Statement of Case on Behalf of the Applicant

PLANNING APPEAL STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPROVAL OF 25/90974/B FOR THE ERECTION OF A PAIR OF DWELLINGS TO REPLACE THE EXISTING, EAST VIEW, SULBY BRIDGE, SULBY, LEZAYRE IM7 2EU (RESUBMISSION FOLLOWING REFUSAL OF 24/00106/B AND 25/90189/B)

• 1.0 Introduction
• 1.1 This statement is prepared on behalf of the applicant in response to the appeal by the owners of 6, Carrick Park against the granting of planning permission in this case.
• 1.2 The reasons for the appeal have been given as follows:

• • THE INCLUSION OF A NORTH FACING BATHROOM WINDOW WHICH WILL OVERLOOK THEIR PROPERTY/REAR GARDEN WHICH IS A CLEAR INVASION OF THEIR PRIVACY
• • THERE IS INADEQUATE PARKING CONTAINED WITHIN THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT TO ACCOMMODATE VISITORS AND GROWING FAMILIES. A RECENT EVENT OF A BROKEN DOWN VEHICLE PARKED ON SULBY BRIDGE IS REFERRED TO WHICH RESULTED IN VEHICLES HAVING TO CROSS OVER THE WHITE LINE AND DIRECTLY INTO THE PATH OF ONCOMING VEHICLES
• • THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING WILL TAKE A CONSIDERABLE PERIOD OF TIME TO TAKE EFFECT AS A SCREEN FOR NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES
• • IF THE DEVELOPMENT IS TO BE PERMITTED, ADDITIONAL TREES SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE PLANTED ON THE BOUNDARY OF 6, CARRICK PARK TO ACT AS A BARRIER/SCREEN OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

• 2.0 RESPONSE TO THE REASONS FOR THE APPEAL
• 2.1 Bathroom window in the northern elevation

• 2.1.1 The inclusion of a window to serve this room was a requirement of the planning officer. The original scheme had a roof light serving this room however the planning officer was not satisfied that this would provide sufficient amenity for users of this room.
• 2.1.2 Whilst we struggled to understand this position, particularly given that other rooms within the proposal were served solely by roof lights, we amended the scheme to include a window serving this bathroom. We would not be averse to the replacement of this window with a roof light as was originally the intention.

• 2.1.3 Notwithstanding the above, the window has been designed so that it may only be opened towards the front of the property and restricted such that it would not be possible to look out onto any other property. The window would also be fitted with obscured glazing. All of these features prevent any overlooking of the adjacent property.
• 2.1.4 Whilst perceived overlooking is a material consideration, we would suggest that in this case, the obscured glazing, size of the window and lack of full outward opening would significantly reduce any impact of perceived overlooking from the adjacent garden to the point that this is not a justifiable reason for refusing the application.
• 2.1.5 We support the Planning Officer's position in respect of the development and would submit that the proposal now has no unacceptable impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent properties and satisfies General Policy 2 and the provisions of the Residential Design Guide.

2.2 Car parking provision

• 2.2.1 The Strategic Plan requires that each new dwelling should be provided with two parking spaces. There is no requirement for dwellings to accommodate additional spaces for visitors nor for any increase in the number of people who may occupy the building and own or drive a car.
• 2.2.2 The proposal is for two modest three bedroomed dwellings and each property has two parking spaces and space for turning. There is also storage facilities for bicycles.
• 2.2.3 We would submit that this is little different to any new dwelling and whilst this site is adjacent to a public highway, there are no parking restrictions which would prevent parking on the highway and this property is over 60m from the bend at Sulby Bridge. Whilst there may well have been an event when a vehicle was parked which resulted in vehicles having to cross the white line in the face of on coming traffic, if vehicles were to park on the highway in association with the proposed dwellings, they would be sufficiently far from the bridge and bend to provide adequate visibility of approaching vehicles for this not to be a highway issue.
• 2.2.4 The inspector considering the previous application discusses this following concerns raised by the local authority and concludes:

• 67. The Commissioners also raise concerns about parking provision and highway safety. However, two on-site parking spaces are proposed for each dwelling, in accordance with the standards set out in the Strategic Plan. The existing site access would be closed off and two new accesses formed, one at each end of the site frontage. As confirmed by Highway Services, who raise no objections on highway safety grounds, the visibility splays proposed are appropriate and there is sufficient space within the site to allow drivers to enter and leave in a forward gear. As for road closures during race periods, I am not persuaded that the net increase of one access to a single modest dwelling is likely to have a material impact in safety terms.
• 2.2.5 There is no objection from the Highway Services Division of Department for Infrastructure which is the statutory consultee on matters of highway safety and we would submit that there is no reason why these properties should be subject to a higher standard of parking provision than any other proposed new dwelling on the Island.

2.3 The efficacy of the proposed landscaping

• 2.3.1 We fully accept that newly planted trees and shrubs take time to take effect and mature and that it will be some time before they form a complete screen of the property. We would submit that what is proposed should not need to be screened as it is an attractive new building in a built up area.
• 2.3.2 However, the proposal involves the retention of the existing fence which abuts the thin strip of land owned by 7, Carrick Park which in turn sits next to the rear side boundary of number 6. As such, in order to plant new trees on the boundary of the rear garden of 6, Carrick Park, they would either have to be within the curtilage of number 6 itself or on land associated with number 7. None of this land is within the ownership or control of the applicant. Additional planting is proposed on the applicant's property, inside of the boundary fencing to reinforce this boundary and to add height to the boundary screening. There are also four new native trees proposed to be planted in the rear gardens.
• 2.3.3 The applicant is keen to introduce native planting but would accept a requirement to introduce non native and faster growing species such as the privet which is currently on site (and almost completely hides all of the existing cottage) although a mix of fuchsia, hazel, blackthorn and hawthorn all of which grow equally quickly (approximately 30cm per year) would be optimal as these are native species and benefit wildlife, and can be trimmed to prevent the hedge becoming overgrown.

• 2.4 Planting of trees or shrubs within 6, Carrick Park

• 2.4.1 It is our position that the proposed development will not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent property and as such we do not agree that additional planting should be required outside of the application site. Of course there is nothing to prevent any adjacent neighbour from introducing additional planting within their properties should they so choose but it is our position that they will not be obliged to to make our proposal acceptable.

2.5 Overdevelopment

• 2.5.1 It has been suggested by those who are not in support of the application that what is proposed represents overdevelopment of the site. We would reiterate that the increase in the number of dwellings on the site would optimise the use of this sustainable site so in principle satisfies Strategic Policy 1a. Whilst concern was previously expressed by the planning officer about overdevelopment of the site, the inspector concluded that:

• 53. I recognise that the proposed dwellings would be semi-detached, whereas the other dwellings here are mainly detached, but I see no harm in that. Indeed, a little further along Lezayre Road to the south, Lhen View and Holly Bank comprise a pair of semi-detached dwellings adjacent to the road. I also saw detached properties sitting quite happily next to semi-detached dwellings around the Sulby Bridge bend.
• 54. The proposed properties would be much smaller than the Carrick Park dwellings, but then Mill View and East View are already much smaller. Moreover, the building footprints of each of the proposed dwellings are not greatly dissimilar to the existing building footprint for East View. On that basis, albeit that they are semi-detached, the two dwellings proposed would not, in my view, result in any material harm to the established character or appearance of the area. In coming to that view, I am mindful that they would not be visually ‘hemmed in’: Mill View to the south is set some way off the shared boundary, separated by a single-storey detached garage building and vegetation. Moreover, the site is not adjoined by buildings to the north, the rear garden to No 6 Carrick Park separating it from Riverside, roughly 30m away. There are no buildings opposite either, the site facing open fields.

• 2.5.2 The principle therefore of the erection of a pair of semi detached houses here is acceptable.

• 2.6 Impact on and from flooding
• 2.6.1 We have provided an updated Flood Risk Assessment which confirms that the increase in floor area from the existing is 40 sq m. It also explains that the northern and western boundaries will continue to be bounded by fencing and the eastern and southern by stone walls.

• 2.6.2 It explains that, as was the case with the previous applications, that surface water is proposed to be either discharged to a soakaway or if tests prove unsatisfactory, to the main public surface water sewer located at the junction of the main road and Carrick Park. Attenuation prior to discharge to the main system was not previously required but could be provided. It is not thought that the existing dwelling is connected to the main surface water sewer and it is unlikely that any historic soakaways would still be functional and there is no evidence of any drainage channels at the entrance to the site nor any flood prevention measures on site.

• 2.6.3 We explained that the property as it currently exists benefits from Permitted Development which could result in the following additional floor area: up to 35 sq m of extension, up to 15 sq m of shed or summerhouse. It is also possible to increase the amount of paving within the site and there is no control over the erection of non permeable walling up to 1m or 2m depending on its location, within the property.
• 2.6.4 As such, the existing property could be extended and curtilage structures built such that the amount of floor area resulting from the proposed development could be achieved without any permission being required. Also, if impermeable walls were erected around the perimeter of all of the site which could exclude water from the site up to 477 sq m of site area.
• 2.6.5 This was all accepted by the Planning Office and the Flood Risk Division.

2.7 Impact on the streetscene

• 2.7.1 Whilst not given as a reason for the appeal, we are aware that there are still concerns about the visual impact of the proposed development. We believe that, as with the previous schemes, the proposed development incorporates the positive features of the surrounding area and will have a positive impact on the character and appearance of the area. It is important not to replicate existing buildings so that an area has no sense of identity and what

is proposed provides something that is both unique but sympathetic to its context. As such we would submit that the property satisfies General Policy 2b, c and g, Environment Policy 42 and Strategic Policies 3 and 5 as well as the design guidance in the RDG. This was accepted by the Planning Office.

• 2.7.2 The impact on the streetscene was considered by the inspector who concluded that:

• 56. For the most part, the walls would be painted smooth render. However, the gable end to Dwelling B, which would sit adjacent to the main road, would be of a more contemporary design. Half would be in timber/composite cladding and the other half would be recessed to provide for a small balcony area at first floor level, facing east. The recessed part of the gable would be fully glazed. To my mind, the treatment of the roadside gable adds interest to the elevation, creating profile and light and shade. I consider the proposed design to be visually attractive. Whilst this element of the scheme is different, it is sufficiently respectful of the character of the surrounding area so as not to appear jarring or incongruous.
• 57. All told, I consider that there would be no harm to the character or appearance of the area as a consequence of the size, design or density of the dwellings proposed. There would be no conflict, in this regard, with Strategic Policy 3(b), Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 (b), (c), (g) and (f) and Environment Policy 42, which together and among other things seek to protect the character, appearance and identity of an area. There would be no conflict either with the Residential Design Guide, which encourages good quality, contemporary design where it is informed by, and is respectful of, its context.

• 2.7.3 As we explained initially the current application retains the majority of the previous proposal in all but the northern elevation. The criticised appearance of this elevation has been improved by the introduction of a small projection which adds interest to the facade without adding additional opportunities for overlooking of the adjacent properties through the appropriate design and treatment of the only first floor window proposed in this elevation. We believe that this satisfactorily resolves the concerns of the planning officer in respect of this aspect of the previous application.

3.0 Conclusion

• 3.1 We would reiterate that we believe that the proposal optimises the use of this sustainable site in a recognised settlement in a way that is sympathetic to its surroundings and will provide two, thermally efficient dwellings which satisfy the requirements of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide whilst enhancing biodiversity through the introduction of new planting.
• 3.2 The amendments now proposed to the northern elevation will remove any opportunity for overlooking of the rear garden of 6, Carrick Park but will retain satisfactory amenity of the occupants of the northern dwelling, thus addressing the reasons for refusal of the previous application in those respects.
• 3.3 The Flood Risk Assessment has been updated to address the new flood risk maps and the reasons for refusal and concern expressed with the most recent application.
• 3.4 We believe that the proposal satisfies all of the relevant planning policies and represents an acceptable form of development which will enhance the streetscene and provide two well designed new dwellings in a sustainable location in an established settlement.
• 3.5 We fully understand that those who live next to the site would prefer that the existing mass and nature of building on the site is maintained and that something larger and comprising more units is not built. However, the existing cottage has outlived its useful life and what is proposed would represent a more efficient use of the site and would provide thermally and energy efficient properties which both have acceptable levels of amenity space and car parking. The planning policies which guide new development provide for the safeguarding of the amenities of those in properties surrounding it and we believe we comply with all of these requirement such that what is proposed will have an acceptable impact on the environment in full compliance with all of the relevant policies and guidance.

Sarah Corlett 20.03.26