Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/00498/B Page 1 of 13
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/00498/B Applicant : Mr Johnny & Mrs Loni Evans Proposal : Erection of a detached dwelling with integrated garage and creation of vehicular access and landscaping Site Address : Land West Of The Herring Houses Fort Island Road Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TZ
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 24.07.2020 Site Visit : 24.07.2020 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 01.09.2020 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. Although the design is broadly acceptable, the size, shape and layout of the site together with the lack of suitable amenity space for occupiers and the lack of a pleasant outlook indicate that the proposal is an inappropriate backland development and would result in over- development of the site. As such it is considered contrary to policy GP2 (b, c & h) and Environment Policy 42.
R 2. Given the relationship of the proposed dwelling to the site and locality by reason of its siting, scale and layout the proposed development would adversely affect the character of the locality in that it would alter the existing setting of the area when viewed from Derbyhaven Road which would be contrary to General Policy 2 (b) and (c). __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE 1.1 The site is part of the curtilage of a dwelling - The Herring House which sits on the western side of Fort Island Road in the group of dwellings which sit to the south of Derbyhaven Road to the north. The highway is narrow with most dwellings sitting right onto the highway. The site also includes open land across Fort Island road.
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/00498/B Page 2 of 13
1.2 This site, currently exists as a turfed area northwest of The Herring House (2) and is enclosed by high stone walls on its north west and eastern boundaries, while the southern boundaries has direct access to the existing concrete lane which serves The Herring House and the surrounding group of dwellings. There is an existing grassed access to Herring Houses on the northern boundary of the site. The western boundary fronts the Castletown Golf links, only separated by the private concrete lane.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current application seeks approval for the erection of a single two storey dwelling on the a rectangular parcel of land which forms part of the Herring Houses, including the removal of sections of the existing stone wall and the formation of a new access from the existing concrete lane which serves the main dwelling.
2.2 The new two storey, two bedroom dwelling with integrated garage will have its landscaping works and drainage. The works will also include a new vehicle access and pedestrian access onto the existing private lane (not a public highway).
2.3 The proposed dwelling will have a general footprint measuring around 8.3m wide x 19.5m long (about 149sqm). The dwelling will have its eaves set at approx. 5m high. The central roof ridge sits at approx. 7.1m and there would be 5 roof lights proposed on the rear roof slope. Two chimneys are also proposed; one on the northern gable end and one situated almost midway within the roof ridge.
2.4 Across the west facing elevation are three large areas of glazing including on the first floor, while two bi-folding doors, a patio door and windows will be installed on the ground floor. The garage door will also be installed on this elevation. A first floor terrace will be erection in front of the living area with views to the golf course. A rear access door and three windows would be installed on the ground floor of the east elevation (rear). There would be no windows installed on the first floor of the rear elevations or any of the side elevations.
2.5 Additional works would involve the removal of a 4m section of the existing western boundary wall which is about 2.4m high to create a vehicular access with sliding gate for the dwelling. Also, a 1.5m section of the wall would be removed opposite the main entrance to create a pedestrian opening that would have a gate. As well, an opening would be made on the stone wall that would be 6m long and 1.5m high from the top of the wall to create new opening with railings installed.
2.6 The applicants have provided the following information regarding the proposed access: The new access design was predicated on the principle that the existing garden wall remained in place to maintain the character of this locality and an opening created to allow a vehicle access and a pedestrian access out onto the private lane. The lane is in the private ownership of the family of the applicants and serves only a small number of dwellings and therefore only has a few vehicle accesses onto it. The number of vehicles having access along the lane is very low. The design of vehicle access to the double garage is on the same principle as for instance garages to new dwellings on Derby Square Lane or other similar residential developments on the Island where vehicle access to new dwellings is off a rear lane. In these residential developments the garages front directly onto the rear lanes (as it does here in our application) and car manoeuvring is done in the lane. In those locations it is important to maintain the character of the locality which is usually of high separating/party walls and high neighbouring rear garden walls, which affect visibility splays; just as it is in this location. As required, we have shown achievable visibility splay with X-distances of 2m and 2.4m, as design guidance allows for some x-distance flexibility in low-trafficked localities. The edge of the private lane is the edge of the gravel strip and the x-distances are set back from that edge. The lane can be seen in the photograph sheet enclosed with the application. We request this application be dealt with in the same manner as those in other lanes where vehicle activity is low and where
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/00498/B Page 3 of 13
maintaining the character of the area is an important consideration when creating new vehicle access and vehicle access from dwellings can be directly onto rear lanes.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South as Residential. Derbyhaven is one of 6 settlements identified in the Area Plan "Groups of Houses in the Countryside Survey 2009, describing it as "a group of dwellings clustered around the junction where the Castletown Road meets the Fort Island Road. It is a compact group, having a well- defined boundary with the Airport and the Golf Course. There are no public buildings, but there is a sense of place arising from its geographical position facing the largely natural harbour and the pleasant public foreshore. The group is clearly not sustainable, there is little or no scope for infilling, and the extension of the group into Airport or Golf Course land would be undesirable. Derbyhaven is not far enough from Castletown for there to be a valid argument for local housing need. Additional dwellings are not therefore proposed."
3.2 Based on the foregoing, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant:
3.2.1 Paragraph 7.34.1 7.34.1 Every settlement in the Island has its own individual character and identity which needs to be conserved and enhanced. If such characteristics and qualities are not to be lost, any new development must be appropriate to the locale in terms of scale, siting, design, relationship with other buildings and land uses. Area Plans should identify important spaces within settlements, whether in the form of village greens, squares or areas which simply add to the attractiveness and interest of particular areas which have positive amenity value. It is important to the attractiveness and individuality of centres that over intensive development is avoided as well as the gradual merging of towns and villages in order to preserve a sense of identity and sense of place. In terms of existing settlements, in both rural and urban areas, new development will be expected to follow the following design principles. Development will need to:
i. be of a high standard of design, taking into account form, scale, materials and siting of new buildings and structures; ii. be accompanied by a high standard of landscaping in terms of design and layout, where appropriate; iii. protect the character and amenity of the locality and provide adequate amenity standards itself; iv. respect local styles; and v. provide a safe and secure environment.
"Backland development(2)" (which is development on the land at the back of properties) may also be acceptable in some circumstances, but only if satisfactory access can be achieved and if there is sufficient space to provide adequate amenity for both new and existing adjoining dwellings.
3.2.2 Environment Policy 42: 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 or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans.
3.2.3 Housing Policy 4: New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions (1) 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:
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/00498/B Page 4 of 13
(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.
3.2.4 Housing Policy 6: 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.
3.2.5 Section 8.8: Groups of Houses in the Countryside 8.8.1 There are in the countryside many small groups of dwellings which, whilst not having the character of, or the full range of services usually provided in a village, nevertheless have a sense of place and community. These groups are found variously at crossroads, in places sheltered by trees or topography or around chapels, abandoned mills or smithys.
8.8.2 Adding further dwellings to these groups may not accord with our strategic objectives relating to settlements and sustainability but may assist in meeting the need of rural areas; may maintain social and family associations and assist in sustaining the rural economy; and may reduce the pressure for purely sporadic and isolated development which the Department would not support. Such additions would also need to be sensitively related to the existing settlement pattern and the landscape.
8.8.3 In the most recent local and Area Plans, the Department has in fact identified a number of these opportunities and in future Area Plans all groups of houses in the countryside will be assessed for development potential by identifying the village envelope or curtilage and providing the opportunity for appropriate development within this area. There may be some settlements where no additional dwellings will be permitted. In considering the definition of this curtilage or envelope, particular regard will be had to the value of existing spaces in terms of their contribution to the general character of the settlement or to public amenity more generally. It is important; however that such development is controlled by the development plan process rather than as ad hoc decisions taken in isolation.
3.2.6 Strategic Policy 1: "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 space1 and amenity standards; and c) Being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."
3.2.7 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."
3.2.8 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:
a) Is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/00498/B Page 5 of 13
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; 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."
3.3 The Department has recently published the Residential Design Guidance (March 2019 revised in July of the same year to include illustrations) which provides advice on the design of new houses, alterations and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property.
3.4 Paragraph 1.2.3 "1.2.3 The way in which the other issues are considered may be different where a proposal relates to the development of a new dwelling(s) compared to a householder extension. Therefore, the approach to the design of new houses (whether single dwellings, larger schemes or new estates) should take account of the issues set out in Chapter 2 whilst targeted guidance on different types of extensions is provided in Chapters 3 and 4. There are some common concepts which may apply to all types of development, and these are set out in 5 (architectural details), 6 (the wider site) and 7 (impact on neighbouring properties). The impacts on neighbouring properties relates to both the impact of the development on existing nearby properties and, where a development would result in more than one property, the impact of the proposed dwellings on each other."
3.5 Further guidance which places particular emphasis on Local Distinctiveness in the assessment of development proposals is also provided in Section 2.2 of the Strategic Plan:
3.5.1 Section 2.2 LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS
2.2.1 The Strategic Plan (2016) states at paragraph 4.3.8,
"The design of new development can make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. Recent development has often been criticised for its similarity to developments across the Island and elsewhere - "anywhere" architecture. At the same time some criticise current practice to retain traditional or vernacular designs. As is often the case the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. All too often proposals for new developments have not taken into account a proper analysis of their context in terms of siting, layout, scale, materials and other factors. At the same time a slavish following of past design idioms, evolved for earlier lifestyles can produce buildings which do not reflect twenty first century lifestyles including accessibility and energy conservation. While there is often a
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/00498/B Page 6 of 13
consensus about what constitutes good and poor design, it is notoriously difficult to define or prescribe".
2.2.2 This document is intended to facilitate good quality design, and an important aspect of that is local distinctiveness. 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. 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.
2.2.3 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'. 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 or water features. 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.
2.2.4 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".
3.6 Applicable sections of the Area Plan for the South 2013 include the following:
3.6.1 Landscape Proposal 26: The character of the compact group at Derbyhaven arises largely from the setting between the foreshore and the green space of the airport and the golf course. Since the buildings are of mixed age, form, and style, there is no need to adopt prescriptive guidelines for extensions, but it is important to maintain the general coastal character as viewed on the approach from Castletown and from the pleasant green areas adjoining the bay.
3.6.2 Paragraph 5.17.3
5.17.3 The Department also considered suggestions that there should be new Conservation Areas encompassing Glen Chass, Earystane, Surby, and Derbyhaven. However, it concluded that in none of these cases was there sufficient architectural or historic interest to warrant designation as Conservation Areas. These small settlements nevertheless have a sense of place and, in each case, an identifiable character to which regard will be had when exercising development control. Some of these areas were assessed in a separate study for their potential to accommodate additional dwellings; the findings of this study are addressed in Section 4.10 on 'Groups of Houses in the Countryside.'
3.6.3 Landscape Proposal 22: The design of any new or replacement buildings on Langness should be such as not to increase significantly their landscape impact and should be so designed as to respect the location of, and facilitate public access to, the promontory fort on Langness known as Hango Broogh.
3.6.4 Langness (E11) The overall strategy is to conserve the character, quality and distinctiveness of the coastal area with its rich ecological habitats, open and expansive panoramic views, and to conserve the
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/00498/B Page 7 of 13
tranquil and rugged character of the area with its numerous sites of archaeological importance, such as the former mines and former smelt mines.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Whilst the particular site for the proposed development has not been the subject of previous planning applications, the property to which it belongs has been the subject of a number of applications which are considered relevant in the assessment of the current application.
4.1.1 PA 92/01015/B for Alterations and extension to provide first floor living accommodation, Herring House, Derbyhaven, Malew. (Refused)
4.1.2 PA 93/00068/B for Alterations and extension to provide first floor living accommodation, Herring House, Derbyhaven, Malew. (Refused)
4.1.3 PA 05/01218/B for Construction of an extension on first floor rear patio to replace existing greenhouse. (Approved) Note: The proposed dwelling would be built within the rear garden as the rear annex which was erected in this application. The new dwelling would be situated north-east of the annex and bear similar features.
4.2 Other relevant applications within the locality include:
4.2.1 PA 05/0475/B for Removal of existing garages and erection of a two storey dwelling. The application was approved by the Planning Committee on 11 July 2005, but refused on appeal.
Reason for refusal: The provisions for access would involve drivers of vehicles having limited visibility due to the existing roadside dwelling to the east and that vehicles would have either to reverse in or out of the parking spaces. The Inspector dismissed objections regarding unneighbourliness and over-development. Prior to that permission in principle was granted for a dwelling on the site under PA 92/1490. PA 93/0828 was a detailed proposal for the dwelling, refused for reasons relating to the bulkiness, height and poor detailing of the property.
4.2.1.1 The subsequent application, PA 07/02212/B; for Erection of a detached dwelling (Workshop & Boat Yard, Derbyhaven) - Approved but refused at appeal.
4.2.2 PA 12/01665/B for Demolition of existing garage and erection of a dwelling with garage. (Refused).
Reasons for Refusal: R 1. By reasons of its siting, scale, and layout the proposed development would not provide adequate amenity in itself in terms of outlook and would adversely affect the amenities of those occupying Holmcroft, Homestead, and 1 - 3 Haven Court which adjoin the site which would be contrary to General Policy 2 (b), (g) and (h).
R 2. The proposed dwelling would result in inappropriate backland development by reason of inadequate amenity in itself and the impact on the amenities of the existing neighbouring properties which would be contrary to Environment Policy 42.
4.2.2.1 The succeeding application PA 13/00503/B for Demolition of existing garage and erection of a new dwelling with integral garage and new entrance gates was later refused but approved at appeal on August 2014.
==== PAGE 8 ====
20/00498/B Page 8 of 13
The Inspectors Conclusion: "43. I have concluded above that the proposal would be satisfactory in terms of its character and appearance; its effect on living conditions for the existing and future residents and that parking and access are acceptable. Although this is a backland site the design of the proposal has been carefully considered and, although it will have some impact for existing residents I am satisfied that this particular proposal will not result in an inappropriate or harmful backland development. I consider, therefore, that the appeal should be allowed."
4.2.2.2 The above application has been followed by PA 20/00319/B for Erection of a detached dwelling with carport. (Pending consideration by the Planning Committee, although the application is recommended for approval).
Note: Approval was granted for the erection of a detached dwelling under PA 13/00503/B on the site, which was approved at appeal. The dwelling was described as being of innovative design with a below ground garage, ground level bedroom wing and living space half a level above, the building being one and half storey with a maximum roof height approx. 6m. The central section was to be pitched roof with the north and south ends being flat-roofed with one forming a terrace. The building detailed in stone and painted render. The Inspector concluded that the proposal would be satisfactory in terms of character and appearance, its effect on living conditions for existing and future residents and parking and access were acceptable. Although a backland site the design had been carefully considered and although having some impact for existing residents this will not result in inappropriate or harmful backland development. The Minister concurred with the Inspector and the application was approved.
The Officer's conclusion for the above application states thus:
"CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall it is concluded that the proposed dwelling presents an equally acceptable if not an improvement to the dwelling already under construction under PA 13/00503/B. The modifications result in a dwelling with a smaller footprint, and its overall design is well- considered and to some degree likely to reduce the amenity impact on the adjacent neighbours particularly Haven Court, Holmcroft and Homestead by reason of its alternative positioning and revised design with a consistent pitched roof and the predominantly glazed elevation facing towards the golf workshop. The access and driveway works are considered to be acceptable and not to cause harm to local highway safety, highway services have recommended conditions relating to the need for the access works to the junction being undertaken, the driveway parking, turning areas and car port being provided prior to occupation of the dwelling. The matters relating to surfacing and drainage are covered by building control and the Highways Act and the provision of electric vehicle charging points is not a mandatory requirement as part of the strategic plan and it would be the applicants decision if the wish to install these and which can be done under the Permitted Development amendment Order 2019."
4.2.3 PA 17/01312/B for Erection of a replacement dwelling with associated access and parking. This was refused in March 2018 and refused on appeal in November 2018.
"Inspector's assessment 47 I consider the main issues in this case to be first, the principle of the proposed development; second its effect on the character and appearance of this area; third, its effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents; and fourth its effect on the neighbouring golf course.
"Principle of development 48 The appeal site is in an area zoned for residential use in the Area Plan for the South. The principle of erecting a replacement for the existing dwelling on this site is clearly acceptable.
==== PAGE 9 ====
20/00498/B Page 9 of 13
However, in Appendix 4 of the Area Plan, Derbyhaven is defined as a 'group of houses in the countryside'. To my mind, this indicates that Skeddan Veg must be regarded as being in the countryside - the definition cannot reasonably be construed in any other way. In view of this, I do not understand why the Planning Authority considers Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan to be irrelevant to the present case. That policy comes within a section of the Strategic Plan which is headed 'Replacement Dwellings in the Countryside'."
Character and appearance 50 Landscape Proposal 26 of the Area Plan for the South notes that the existing buildings in Derbyhaven are of mixed age, form and style. While it says that there is no need to adopt prescriptive guidelines for extensions, it attaches importance to the need to maintain the coastal character of this area, particularly as viewed on the approach from Castletown, and from the pleasant green areas adjoining the bay.
51 In view of its height and mass, its modern design (featuring mono-pitched and flat roofs) and the proposed palette of construction materials (including extensive areas of glass, metal and timber cladding) I consider that the proposed replacement building would be a conspicuous feature in the local scene. It could be regarded as adding an element of architectural interest to Derbyhaven, although opinions on that point may well differ.
52 However, the replacement dwelling would extend across a wider part of the appeal site than the existing building, and would partially obstruct a view of the sea across this land from the public footpath on the golf course. In my judgement, this would detract from the coastal character of the area, and the scenic quality of the golf course, contrary to Landscape Proposal 26 of the Area Plan, and General Policy 2(c) and (e) of the Strategic Plan. For the same reason, I consider that the scale and layout of the proposed building would fail to respect its surroundings, contrary to General Policy 2(b) of the Strategic Plan. The proposed development would also contribute to the visual amalgamation of roadside housing in Fort Island Road, contrary to paragraph 3.23(v) of the Area Plan.
Recommendation 60 I recommend that the appeal be dismissed and that the decision to refuse planning approval should be upheld for the reasons previously given, and for the following additional reason:
3 As Derbyhaven is classed as 'a group of dwellings in the countryside' in Appendix 4 of the Area Plan for the South, the proposed development would entail the replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside. However, the proposed replacement house would be substantially different to the existing dwelling, Skeddan Veg, in terms of its size. In particular it would have a much larger footprint than the existing building, and its floor area would be more than 50% greater, contrary to Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016."
4.2.4 PA 17/01326/B for Erection of a dwelling with associated parking and alterations to access. (Under Consideration)
Note: Some of the neighbours and Malew Parish Commissioners object to the application.
The Malew Parish commissioners made the following comments: "The application does not overcome the reasons for the refusal in the inspector's report for a previous application on the site, PA 07/02212/B. In particular the proposal would have an adverse effect on the outlook from the rear of Holmcroft and Homestead. Also there is a lack of amenity space around the proposed dwelling."
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
==== PAGE 10 ====
20/00498/B Page 10 of 13
5.1 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division have made the following comments regarding the application in the letter dated 9 June 2020:
The proposed pedestrian and vehicle access are to be taken from a shared surfaced private lane and arguably the red line should be extended to the public road and Derbyhaven Road. With other planned dwellings this lane would serve more than five dwellings and other premises, but it is unsuitable for adoption as public highway. It is noted that there is an established right of access for Herring Houses. A satisfactory junction improvement at Derbyhaven Road is proposed under 17/01326/B that would be of benefit to this proposal and would be required for any new dwelling or additional premises should 17/01326/B not proceed. A Grampian style condition may be appropriate.
The proposed vehicular access is of sufficient size. It is intended to provide a separate pedestrian path. There is adequate visibility in each direction. Sight lines at a 2.0m set back are adequate for a low speed and volume private route.
The proposed integral garage is smaller than recommended dimensions where an internal dimension of 6 x 6m applies for a double garage, but is suitable for car parking for two vehicles to comply with standards. It should be provided with an electric vehicle charging point and retained for its stated purpose. Given the size of the proposed garage, a separate facility for the storage of bicycles and other items should be provided. There is space for the storage of waste bins. Collection of waste should be verified; this could be from the public highway and a collection point may need establishing.
The proposed increase in movements in addition to those planned is unlikely to give rise to significant road safety issues with an enhancement planned at the junction of Derbyhaven Road and the private lane under a separate proposal. Consideration should be given to this improvement being considered for this site too to ensure its deliverability. There are unlikely to be material highway network efficiency issues.
Accordingly, the proposal satisfies highway requirements allowing Highway Services to raise no opposition. Conditions should be applied to cover the pedestrian and parking areas, including access, sight lines at 2.0m setback, car-parking, retention of a garage, provision of bicycle parking, ECVP and separate waste bin storage. A Grampian style condition for the junction improvement should be provided to ensure its deliverability.
5.2 Malew Parish Commissioners have made the following comment regarding the application in a letter dated 25 June 2020:
The Commissioners are concerned that the above proposed applications represents over development of the site, in particular as PA 20/00319/B on the adjacent site has yet to be determined. Similar questions are raised for this application in relation to the shared access.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of the application are whether the principle of the development is acceptable; whether the development adversely affects the character and appearance of the area or the amenity of local residents; whether the development makes acceptable provision for parking and access onto the public highway and whether the latter is capable of accommodating further traffic and finally whether the dwelling has adequate amenities in itself.
6.2 The principle of development
6.2.1 Whilst the site lies within an area designated as predominantly residential, there is a clear indication in the Area Plan that there is no specific provision for further dwellings in this
==== PAGE 11 ====
20/00498/B Page 11 of 13
settlement. The site lies within the defined settlement and could arguably be considered as an infill site.
6.2.2 To the north of the application site (north of Derbyhaven Road) is an area of land that was subject to another application for a residential dwelling that was considered prior to adoption of the Area Plan for the South (Ref12/00087/B). Although a different site, there are similarities between them, notably the land allocation, and its location to the rear of existing dwellings. That application was recommended for approval, although the principle of the development was a material consideration at the time. The approval was appealed and the Inspector, in her report looked at the sustainability of the site. The Inspector's report, paragraph 27 states:
"I have been mindful of the sustainability of the site, a concern of the Inspector who conducted the Inquiry into the Area Plan for the South. Derbyhaven has few local facilities, although King William's College is within walking distance, and Castletown and the airport are only 2km away. Strategic Policy 1 of the IOMSP seeks to make best use of resources by, amongst other things, optimising the land use of under-used land. The grass field that constitutes the appeal site appears to be under-used. It could therefore be argued that its proposed use would be sustainable." The acceptability of residential development was, as the Inspector said reached 'largely because of the site's Predominately Residential designation in the 1982 Plan'.
6.2.3 The principle of residential development is not a given, the Area Plan for the South sets out that Derbyhaven is not sustainable (despite the previous Inspector's comments) and that no additional dwellings are proposed. However, the site is within the predominantly residential use zoning that recognises the general existing land use and is within the Derbyhaven settlement boundary. On balance then, it is felt that there is no objection to the principle of development based on zoning principles only. Whether development is acceptable would therefore rest on the impact of the development.
6.3 Impact on the character and appearance of the area
6.3.1 In terms of any impact on the area, the decision to erect a dwelling on the site is considered to be unobjectionable; however there are concerns about the site size and layout, and the massing of the proposed development, as set out below.
6.3.2 It is considered that due to its mass and height, the building would stand out and be particularly noticeable when viewed from Derbyhaven Road. Whilst the new dwelling mirrors the design of the rear annex on the Herring Houses, which would ensure that it blends into the rear street scape, its height and massing which would be similar to the existing rear annex would make it a significantly dominant backland development set up within a small site area; resulting in a conspicuous feature in the local scene. This concern regarding its massing is highlighted by the Malew Commissioners who have stated that the proposed application represents over development of the site.
6.3.3 The creation of the gap within the stone wall to enable the installation of new railings on the boundary wall by the access lane would introduce a feature that is absent within the street scene as viewed from Derbyhaven Road. Granting the opening to create the vehicle access is considered to be acceptable in that such openings serving vehicular access exists, the half opening of the wall for the railings would be a significant alteration to the stone wall as there are no such openings on the entire stretch of the stone wall which contributes to the views obtainable along the lane (See 2.6 above). For these reasons it is considered that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the character or appearance of Derbyhaven and would be contrary to GP 2 (c & g).
6.4 The amenities of those in the proposed dwelling
==== PAGE 12 ====
20/00498/B Page 12 of 13
6.4.1 With regard to the provisions for the amenities of future occupants of the proposed dwelling, it is noted that the garden space provision would be considerably low. The application would only provide about 67sqm of constrained space at the rear of the dwelling which would be overlooked by all of the adjacent properties to the extent that the occupants of the new dwelling would have almost no actual or perceived privacy since the garden space would be less than 20m from these dwellings (although this is a residential area of two-storey properties, where a degree of overlooking of back gardens is to be expected).
6.4.2 There is limited outlook from the garden due to the height of the walling around the garden which rises to about 2.4m; a condition that helps reduce inter-visibility at ground floor level. It is also considered that the amenity space in front of the bedrooms would only be 3m wide at the widest section (with the 2.4m stone wall dominating the views from the bedrooms). As such, it is considered that there would be limited outlook from these bedrooms even though a 6m wide opening would be created on the stone wall directly adjacent these bedrooms.
6.4.3 Another key consideration is the previous decision regarding a similar application within the vicinity of the application site (only separated by a garage and grassed access from the application site); PA 12/01665/B. This application for a site which is similar to the application site in terms of its site characteristics and zoning was refused for reasons of inadequate amenity in itself, even though it made better amenity space provisions. Based on the foregoing, it is not considered that the current application warrants approval minding its amenity space provisions are meagre when placed in comparison with PA 20/01665/B which had better parking and turning area provisions, better garden space provisions and better access and visibility; but was refused for failing to provide adequate amenity space provisions. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to GP2 (b, c, & h) of the Strategic Plan and Landscape Proposal 22 and 26 of the Southern Area Plan 2013.
6.5 Impact on neighbouring dwellings
6.5.1 With regard to possible impacts on neighbouring dwellings, it is not considered that the impacts would be such that would warrant a refusal of the development. The proposed dwelling would be about 19m from Cronk Beg and the Herring Houses (the closest residential dwellings) and there would be no windows on the rear elevation and side elevations of the proposed dwelling on the first floor level. Therefore, it is not considered that there would be overlooking of the adjacent properties from the proposal. It is also noted that the angled position of Cronk Beg from the application site and the separating distance between the dwelling and the Herring Houses would ensure that the impacts on outlook would be minimal.
6.6 Parking and access
6.6.1 The proposal makes provision for the parking of two vehicles within the attached garage, accessed via the rear concrete lane. The site layout is such that there are no turning spaces within the site so vehicles would have to back out onto the rear lane or reverse before backing into the garage; a condition that is likely to be detrimental to highway safety. However, the access lane is a private access only serving a few properties and as such it is not considered that this would be unacceptable.
6.6.2 With regard to the visibility when exiting the site onto the access lane, it is considered that this is partly constrained by the 2.4m high stone wall on the site boundary. The wall would limit views for drivers exiting the site and make it difficult for drivers to see approaching pedestrians and vehicles when existing in a forward direction. Albeit, this is considered acceptable in that the site would be linked to a private lane with very low speed limits for vehicles. Besides, Highways have stated that the proposed vehicular access is of sufficient size with the proposed visibility splay adequate for a low speed and volume private route. As such, it is considered that proposed access complies with policy GP2 (h).
==== PAGE 13 ====
20/00498/B Page 13 of 13
CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, although the principle, design, highway impacts and impacts on neighbours are acceptable, the size, shape and layout of the site together with the impacts on the character of the locality and lack of suitable amenity space indicate that the proposal is an inappropriate development and over-development of the site. Since Planning Officers cannot recommend split decisions on planning applications, even though some elements of the proposal are acceptable, the whole application is recommended for refusal due to the elements which fail to comply with the relevant policies.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 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.
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 above who should be given Interested Person Status __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 18.09.2020
Determining officer Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett
Principal Planner
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