certain doors and windows. A Manx stone wall plinth is also proposed around the building. Windows and doors would be finished in uPVC. The roof would be finished with artificial slate with solar panels installed to the southeast and south west facing slopes.

2.3 For information, the previously approved building had maximum width of 20 metres, a maximum depth of 30 metres and a maximum height of ridge height of 8.2 metres, with an eaves height between 5 & 5.5 m. The building's elevations would be finished with part painted render and part cedral weatherboard cladding. Windows and doors would be finished in uPVC. The roof would be finished with artificial slate with solar panels installed to the southeast and south west facing slopes.

2.4 Each apartment would have access to their own external patio area which would be accessed via patio doors from their respective lounges. Within and around the boundaries of the site, it is proposed to either retain and/or provide additional landscaping.

2.5 Parking for the seven new apartments would be provided via 10 new parking spaces, although two of the spaces would be tandem parking. Internally (under stairs) an area is proposed for bicycle store.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The previous planning application which are considered relevant to the determination of this proposal.

14/01034/B - Erection of a block of eight apartments with landscaping and parking to replace existing buildings - 14/01034/B - APPROVED (expires 28.07.2019)

11/01622/C - change the use of the warehouse and store to recreational sporting use, in particular for martial arts classes - refused at Appeal on the following grounds:

"The continued use of the site would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the use would lead to an increase in on-street parking and traffic in an area which is already very congested in the evenings and would be prejudicial to the general amenity of the area and the free flow of traffic within the area."

10/00416/R - Change of use of warehouse and store to recreational sporting use (Retrospective) - refused on 11th January 2011.

The reason for refusal was "Insufficient information has been submitted to accurately assess the impact on the use on the residential environment of the surrounding properties and the local highway network."

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      18/00398/B                                     Page  5  of  14

08/01571/B - Residential development comprising 5 townhouses, one maisonette and one apartment with associated parking and access - refused at appeal on 8th June 2009.

02/01333/B - Extension to warehouse - refused 6th January 2003

98/00631/C - Change of use of storage building to plumbers merchants - refused on review 29th September 1998

91/01484/C - Change of use from food wholesale warehouse to Police general store - permitted

90/01356/C - Change of use from fruit wholesaler's warehouse to motor body repair shop - refused on review

87/01679/C - Change of use from wholesale fruit and vegetable warehouse to motor body repair & vehicle storage - permitted on review.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site is designated within an "Area of Predominantly Residential Use" under the Douglas Local Plan 1998. The site is not within a Conservation Area. Under the Draft Eastern Area Plan the site is also designated as Predominantly Residential.

4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:

4.3 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."

4.4 Strategic Policy 2 states that: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3."

4.5 General Policy 2 states that; "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: (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (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;

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      18/00398/B                                     Page  6  of  14

(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; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (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."

4.6 Housing Policy 6 states that; "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 criteria in paragraph 6.2 of this plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive."

4.8 Environment Policy 42 states that; "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. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open of green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."

4.9 Transport Policy 4 states that; "The new and existing highways which serve any development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."

4.10 Transport Policy 7 states that; "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection to the application (22.05.2018).

5.2 Highway Services make the following comments (16.05.2018): "The 7 proposed apartments would all have 2 bedrooms. The parking standards in 'The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016' require 2 car parking spaces for a 2 bedroom apartment which equates to a total site parking provision of 14 spaces.

The previous 14/01034/B application for the site was approved with 12 car parking spaces for 8 no. 2 bedroom apartments which is a level of 1.5 spaces per apartment. The current application would provide 9 car parking spaces for 7 no. 2 bedroom apartments which is a lower level of 1.3 spaces per apartment. This is not ideal as a rate of 1.5 spaces per apartment is considered to be appropriate for the nature and location of the development. In addition, spaces 8 and 9 are not useable spaces in most circumstances as they would be blocked in by bays 6 and 7 and could therefore only be used by the residents/visitors of one particular apartment rather than all the dwellings. In reality the site parking provision is therefore effectively one space per apartment, although it is noted that the 14/01034/B application also proposed 2 spaces that would be blocked in by other parked vehicles.

The applicant has argued for a reduction in the parking standards on the grounds of the proximity of the site to Douglas town centre and sustainable transport (bus routes). However, the site is a considerable distance away from the town centre (approximately 1.5km away) although it is near to the bus routes along Victoria Road (approximately 100m). The applicant's comments that the occupiers of the dwellings would be unlikely to have two or even one vehicle is therefore not agreed. It is requested that the applicant considers a reduction in the number of apartments or an increase in site parking provision, possibly by removing some of

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      18/00398/B                                     Page  7  of  14

the landscaping, to provide a more appropriate level of site parking provision, ideally 1.5 spaces per apartment.

The application states that cycle parking is proposed for the development but it is not shown on the proposed site plan which is required. One cycle space per apartment is needed and the cycle parking should be secure, covered and lit. The 2 motorcycle bays are welcomed.

Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane is adopted along its full length apart from the footways on both sides which are unadopted. There is no footway fronting the development site. The previous 14/01034/B planning consent included a planning condition for highway improvements to be undertaken along Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane, to include the provision of a continuous footway to the site from Falcon Cliff Terrace to improve pedestrian access and highway safety. The same planning condition would need to be applied to the current application to facilitate suitable pedestrian access to the development.

It is requested that no planting or site boundary treatment along the side of the development adjacent to the parking area is provided above 1.05m in height within 2m of the edge of Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane to ensure that adequate highway visibility is maintained for motorists turning in and out of the site parking bays. This can be secured via a planning condition.

Highway Services request that this application is deferred to allow the applicant to consider the above."

Following further discussions with Highway Services they have updated their comments by stating that Condition 8 as proposed would be acceptable to them and that they are now content with the level of the car parking with the proposal due to its location. They also confirm that they have no plans to carry out any remedial work on the lane. (18.06.2018).

5.3 The Arboricultural Officer (DEFA) makes the following comments (09.05.18);

"I would like to make the following comments in relation to application 18/00398/B (Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane).

The drawing titled 'Landscape Plan' (P0004) shows a line of protective fencing around some sycamore trees in the North-West corner of the plot. Although these trees only present average form for the species and are generally only of moderate quality, they are likely to be of some importance to the residents of Falcon Cliff Terrace and Upper Dukes Road because of the screening they provide from the site. I therefore welcome the protection that this fencing might provide during the construction process.

I have 3 concerns about the implementation of this protection:

The trees are on a bank so the ground is not level. It will be difficult to erect the fencing shown in drawing P0004 on this terrain. 2. The fencing is unlikely to exclude construction traffic (telehandlers etc.) from the entire canopy spread. 3. There is a retaining wall to be built in very close proximity to the protection area, which is likely to be within the 'root protection area' as defined by BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - recommendations).

These concerns could be addressed by the submission of an arboricultural method statement (AMS) prior to the commencement of works. The purpose and scope of an AMS is described in section 6 of BS5837:2012 so I will not repeat it here. I would like, however, to draw particular attention to section 6.3 which states:

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      18/00398/B                                     Page  8  of  14

Wherever trees on or adjacent to a site have been identified within the tree protection plan for protective measures, there should be an auditable system of arboricultural site monitoring. This should extend to arboricultural supervision whenever construction and development activity is to take place within or adjacent to any RPA.

I recommend you consider applying the following conditions if this application is approved.

No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place an arboricultural method statement, including a schedule of site supervision and monitoring, is prepared in accordance with the recommendations of British Standard BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction -Recommendations) and agreed in writing by the Department. All existing trees shall be retained, unless shown on the approved drawings as being removed.

The development must be carried out in accordance with the approved details. In the event that trees become damaged or otherwise defective due to events outside of the applicant's control the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented. No alterations or variations to the approved tree protection scheme or working methods shall be made without prior written consent of the Department.

Reason: to ensure that all trees to be retained are adequately protected from damage which may be detrimental to their health and stability throughout the construction period in the interests of amenity.

The completed schedule of site supervision and monitoring of the arboricultural protection measures, as approved in condition (insert condition number), shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Department within 28 days from completion of the development hereby permitted. This condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development, subject to satisfactory written evidence of compliance through contemporaneous supervision and monitoring of the tree protection throughout construction by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist.

Reason: In order to ensure compliance with the tree protection and arboricultural supervision details submitted under condition (insert condition(s))"

5.4 The owner/occupier of Cynara, Poplar Road, Douglas has commented to the application which can be summarised as (03.05.18); This application which is very similar to the previous planning application; I have no real objection to the development itself but I do not like the idea of the refuse bins being placed alongside my rear garden wall and rear gate entrance to my property; I have a number of small grandchildren who visit my wife and I regularly and we often sit in the paved area of my property close to the rear gate. I do not want the smell of discarded refuse coming into my property and the associated problems with vermin; I would like these bins to be placed nearer to the Arthur Bell Estate entrance where the plans show some shrubs being situated. Although not clear on the proposed plans the bins actual appear to block my rear gate; the roof to the warehouse has Asbestos sheets as has the canopy over the entrance into the site; I would hope that your department would inspect the site before demolition begins to check the Asbestos to clarify if it's of a danger to people living nearby and like to make known that according to the Department of Infrastructure the whole of Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane is adopted. The previous application by McArds was geared up to incorporate the redevelopment of the lane surface during the building procedure, at this point in time only the section of the lane adopted is to the entrance to the Arthur Bell Estate.

5.5 The owner/occupier of 'Mount Pleasant', Victoria Road, Douglas has commented to the application which can be summarised as (17.06.18); My property is directly opposite the area where these dwellings are to be sited therefore I consider I will be directly affected; my rear garden gate and access to my garage is directly opposite where the proposed parking area will

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      18/00398/B                                     Page  9  of  14

be positioned; Concerns that the adopted Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane is in such poor condition has led to damage to property due to rain water runs form the centre of the road into my property which is below road level (due to pot holes being filled over years and the road being raised approximately 0.3m over the years); garage is constantly sitting in water for a considerable amount of months in the year has resulted in the wooden framework supporting the garage door rotting on both side; have even dug a small trench across the front of my garage to prevent the water from entering but all I do is divert it under my garden gate into my garden; as well as this problem, due to the totally uneven surface, there are also numerous pools of water throughout this section of the lane; over several years I have contacted both my MHK and Douglas Councillor but nothing is ever done despite the fact that the road is classed as being an adopted road; I note that the latest plan shows a footpath on the side of this building site in front of the proposed parking bays but not on my side of the lane; where is the surface water going, still under my garage door, my back door and into the neighbours properties; I have no objection to the plans being approved but as I understand, the road does not form part of the planning application itself; and I would therefore ask any approval includes a condition to the planning approval that the road surface must be completed to a proper standard to include pavements, lowered in front of my garage for proper access, and surface water drains on both sides of the lane, as it is in the first half of the lane up to the entrance to the Arthur Bell estate, to prevent any more damage to my property.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key issues relating to the proposed works are; o Principle of development; o Potential impact upon neighbouring amenities (overlooking, loss of light and/or overbearing impact) by the development; o Potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scene; o Highway Issues; and o Residential amenities for future occupants.

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT 6.2 The starting point is identifying the land use designated of the site. Under the Douglas Local Plan and the Draft Area Plan for the East, the site is designated as an 'Area of Predominantly Residential Use'. Accordingly, the proposal for residential development is acceptable in principle. Furthermore, residential development would likely be an improvement over the current/previous non-conforming uses. It is also noted the previously approval for redevelopment of this site is still extant and could be undertaken. It is important to note whilst the land use designation complies with the proposal, this is not an automatic reason to approve the application. A detailed assessment still needs to be made, namely the points raised with paragraph 6.1 of this report.

POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES BY THE DEVELOPMENT 6.3 Previously, visiting the site and surrounding area, it was considered the properties most likely to be affected by the development would be the occupants of the terraced properties along Upper Duke's Road (namely The Shelleys, The Asters, Trevor & Newton Heath) and the pair of semi-detached dwellings along Poplar Road (Hilary Mount & Arbory). The impacts upon these properties are likely to be very similar, if not the same as the previously approved scheme.

6.4 In relation to the properties to the northwest of the site, along Upper Duke's Road, it was noted on site and on the submitted sectional drawings that the application ground level is set approximately two metres below that of the properties along Upper Duke's Road. It was also noted that an access lane (approximately 4 metres wide) is between these neighbouring properties rear boundaries and the northwest boundary of the site. It was also noted that the rear boundaries of the properties along Upper Duke's Road have boundary walls/fences are approximately 1.8+ metres in height. The northwest boundary of the application site is also made up a 1.8 metre high chain linked fence and existing mature sycamore trees, which do

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      18/00398/B                                     Page  10  of  14

provide screening between the sites when the trees have leaves. This screening would be reduced during autumn-winter periods when the trees are leafless.

6.5 In terms of the potential impact upon the properties along Upper Duke's Road, it is considered overlooking is perhaps the main issue which needs consideration. In terms of loss or light and/or the proposal having an overbearing impact, it is not considered the proposal would result significantly result in either, given; the level differences, the distance the proposal would be from the neighbouring properties, boundary treatments of the site and neighbouring properties, and the design and height of the proposal.

6.6 Regarding the potential for overlooking, it is considered this will potentially occur from upper floor windows/Juliet balconies (6 and stairwell widows) within the northwest elevation only (noted the plans indicate this is the northeast elevation). These windows serve two living rooms, two bedrooms, a study, and bathroom. The ground floor windows within the northwest elevation will have no significant impact upon overlooking, given they would be below the ground levels of the properties along Upper Duke's Road and due to the existing boundary features between windows. The proposed upper floor windows would be approximately 17.5 to 18 metres away from the windows within the rear elevations of the neighbouring properties along Upper Duke's Road. Each neighbouring dwelling generally has three windows within the rear elevation, and these windows generally serve a kitchen at ground floor and a bathroom and bedroom at upper floor.

6.7 The application helpfully provides section drawings which show the relationship between the application site and neighbouring properties. From this, visiting the site and further information submitted, it is concluded that whilst the proposal will increase the potential for overlooking, the level of overlooking would not be so significant to adversely affect the amenities of the neighbouring properties along Upper Duke's Road, such as to warrant a refusal on this ground. This is due to the level differences of the site, the distance between properties, and boundary treatments. It is accepted that during winter/autumn periods the existing boundary screening is significantly reduced. The application includes a scheme for a 1.8m high timber fence along this northwest boundary with a 2.5m high hedgerow. A condition should be attached to ensure these are provided provide to the occupation of the development. It is considered such a scheme, complementing the existing landscaping, would ensure little overlooking would occur.

6.8 As identified earlier in this report, the semi-detached properties of Hilary Mount and Arbory are considered to be potentially affected by the development. Out of the two semi- detached properties it was considered Arbory would be most likely to be affected, as considered previously. Accordingly, a site visit of this property was previously undertaken. Visiting this property it was noted that a fairly recent single storey, rear living room extension, with large amounts of glazing facing the rear garden and beyond to the application site, has been built.

6.9 The north east elevation of the development is the aspect of the development which will impact upon the amenities of the occupants of Arbory most. This elevation would be between 18 metres from the recently constructed single storey living room extension. The proposal would be 21.8 metres from the main aspect of the dwelling. It was noted the boundary treatment between the two sites consisted of a wall ranging between 2 and 2.5 metres in height (measure from application site side). The occupants of Arbory had in 2014 planted a hedgerow which is now above the boundary wall.

6.10 The proposal includes no windows within the northeast elevation upper floor. There are windows within the ground floor; however, given the height of the boundary wall, it is not considered these would affect the occupants of Arbory. There are a number of roof lights within the north east elevation; however, these are high level roof lights approximately 3.5+ metres above floor level. Accordingly, these would only provide light, rather than any outlook

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                      18/00398/B                                     Page  11  of  14

to the rooms they serve. Due to these reasons it is considered there would be no overlooking from these roof lights.

6.11 The main concern is whether the proposal would result an overbeating development upon the occupants of Arbory. It is clear the proposal will have more of an impact compared to the existing building on the site, as the proposal will be closer and taller than the existing building, albeit almost identical to the extant approved scheme. Furthermore, the existing roof ridge is set much further into the site (12 metres), compared to the proposed roof ridge which is approximately 7 metres from the neighbouring boundary. Accordingly, the proposal, within approximately 4 metres of the boundary will increase the mass and appearance of built development when viewed from Arbory, albeit the majority will likely be screened by the tall boundary wall and hedgerow.

6.12 The aspect of the development which would be apparent from Hilary Mount and Arbory would be the upper floor and roof of the building. The external finish of the majority of the upper floor is proposed to be cedral cladding, whilst the roof finish would be an artificial slate. This darker finish will help reduce the impact of the proposal. Again the application has included sectional drawings which helpfully show the relationship between the proposal and neighbouring properties. This sectional drawing also shows the existing building on site, which helps gain perspective between existing and proposed. When stood in the rear extension and garden of Arbory, views were clearly achievable of the existing warehouse and garage building on the site, rather than clear open vistas. It is considered, this view would not significantly be affected by the proposed development, even though built development, taller and closer than existing, is proposed.

6.13 Consideration has also been taken in terms for potential loss of light. It was noted when visiting Arbory (5th November 2014 10.37am) that given the suns orientation (east to west) and position in the sky, siting of the proposal, and distance the proposal would be from the rear of Arbory, it was considered the proposal would not result in a significant amount of loss of light to the neighbouring properties.

6.14 The owners of Cynara have made comments on the initial position of the bins, being immediate adjacent to their back wall/rear gate. Following these comments the applicants have repositioned the bins and provided a bin store further into the site, located to the neighbour garage rear wall (Cynara). Where the bins where initially proposed, they have proposed landscaping to be planted. This will be a significant improvement to the amenities of Cynara. It is acknowledged that on bin day, the bins would need to be brought to the edge of Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane (adjacent to rear gate of Cynara). This may bring conflict if the if occupants do not take the bins back to the store, and leave them on the edge of the road. However, there is some comfort that the bins would need to be moved to access the motor bike parking area and potential for access of the parking spaces nearest to the area where the bins would be left on bin day.

6.15 Overall, whilst the proposed development will have an impact upon the majority of properties which surround the site, as any development would, it is not considered the potential impacts would be of such significance to warrant a refusal. Accordingly, it is considered the proposed development complies with General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan.

POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE STREET SCENE 6.16 The existing buildings on the site cannot be said to have any architectural merit, and it could be argued has a detrimental impact upon the visual amenities of the street scene. Accordingly, there is no objection to the replacement of the building.

6.17 Visiting the area there are a number of properties of difference styles, types, sizes and finishes. Accordingly, there is not a particular style which characterises the area. It is also

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                      18/00398/B                                     Page  12  of  14

noted that the site is not within a Conservation Area. The form and size of the building is similar to the previous approval, the main changes being the finishes and window fenestration alterations. It is considered the proposal does differ to any other building which surrounds it; however, given the mixture of development in the area, it is a continuation of building styles in the area which is considered acceptable and appropriate. As such, it is considered the proposed development complies with General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan.

HIGHWAY ISSUES 6.18 The application is for seven apartments each with two bedrooms. A total of 14 car parking spaces are required in line with the requirements of the parking standards listed within Appendix 7 of the IOM Strategic Plan. This proposal provides 9 spaces for the use of the occupants of the new units, albeit two of the spaces are in a tandem layout, and therefore the proposal essential equates to at least one space per apartment, with two apartments have two spaces.

6.19 The applicants have noted that parking standards do allow for a reduction in the number of parking spaces being provided under certain circumstances. In this case they seek a reduction on the grounds that the site proximity to the town centre, the proximity of sustainable transport (bus routes within 100m), the likely lower ratio of car ownership as the apartments are aimed at short term leasing to the professional market, who would not likely have two or even one vehicle during their stay; and provision for two motorcycle parking bays and secure bicycle storage.

6.20 The previous approved application highlighted the most recent use of the site for warehousing and storage by WDS Ltd. They provided a very basic traffic survey generated by the operation of the site during 2007. This indicates that Monday to Friday, the traffic flows where generally between 3 to 20 cars visiting each day, between 6 and 15 vans visited, between 3 to 5 wagons and between 1 to 2 HGV visited. On Saturdays 2 to 4 cars visited the site which 2 vans visited. In relation to the traffic flows generated by the lock up garages, again during 2007 the applicants have advised between 5 to 10 cars Monday to Friday and on Saturdays between 4 and 6. As with the previously application it was noted that above surveys of the traffic flow surveys are very basic, with no photographs or any further evidence included. Whilst the submitted survey was not considered to be ideal in terms of proving without doubt, that the level of traffic generated by the previous use of the site, it does however given an idea of the number of vehicles the previous site generated. The type of vehicles also indicated are consider being reasonable and likely for the type of use which operated form the site.

6.21 Essentially, the proposal is short of 5 parking spaces. The previously scheme was short by 4 spaces, albeit proposed eight apartments not seven. Previously, Highway Services raised not objection to this shortfall. There current comments would now suggest otherwise. However, the Department is comfortable with the parking proposed, namely one space per apartment, given the reasons the applicants have identified with paragraph 6.18 of this report. Further, it needs to be acknowledged that that the redevelopment of this brownfield industrial site, which as suggest previously (and could continue today as a warehouse and store), had industrial usages and would have attracted more commercial traffic to the site, with little parking, would likely create much greater issues in relation to on street parking and impact on highway safety.

6.22 It was noted when visiting the site that the section Of Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane which is directly opposite the proposed parking spaces, is in poor condition, especially given the road is an adopted highway. The application site does not include the roadway as this is an adopted highway. Previously a Grampian condition was attached which stated:

"Prior to the commencement of any works a full detailed scale plan should be submitted to and approved by the Department which details how the area of Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane which

==== PAGE 13 ====

                                      18/00398/B                                     Page  13  of  14

fronts parking spaces of the apartment building is to be improved including; pedestrian access along Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane to the site - the provision of continuous footway to the site and to provide a pedestrian access from Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane to the site. This approved plan and scheme is required to be implemented prior to the occupation of the apartments. The applicant is strongly recommended to discuss these matters with Department Of Infrastructure Highway Services.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety"

6.23 Highway Services have previously stated: "Falcon Cliff Terrace (Lane) is an adopted highway. However, given the change of use of the site to residential use, it would be appropriate for the Department require the connecting highway to be improved." It should be also noted that the improvement of the highway would also benefit other existing properties in the area who utilises this section of the road both pedestrian and vehicular access.

RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES FOR FUTURE OCCUPANTS 6.24 As with any residential development it is important to consider the amenities for future occupants of the proposed units. In terms of internal amenity, the apartments all have two bedrooms, living room, bathroom, kitchen and storage space. The apartments range between 45 sq m to 67 sq m. The main living area have outlooks over the patio/communal garden areas. Overall, it is considered the level of amenity is acceptable.

6.25 In terms of external amenities, each of the apartments would benefit from their own patio area which are located within a landscaped setting. None have expansive open views, as the site is essential surrounded by built development. However, it is consider the space available would give the opportunity of the said residents to create a nice environment to sit out in. The ground floor apartments do also benefit from small patio areas which have direct access via the patio doors. Overall, it is considered the proposed apartments would benefit from reasonable sized and quality external amenities areas, which is also fairly uncommon for apartment developments.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, it is considered the proposals comply with the relevant planning policies of the IOM Strategic Plan for the reasons given. Therefore, the application is recommended for an approval.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

8.3 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.

==== PAGE 14 ====

                                      18/00398/B                                     Page  14  of  14

__

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Permitted

Committee Meeting Date: 16.07.2018

Signed : C Balmer Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report was required

YES/NO See below

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 16.07.2018

Application No. :

18/00398/B Applicant : Kirindolam 4 Ltd Proposal : Removal of existing buildings and erection of building containing seven apartments, with associated parking and landscaping Site Address : Warehouse and Store Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane Douglas Isle of Man IM2 4AX

Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer Presenting Officer As above

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

After discussion the Planning Committee agreed with the recommendation subject to IPS not been given to the owner/occupant of Berethone as they were 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 6(4).

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.