Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/00034/B
Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/00034/B Applicant : Mrs Valerie Stevens Proposal : Erection of a dwelling Site Address : Land Abutting Palace Road, Rear Of 25 Falcon Cliff Court Douglas Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 28.01.2016 Site Visit : 28.01.2016 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL.
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is an almost-rectangular-shaped parcel of land located to the north of Palace Road in Douglas, just before the highway turns northwestern towards its junction with Victoria Road.
1.2 The site is, at present, the garden associated with 25 Falcon Cliff Court, which is an end- terrace dwelling and which overlooks the highway and follows the line of it before the highway curves away. The boundary with the highway is formed of a low stone wall with vegetation above, particularly prominently at the southern corner of the site. The highway is roughly 4m lower than the finished floor level of 25 Falcon Cliff Court at the southern corner of the site and, with the vegetation along the boundary, the terrace is very well-screened from the road when viewed from the south. Conversely, it is actually quite prominent when viewed from the north; the difference in height reduces to roughly 3m the further northeast one travels, while there is far more limited vegetation in the gardens associated with the remainder of the terrace.
1.3 The streetscene is varied but generally attractive, well-maintained and offers predominantly traditional and interesting architecture, especially on the southwestern approach to the application site. Immediately adjacent are a pair of office uses but residential is predominant.
1.4 From the southwest, the southeastern side of the highway is open and allows views over Douglas Bay while northwestern side has four- and five-storey traditional Victorian buildings along with the occasional modern interpretation of this vernacular. From this point on, the highway benefits from trees lining both sides and acting to provide something of a 'green corridor'; lower level buildings on the northwestern side are then visible through these trees.
1.5 At the point of the application site, to the immediate east, is the Registered Falcon Cliff Hotel, currently occupied by the Maitland Group, and which presents a single storey, crenellated aspect to the highway. The other building on this side of the highway is a relatively modern block of flats, constructed in a similar style to the Falcon Cliff Hotel. Those Falcon Cliff Court buildings that front on the Palace Road highway from the west / northwest are all three storeys in height and finished in a mixture of red brick, timber or uPVC cladding and render and of a fairly inauspicious
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/00034/B
Page 2 of 7
architectural style not uncommon to the 1970s. These dwellings are considered to be the least successful form of built environment in this area.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a detached dwelling. The flat-roofed dwelling proposed would be part single but predominantly double storey and would be cut into the site such that the side and rear elevations at the ground floor would be entirely windowless. The front elevation would offer five sets of triple-panelled French doors, with parking for three vehicles in front on an area of hardstanding. The single storey element would provide for bedroom 2 at ground floor level and a garden terrace above. Aside from the parking area, this is the sole outdoor amenity space that would be provided to the dwelling. Planters are shown to the rear and front. The existing trees on the edge of the boundary are annotated as "to be cut back / Managed as required to Forestry Dept satisfaction".
2.2 No details of the finish or colour for any part of the dwelling have been shown on the drawing; a covering letter with the application indicates that the non-glazed elements would be of a smooth render finish, painted white.
2.3 A section drawing has been provided identifying that the roof of the proposed dwelling would be 1.9m above finished floor level within 25 Falcon Cliff Terrace, and at a distance of 10.7m away.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 The site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications for various forms of development, many of which have proved controversial, although the majority were submitted a little while ago.
3.2 Applications for an extension (PA 12/00865/B) to 25 Falcon Cliff Terrace was approved following a refusal (02/02428/B) and subsequent approval (02/02428/B) for a car port at the side, southwesterly elevation. The 2012 approval allowed for the construction of an extension above the existing car port. This approval has not been implemented.
3.3 Prior to this and of perhaps more direct relevance to the determination of the current proposal is the application submitted seeking Approval in Principle for a single dwelling (01/00751/A), following which concomitant applications were submitted for the erection of two apartment blocks, each providing three flats (00/01254/A and 00/01255/A), and also the Approval in Principle (00/01256/A) for six garages on the site. All four of these applications were refused.
3.4 PA 01/00751/A was refused for a single reason:
"Falcon Cliff Court is a complete, mature, residential area, characterised by a neat arrangement of buildings and spaces; the proposed building would affect adversely
(a) the outlook from, the privacy of, and the sense of space around nearby buildings; and (b) the overall character of Falcon Cliff Court."
This application was taken to appeal, with the Inspector commenting inter alia as follows:
"In my view the generally attractive environment of Falcon Cliff Court is largely dependent upon the layout of the various terraces of houses and the spaces between them. The appeal site at the end of a cul de sac provides a very important break in development and an open space between 25 Falcon Cliff Court and Fernleigh House which fronts Palace Road at a substantially lower level.
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/00034/B
Page 3 of 7
"By extending the terrace, the proposed development would result in an undesirable increase in the length of the terrace and the loss of that break and open space. In my view the loss of that open area would be significantly detrimental to the appearance of Falcon Cliff Court both from within the estate and from Palace Road. The proposal would also bring the flank wall of the terrace substantially closer to the boundary with Fernleigh House, some metres above the level of that property, thereby resulting in a seriously dominating and overbearing and unsatisfactory relationship between these properties which are of very different character.
"I have taken account of all the other matters raised including the sewer diversion works and the substantial engineering works that would be required to retain the substantial change in ground level on the boundary with Fernleigh House. While these may be resolvable I have no doubt that the execution of these works would have an adverse effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents and the occupiers of the neighbouring property."
3.5 PA 00/01254/A was refused on Review for a single reason:
"By virtue of the additional building, the loss of garden space, and the increased activity (particularly the parking), the proposed development would have an adverse effect on the existing houses of Falcon Cliff Court."
3.6 PA 00/01255/A was refused on Review for a single reason:
"There would be insufficient clearance to other existing buildings and to the highway and insufficient space within the site to accommodate satisfactorily as many as 3 dwellings."
3.7 PA 00/01256/A was refused on Review for a single reason:
"The appearance of the proposed garage block (as viewed from the highway) is likely to be poor; in the absence of any obvious need for private garaging in the immediate area, the garages are likely to be used for other activities such as mending cars, storage, or workshops; these uses would be detrimental to the character of the area, and would be likely to exacerbate the poor appearance."
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 The site falls within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Douglas Local Plan 1998.
4.2 The relevant policies from the Strategic Plan are, therefore, General Policy 2, Housing Policy 6, Environment Policy 42, and Transport Policies 4 and 7. The first three policies set out general development criteria as well as more specific expectations of the design of new dwellings. TP4 and TP7 require that new highways should enable journeys generated by development to be accommodated in a safe and appropriate manner, as well as requiring that 2 parking spaces per dwelling can be provided.
4.3 It is also worth noting the text of Strategic Policy 1, in full: "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 and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/00034/B
Page 4 of 7
5.1 On 15th January 2016, Highway Services offered no objection to the proposal: "Visibility splays of 2.4 x 36 metres can be achieved from the proposed access. Nothing must be planted or erected within the splays which may exceed 1.05 metres in height."
5.2 Douglas Borough Council offered no objection to the proposal on 2nd February 2016.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 While the development plan zoning indicates that the principle of new residential development here is acceptable, it is equally noted that there has been an application seeking Approval in Principle on this site in the past, which was refused. That application was submitted after the adoption of the Douglas Local Plan but before the adoption of the Strategic Plan, and so the wording of Strategic Policy 1(a) is particularly noted.
6.2 The acceptability of the principle of this proposal, though, is considered to be closely linked to its detail. As such, the key issues are the extent to which the design is appropriate in itself and also for the streetscene, the impact of the proposal on neighbouring dwellings, and the impact of the proposal on highway safety.
The extent to which the design is appropriate in itself and also for the streetscene
6.3 The depiction of the streetscene as set out earlier in this report set out its attractiveness in both its built and natural form. The presence of a Registered Building adds a certain grandeur to the area, while the number and maturity of trees lining the highway provides a leafy and green setting that in many ways underpins its attractive character. The loss of the trees at the southern corner of the site would result in the imposing, three-storey terrace of Falcon Cliff Terrace becoming much more prominent within the streetscene. This, in view of the terrace being amongst the least successful elements of built form here, would be unfortunate.
6.4 It is also true that the design of the dwelling would not comfortably fit into this environment. Its square and simple form is bespoke and this, as a general principle, is always welcome. However, its design feels somewhat directed to the point of contrivance by the need to minimise the impact on neighbouring living conditions. The design, though potentially appropriate in the right historic context, could not be said to either reflect or positively contribute through high quality design to the existing streetscene. Although the agent indicates that "similar sites i.e. Cliff top location, have resulted in imaginative designs of this nature on the Island and other locations beyond", no specific sites have been identified and so it is not immediately clear what is being referred to. Irrespective of this, though, and having regard to the specific circumstances of the application site, it remains the case that the application fails to demonstrate that the design proposed is acceptable in and of itself. It is therefore considered that the proposal applies fails to comply with parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2 and also Environment Policy 42.
6.5 The supporting text to the latter also goes into some detail with respect to what is meant by tandem and backland development, and how the Department would view such proposals:
""Backland development" (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."
"Tandem development" (consisting of one house immediately behind another, and sharing the same access) is generally unacceptable because of the difficulties of access to the house at the back, and the disturbance and lack of privacy suffered by the house in front."
In this case, although either phrase might be considered applicable to differing degrees, and also being mindful that to some people what is proposed might be considered 'frontland' development given the nature of the site, the key issue is the extent to whether or not what is proposed
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/00034/B
Page 5 of 7
represents an appropriate form of development rather than how best to define it. EP42 states: "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."
6.6 It has already been concluded that the proposal would have a negative impact on the streetscene. While the proposed dwelling would have its own frontage and access, it would also have inadequate outdoor amenity space. Moreover, the relationship between the new dwelling and the existing terrace would be uncomfortably close, even if it would be set into the landscape rather than atop it. It is fully acknowledged that only 2 metres of the proposed dwelling would be visible above the land level, but there would be 9.9m of building line running along the rear boundary - at a distance of 10.6m from the rear building line of nos. 15-25 Falcon Cliff Terrace (odd numbers only) - and this would likely be perceived, somewhat on balance, as being uncomfortably close to the existing dwellings. All of this is such as to conclude, and taking something of a precautionary principle, that the proposal has failed to clearly demonstrate that a new dwelling in this location and of the design proposed would not represent inappropriate backland development. This represents a reason to refuse the application.
The impact of the proposal on neighbouring dwellings
6.7 Some care has clearly been taken to minimise the impact on neighbouring dwellings, and this is welcome. However, and this has been identified above, the mere presence of the proposed dwelling is likely to result in an uncomfortable relationship between the new and existing dwellings to the extent that it would result in a harmful reduction in the enjoyment of private land associated with nearby dwellings. At present the land falls away in a southeastern direction and provides a sense of openness for the dwellings, which will be reduced to some extent by the proposed dwelling, which would sit just 8.5m from the rear of no.25 to the northwest. While the primary dwelling to be affected by the proposal is owned by the applicant, this does not in itself make the application acceptable. It is also noted that the applicant does not reside at, and instead leases, the property. The proposal would also affect other dwellings in the terrace.
6.8 There would unlikely be any loss of light from the proposal. The outlook from Falcon Cliff Court dwellings will not be significantly harmed, either. However, the issue at hand is more the relationship that would result between the existing and proposed. The fact that the new dwelling would represent new built form within the garden area of the terrace would reduce the comfort with which people might wish to use their gardens.
6.9 For the same reasons as outlined in paragraph 6.6, it is considered that the proposal would result in a sufficiently uncomfortable relationship between the proposed and existing dwellings to warrant an objection. The use of the gardens and the fact of the proposed dwelling's mere presence so close to the dwellings behind would, it is considered, be of a mass and in a location such as to have an unduly harmful impact on the general amenity of the, in particular, nos.23 and 25 Falcon Cliff Terrace. As a result it is concluded that the proposal fails to demonstrate that it does not represent inappropriate backland development and therefore it cannot be said to comply with Environment Policy 42.
The impact of the proposal on highway safety
6.10 Highway Services advised separately that the loss of the on-street parking is of no concern. Though there is limited on-street parking in the area, it is understood that supply and demand is in something of a balance inasmuch as the nearby office workers occupy the spaces during the day while returning residents occupy them during the evening. The Highway Engineer further commented that they view the highway as a highway primarily and a car park as a separate bonus. The visibility that can be provided along the direction from which traffic would (or should) be coming is sufficient, and therefore they have offered no objection. They also welcome the three on- plot parking spaces.
==== PAGE 6 ====
16/00034/B
Page 6 of 7
6.11 The position of Highway Services is understood, although equally the loss of on-street parking is unfortunate. However, even without a parking survey, it is considered that the proposal would not have such a severe impact on highway safety or parking provision as to warrant the application's refusal.
Other matters
6.12 It should be considered as to whether or not there are any material planning considerations that overcome the concerns raised. Strategic Policy 1(a) requires that more efficient use of land be made. If Falcon Cliff Terrace were to be constructed today, the density would probably not be altogether different from its existing situation; the provision of an extra dwelling here would not redress any balance in this respect and it is therefore not considered that this represents a sufficiently material consideration to weigh positively against the other concerns already raised.
7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
7.1 While the application is considered acceptable on a number of points, it remains the case that a dwelling in this location and of the design proposed fails to fit in comfortably with the existing streetscene, fails to demonstrate it will not have a negative impact on neighbouring living conditions, and therefore fails comply with the relevant policies of the Strategic Plan. It is therefore recommended that the application be refused.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o 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; o Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material, which in this case includes the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 08.02.2016
R 1. The dwelling proposed is of an inappropriate scale and form relative to the handsome and attractive streetscene in which it is proposed to sit. It would be actively harmful in an area that benefits from, and is characterised by, attractive Victoriana and a Registered Building. The proposal is therefore contrary to parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2 and also Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
R 2. The proposed dwelling would sit no more than 8.5m from number 25 Falcon Cliff Court to the rear. 25 Falcon Cliff Court lies at the end of a terrace of dwellings, and the proposed dwelling would harmfully reduce the enjoyment of the rear gardens of Falcon Cliff Court such that the relationship
==== PAGE 7 ====
16/00034/B
Page 7 of 7
between the proposed and existing dwellings would be unduly harmful. The proposal therefore represents inappropriate backland development contrary to part (g) of General Policy 2 and also Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
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 : ...REF... Committee Meeting Date:...15.02.2016
Signed :...E RILEY... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
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