188408

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 24/00051/B
                                 Page  1  of  13

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 24/00051/B Applicant : Mr Martin Gough Proposal : Demolition of existing derelict structure and garage and construction of a three storey dwelling with integral garage, associated parking, ground works and landscaping Site Address : Land Adjacent To Roy Cottage Bradda East Port Erin Isle Of Man

Photo Taken : 04.09.2024 Site Visit : 04.09.2024 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 24.01.2025

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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the wildlife bricks shall be installed in line with the Proposed Site Plan (Drawing No. P04 Rev E) and the Proposed Elevations (Drawing No. P03 Rev H), apart from the bat bricks which should be installed under the eaves on the east and west elevation of the property.

Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site.

C 3. Prior to the installation of the glass balustrades, a plan detailing the measures that are to be put in place to prevent wildlife strikes on the clear glass balustrades shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Measures could include use of etching, ultraviolet coatings or decals. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site.

C 4. Prior to the commencement of any works within 5m to the northern boundary of the site, details of protective fencing that would protect the retained northern boundary wall throughout construction works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Once erected they must be retained for the duration of the works. The protection measures may only be removed when the grading/turfing of the rear garden has been completed.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 24/00051/B
                                 Page  2  of  13

Reason: To protect the northern boundary wall in order to provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species in the locality.

C 5. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use unless the access, visibility, vehicular and pedestrian access and all parking areas, have been provided and surfaced in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans (Drawing No: P04 Rev E). Once provided, all visibility, access, parking areas shall thereafter be permanently retained as such.

Reason: To ensure the provision of a means of access, parking and turning space to an adequate standard in the interests of road safety.

C 6. Prior to the installation of external finishes and materials, a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

C 7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling, and no garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.

This approval relates to the following documents and drawings:

Planning Statement 2. Site Plan and Location Plan as Existing - Drawing P01; 3. Site Sections as Existing - Drawing P02; 4. Proposed Plans, Elevations and Section - Drawing P03 Rev H; 5. Proposed Site Plan - Drawing P04 Rev E; 6. Transport Note Prepared by HMTC (Highway Mann Transport Consultants and dated September 2023; 7. 3D Image - BE 001 08112024; and 8. Letter of Response to Consultations and Representations

__

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

The following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations: o Manx Utilities Drainage

The owners/occupiers of the following properties 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 4(2):

Caaghyr, Bradda East, Port Erin

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 24/00051/B
                                 Page  3  of  13

2. Minerva Cottage, Bradda Road, Port Erin previously Roy Cottage 3. Bradda Brae, Bradda East, Port Erin 4. Hillside, Bradda East, Port Erin

As they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.

The owners/occupiers of the following property should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

36 Knock Rushen, Scarlett, Castletown for Golden Eye, Bradda East, Port Erin, as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy.

The owners/occupiers of the following property should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

Tinsleys, Spaldrick, Promenade, Port Erin, as they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THERE ARE MORE THAN 4 OBJECTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, BUT THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site represents a parcel of land which is situated on the northern side of Bradda Road at Bradda East. The site which current has an existing derelict structure and garage sits between Minerva Cottage and Caaghyr, which are existing residential properties in Bradda East. The site which is currently covered in significant vegetation cover, slopes downward from north to south with the top of the rear garden sitting about 9m taller than the section of the land immediately adjoining the highway. The land currently slopes downward at a slope of about 18 - 20 degrees.

1.2 The street comprises a mix of modern and traditional styled two storey detached and semi- detached dwellings, and there is also a mix of finishes for the dwellings here, most of which have painted render finish in a light colour. The street scene has a varied range of designs, themes and character that reflect their age.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Demolition of existing derelict structure and garage and construction of a three storey dwelling with integral garage, associated parking, ground works and landscaping.

2.2 This split level dwelling would be about 9.4m tall from the ground level to the tallest section of its monopitch roof on the front elevation (about 600mm taller than the rear section). The ground and first floors will be 2.8m tall, while the second floor will be 3.7m tall. The core of the dwelling would be 12.1m long (on the front and rear elevations), and 12.2m wide when measured as a whole, although the stepped and split level layout would mean that each floor has a different width: ground floor - 7.4m, First floor - 8.3m, and Second floor - 10.8m. Its external walls would be

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                                 24/00051/B
                                 Page  4  of  13

finished in a mixture of through colour render and stone cladding. The hidden flat roof is to be finished in poly roof finish with standing seam zinc fascia.

2.3 The dwelling will have double glazed UPVC or Aluminium casement windows, while doors are to be composite doors. Garage is to have GRP up and over garage door. Rainwater goods are to be hidden gutters with UPVC or Aluminium hoppers and downpipes. The balconies are to have 1.1m high glazed balustrades, with 1.8 to 2m high slating top privacy screens on both sides.

2.4 The internal layout of the new dwelling will provide for a bedroom/study/hobby room, bathroom, utility, porch/hallway plant room, lift, and garage/store on the ground floor; three bedrooms with ensuite (all linked to the outdoor terrace in front), lift and stairs on the second floor; and an open plan lounge/dining/kitchen, pantry, WC/cloak, lift and stairs on the second floor.

2.5 The property will have an outdoor terrace to the rear with flag steps leading to an elevated rear garden which measures about 48sqm. There is a small font garden area which measures about 11.7sqm. The site layout also provides for two on-site parking spaces, and a wide pedestrian entrance path about 2.9m wide. Other works proposed within the scheme include erecting steps on both sides of the dwelling to provide access to the elevated rear terrace and garden, with walls on boundary with neighbours.

2.6 The demolition of the existing detached garage on site would not require planning approval. As such, it is not assessed as part of the current application.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific: 3.1.1 The site lies within an area designated as 'Predominantly Residential' on the Area Plan for the South 2013 (Map 7), and the site is not within a Conservation Area. The site is not prone to flood risks, or within a registered tree area, and there is no registered tree on site. The upper section of the garden area lies outside the defined settlement boundary.

3.3 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016) 3.3.1 The following Strategic Plan policies are also relevant: a. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. b. Environment Policy 4 - Protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites). c. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats d. Environment Policy 42 - new development should be designed to take into account the character and identity of the area. e. Housing Policy 4 - New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Refers to exceptional circumstances where new housing will be permitted in the countryside. f. 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. g. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources. h. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages. i. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to respect the character of our towns and villages. j. Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas. k. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact. l. Strategic Policy 10 - development should promote integrated journeys, minimise car use and facilitate other modes of travel. m. Spatial Policy 5 - new development will be in defined settlements only or in the countryside only in accordance with GP3.

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                                 24/00051/B
                                 Page  5  of  13

n. Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes important for new development. o. Transport Policy 7 - Parking considerations/standards for development. p. Community Policies 7, 10 and 11 provide guidance in respect of minimising criminal activity and reducing spread of fire, while Infrastructure Policy 5 deals with methods for water conservation.

4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Residential Design Guide (2021) 4.1.1 This document provides advice on the design of new houses 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 properties and sustainable methods of construction.

4.2 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025) 4.2.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The following previous applications for the site are considered relevant: a. PA 94/00791/A for Approval in principle for renovation of existing cottage - Refused. This was refused by the Planning Committee on 14.10.1994.

b. PA 97/01861/B for Erection of dwelling to replace derelict cottage between Roy Cottage and Caaghyr, Bradda East, Port Erin. This was approved on Review. This was however not implemented as the derelict building remains on site.

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 DOI Highways Division have made the following comments regarding the application (17 June 2024): o Previous Highways response dated 31/05 retained the request for an increase in the depth of the driveway parking spaces. The amendments submitted have done this by reducing the depth of the garage attached to the dwelling. The reduction in the garage means that there is added depth in the driveway in the form of 7m to the eastern side and 6m to the western side. This should be sufficient depth to ensure no overhang of the highway. The resultant reduction in depth of the garage to 5.5m means it is no longer sufficient to be classified as a separate parking space. o With the provision of two spaces on the driveway, the Strategic Plan minimum requirement of two spaces is met, with the garage not necessary to fulfil this. The space internally within the garage is sufficient for the storage of bicycles. o The proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services Development Control raises no objection to the proposal subject to all access arrangements to accord to Drawing No. P04 Rev D.

6.2 DOI Highways Drainage have made the following comments regarding the application (13 February 2024): o They note that the site is a very steep rock formation which will be impermeable so have a fairly high runoff. o They state that the design shows an acco drain across the bottom of the site, with storage, connecting into the combined sewer. o They question whether MU Drainage will be dealing with the drainage from the site.

6.2.1 Since receipt of the comments from DOI Highways Drainage, the applicants have submitted revised plans which includes changes to site drainage. However, no further comments have been received from DOI Highways Drainage.

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                                 24/00051/B
                                 Page  6  of  13

6.3 The DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team have made the following comments regarding the application (22 May 2024): o They confirm that they are satisfied with the details contained in the Proposed Site Plan (Drawing No. P04 Rev C) and the Proposed Elevations (Drawing No. P03 Rev C), which include bat, bird and bee bricks, retention of the boundary wall and new native planting, whilst stating that the native planting should be secured via a condition on approval. o They note that the locations of the bird and bee bricks look appropriate. However, express concerns about the proximity of the bat bricks to the clear glass balustrades and recommend that these are repositioned high up under the eaves on the east and west elevation. o Thy also highlight concerns about the potential impact on wildlife from the clear glass balustrades and therefore request that this be addressed with a condition. o They request that measures should be put in place to ensure that the northern boundary wall is retained and protected throughout construction works.

6.4 Manx Utilities Drainage have made the following comments regarding the application (15 April 2024): o They have no objection to the application subject to the following condition/s: o There must be NO discharge of surface water (directly or indirectly) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s) so as to comply with the requirements of Manx Utilities and the Sewerage Act 1999. o The proposed dwelling must be connected to the public sewer(s) in a manner acceptable to Manx Utilities. o All drainage works must conform to the requirements of "Manx Sewers for Adoption", any necessary CCTV surveys are to be carried out at the developer's expense. o In accordance with the Sewerage Act 1999, 1 communication fee will be payable to Manx Utilities Authority in respect each property being connected (directly or indirectly) to the public drainage system.

6.5 Port Erin Commissioners support the application (14 February 2024/14 June 2024).

6.6 The owners/occupiers of the following properties object to the application: 1. Caaghyr, Bradda East, Port Erin (27.2.24); 2. Minerva Cottage, Bradda Road, Port Erin previously Roy Cottage (23.02.2024/6.6.24); 3. Tinsleys, Spaldrick, Promenade, Port Erin (27.2.24); 4. Bradda Brae, Bradda East, Port Erin (28.2.24); 5. Hillside, Bradda East, Port Erin (1.3.24); and 6. 36 Knock Rushen, Scarlett, Castletown for Golden Eye, Bradda East, Port Erin (4.10.24)

6.6.1 They object to the application on the following grounds: o Loss of light to the detriment of residential amenity; o Overshadowing/loss of outlook; o Overlooking and loss of privacy; o Capacity of sewerage and water system; o Loss or effect on trees, plants, and ecology; o Road safety concerns; o Layout and density of building design, visual appearance and finishing materials; o Incorrect boundary lines and issues relating to legal boundary; o Flooding concerns; o Proposal is over-intensive, unneighbourly and incongruous; o Other highway matters such as introduction of yellow lines to control roadside parking; o Construction impacts on use of neighbouring properties; o Development does not respect character of site and surroundings. o Potential impact of excavation works on retaining walls and habitable areas.

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                                 24/00051/B
                                 Page  7  of  13

6.6.2 The applicants have provided comments as response to representations made by neighbours in a letter dated 11 June 2024.

7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to be considered in the assessment of the current application are: a. Principle of the proposed development; b. The potential visual impact on the site, street scene and townscape; c. The potential impact on neighbouring properties; d. Impacts on Parking and Highway Safety; e. Ecological Impacts.

7.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT (STP 1, SP2, HP4, & HP 6) 7.2.1 In assessing the principle of the proposed development, it is considered that the site is largely zoned for residential use which implies that the use of the site for residential purposes would be compatible with adjoining uses and conform to the general use of the area.

7.2.2 The site is also within the settlement boundary and adjacent to and surrounded by existing residential dwellings; conditions which would ensure that residential development here broadly aligns with Strategic Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4. The upper section of the site are which would largely support the garden lies outside the settlement boundary. However, the nature of the site area which would mean that the garden area cannot be detached form the zoned part of the site, and the fact that an established lane separates this garden area from the surrounding would mean that non-designated of this part of the site wold not be sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme.

7.2.3 Another factor that weighs in favour of the proposed scheme is the requirement in Strategic Policy 1 that developments optimise the use of previously developed land and ensure efficient use of sites (taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity) and that development should be located to make best use of planned and existing infrastructure, facilities and services; conditions which the proposed development would achieve given the extant ease of access to existing services and infrastructure within Port Erin. Whilst there is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed, it is considered that the principle of utilising this previously developed site for residential development would be more complimentary to the prevailing residential uses enveloping the site. Besides, the proposed development would ensure the revitalisation of a site which is currently unmanaged and in poor form, and help limit further decline of the site.

7.2.4 It is further considered that the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 seeks to locate new housing and employment close to existing public transport facilities and routes, or where public transport facilities are, or can be improved, thereby reducing the need to use private cars and encouraging alternative means of transport, and it is considered that the site would meet this goal, even though the site is not situated along the major public transport corridor. While the above does not signify a presumption in favour for all forms of housing development, it points to the fact the proposal would generally accord with the Strategic Plan goals for new housing on the Island.

7.2.5 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the use of the site for residential development would basically accords with the goals of Strategic Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, in terms of the acceptability of the principle of the development. The acceptability of the principle, however, does not in any way mean automatic approval for the proposed development, as the development of the site would have to be appropriate for the existing site character, character of locality and not result in adverse impacts on other attributes of the site, such as biodiversity, access and highway issues, and/or neighbouring amenity. Therefore, it still remains necessary to assess the proposed development against other relevant planning policies and the physical constraints of the application site.

7.3 VISUAL IMPACT ON THE SITE AND STREET SCENE (GP 2, STP 3, EP 42, & RDG 2021)

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                                 24/00051/B
                                 Page  8  of  13

7.3.1 With regard to the impact of the proposed development on the area, it is considered that the form, scale, appearance, and finishing which incorporates elements with render and stone finishes on the external walls, casement windows, large areas of glazing, glazed balconies, and largely light coloured appearance, would be in keeping with the character of the immediate locality and as such aligns with General Policy 2 (b), Strategic Policy 3 (b) and Environment Policy 42.

7.3.2 In terms of the size (footprint) of the dwelling and relationship with the spaces between the buildings which serve to define the character of the area, it is considered that the proposal respects the site character in this regard, as the scheme would fit with the topography of the site, and align with the general site layouts in the area which has no defined pattern given the varied mix of dwelling styles and sizes in the area.

7.3.3 As well, the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment, given the evident improvements in the appearance of the site when assessed against the context of the current situation, which is unmanaged and in poor form. Therefore, it is judged that the proposals would be an improvement on the existing form of the area and as such complies with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the IOMSP.

7.3.4 Granting, the new dwelling would still stand out and be particularly noticeable, given the topography of the site and the proposed number of floors, the new dwelling would fit in with the c character of the street scene with is varied in its current context. Moreover, the proposal would be reflective of its time when compared to the existing dwellings in the area.

7.3.5 Accordingly, the overall design, siting, layout, size, landscaping and finishes of the dwelling would all be acceptable and would create a pleasant housing development, without having significant adverse visual impacts to the amenities of the street scene, site or area.

7.4 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURS (GP2 & RDG 2021) 7.4.1 In assessing the potential impact on neighbours, the properties most likely to be impacted would be Minerva Cottage to the immediate west, with the distance between both elevations approximately 2m and Caaghyr (to the east) given that its west elevation would be situated about 4.2m from the new dwelling. With domestic extensions, generally three areas of amenity are assessed; the impact on privacy (overlooking), light (shadowing) and outlook (overbearing). The general guidelines for assessing these are set out in the Residential Design Guidance (July 2021), and will be referred to where necessary.

7.4.2 Impacts on Minerva Cottage, previously Roy Cottage 7.4.2.1 When considering the impacts on Roy Cottage, the key concern lies in the potential for overbearing impacts, loss of light and overlooking.

7.4.2.2 In assessing potential overbearing impacts for this neighbouring property, it is considered that although the proposal would introduce a new dwelling which is considerably larger than the historic dwelling that once existed on this site, with new floors that would be set taller than the existing dwelling, and within close proximity, the topography and layout of the area is such buildings are set close to each other and on varied site and dwelling levels, and this diminishes the argument that overbearing impacts would result. A review of the immediate locality would reveal that it is not uncommon to have elevated dwellings, garden areas and patio areas set so close to neighbouring properties and at dominating positions when viewed from existing windows. As well, the external wall of the new dwelling would not come closer than the existing western gable of the previous dwelling on site, with the low boundary wall which would replace the gable of the previous dwelling set considerably lower than the gable walls, and creating a clear visual break than the current situation where the walls and overgrown plantings creates an overbearing feel when viewed from this neighbouring property.

7.4.2.3 With regard to overshadowing, it is considered that remaining wall of the abandoned dwelling which once existed on site, together with the existing mature overgrowth which has

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                                 24/00051/B
                                 Page  9  of  13

colonised this wall casts significant shadows over the windows on the eastern elevation (dining) to this neighbouring property. Furthermore, the mature landscaping within the rear garden of Minerva Cottage creates significant overshadowing of the rear garden and dining room. These conditions would be significantly improved by the new development which would be set back further by about 300mm from the boundary (creating a 1.8m gap instead of the existing 1.5m gap), be set back from the front (south) boundary when compared with the existing built form still on site, and would remove the mature shrubbery over the boundary wall such that it would improve the lighting over the existing situation for this room and rear garden. The chances of overshadowing would be further diminished by the fact that the new dwelling would sit directly east of Minerva Cottage, where it is not expected that overshadowing would increase, as the impact of overshadowing will increase if the new property/extension is to the south of a neighbouring property as the sun's orientation is east to west (Paragraph 7.3.3 of RDG 2021).

7.4.2.4 Therefore, it is judged that although the potential for overshadowing and overbearing impacts exist, the extant site conditions which results in significant levels of overshadowing and overbearing impacts when viewed from Minerva Cottage, the stepped design of the new dwelling, and setback position from the front boundary, would serve to ensure that any impact is not so significant as to warrant refusal of the new scheme.

7.4.2.5 With regard to overlooking, the only element that would have introduced some form of overlooking here are the proposed balconies on the first and second floor levels. These would, however, be installed with a minimum 1.8m high obscure glazing to the sides which will prevent overlooking of this neighbour. In terms of any potential overlooking from the western window on the rear stair area, it is considered that the elevated position of this window relative to the ground level of the rear garden and dwelling, as well as the setback position from the boundary which is over 5m from the boundary would ensure that overlooking does not result from this window.

7.4.3 Impact on Caaghyr 7.4.3.1 In terms of the Impact on Caaghyr, it is noted that the built form on site would be considerably increased over the existing situation, with the new second floor set at about 2m taller than the existing sunroom on this neighbouring property. However, the new dwelling would be set at about 4.2m at the closest from this sunroom, with the distance increasing to about 5.4m due to the orientation of both buildings, which is considered to be sufficient distance when assessing the compact nature of the immediate locality where dwellings are considerably close.

7.4.3.2 From review of the site context between the application property and Caaghyr, it is considered that the main cause of overshadowing for this property is the main dwelling core which casts significant shadows over the sunroom due to its height, bulk and span, and this impact is greatly increased over any impact the new dwelling, which has a stepped layout and largely flat roof would create, particularly as the orientation creates a widening gap for light to reach this sunroom on the side of the new dwelling.

7.4.3.3 The stepped design of the dwelling, flat roof design, orientation, and separating distance would also ensure that overbearing impacts does not result from the development. This is hinged on the context of the locality which sets buildings considerably close, with a considerably higher dwelling density.

7.4.3.4 The fact that the only window on the east elevation, which serves the stair (which is not a habitable area) is positioned within an indent that is positioned 4.6m from the boundary overcomes any overlooking concern. Besides, it is proposed to erect a fence on this part of the rear garden and boundary, which would serve to further diminish any overlooking concern. Likewise, the proposed balconies on the first and second floor levels would be installed with a minimum 1.8m high obscure glazing to the sides which will prevent overlooking from these balconies.

7.4.4 Impacts on 'Bradda Brae' and 'Hillside'

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                                 24/00051/B                                      Page  10  of  13

7.4.4.1 In terms of the potential overlooking of Bradda Brae and Hillside which are situated south of the new first and second floor balconies, it is considered that the windows on these properties are positioned more than 20m from the edge of the proposed balconies, and as such overlooking is not considered a concern for these properties. Whilst it is noted that the new balconies will introduce additional elevated views as the topography places the application site on an elevated platform, this impact is diminished by the separating distance between the application site and the nearest windows for these neighbours which are set at about 23m for Hillside and about 25m for Bradda Brae.

7.4.4.2 Given the above, it is not considered that the resulting privacy concerns will be so significant as to alter considerably the living conditions of those in these properties. Besides, the immediate locality is set out such that there are elevated views from the uphill properties towards the properties situated south from balconies and terraces which are an established feature of the dwellings here.

7.5 IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY (General Policy 2h & I, TP's 1, & 7) 7.5.1 In terms of impacts on highway safety, it is considered that the proposed access arrangement, including visibility would be appropriate for the site and the single dwelling proposed for the site, and would offer safe access onto the existing highway and as such is acceptable.

7.5.2 With regard to off road parking, the dwelling would have at least 2 spaces provided within the site, with space available to enable the parking of bicycle within the garage, which is also capable of parking a smaller car. Therefore, these element of the proposal would meet the requirements of Transport Policy 7 as stipulated within Appendix 7 of the IOMSP.

7.5.3 Likewise, Highway Services have assessed the proposal and find it to raise no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues, such that they raise no objection to the proposal subject to all access arrangements to accord to Drawing No. P04 Rev D. Therefore, it is considered that the highway and parking elements of the scheme comply with the requirements of the aforementioned policies.

7.6 IMPACTS ON BIODIVERSITY (GP2, EP4 & EP5) 7.6.1 In terms of impacts on ecology or biodiversity within the site, it is important to establish that if any real harm would result with respect to ecological and environmental concerns, it would only relate to the removal of vegetation on site to enable the erection of the new dwelling. Whilst this is noted, the site is not a designated site for nature conservation, nor does the site sit close to any sites of conservation value such that EP4 and 5, and STP 4 would be applicable. As well, no protected species are known to be evident on site. Therefore, it is considered that any impacts on biodiversity within the site will be negligible, and overridden by the fact that the site or the neighbouring sites are not afforded any level of protection.

7.6.2 The comments from DEFA Biodiversity however suggest some mitigation for bats and birds which may be in the area via the installation of bat and bird bricks in the new property, the installation of measures to prevent bird strikes on the balustrades, and measures to prevent impacts on the rear boundary wall which may house biodiversity. As such, relevant conditions would be included to ensure that the scheme gives due consideration of the issues raised by the Ecosystem Policy Team.

7.7 OTHER MATTERS 7.7.1 Flood Concerns 7.7.1.1 The references to potential flood impacts are noted. However, the site is not prone to any form of flood risks, as such, it is not considered that a flood risk impact would be required nor any mitigation to that effect. Whilst it is noted that the site topography is such that would increase the potential for more run off, the scheme includes measures to control surface water drainage and no objections have been raised by Manx Utilities drainage on these. It is also worth noting that the issues raised with the drainage fall within the remit of other legislation outside planning which would

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                                 24/00051/B                                      Page  11  of  13

be better suited to address these concerns. As such, it is considered that there are no concerns with flooding and any resulting surface water flows should be effectively managed by the proposed site drainage schemes.

7.7.2 Construction Impacts 7.7.2.1 The matters related to construction impacts on properties, and property boundaries, and general construction impacts, bear no weight as material planning considerations and as such cannot be considered in the assessment of this planning application.

7.7.3 Legal matters/boundary 7.7.3.1 The issue which relate to the definition of property boundaries, or details contained within deeds/land registry documents are civil legal issues which lie outside the scope of the planning application as land ownership is a civil matter and would hold no weight in the assessment of a planning application. Any determination under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 can neither create nor detract from land ownerships, any right of way, or other civil legal rights and obligations as may exist between the parties.

7.7.4 Capacity of sewerage and water systems 7.7.4.1 The concerns raised by neighbours regarding the capacity of the drainage and water systems in the area are noted. However, the body tasked with managing drainage systems for the Island (Manx Utilities) raise no concerns with the capacity of the existing systems in the area to support the new dwelling, neither do they object to the application. As Manx Utilities have considered the scheme to be acceptable, this proposal is considered acceptable from the planning policy standpoint. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed scheme would comply with GP 2 (j) of the Strategic Plan.

8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Overall, it is considered that the design, highway impacts and visual impacts are acceptable, and the proposal would not result in significant harm to public or private amenity. The application is, therefore, recommended for approval.

9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

9.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status.

9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                                 24/00051/B                                      Page  12  of  13

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 : Refused

Committee Meeting Date: 24.02.2025

Signed : P VISIGAH Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.

==== PAGE 13 ====

                                                 24/00051/B                                      Page  13  of  13

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 24.02.2025

Application No. :

24/00051/B Applicant : Mr Martin Gough Proposal : Demolition of existing derelict structure and garage and construction of a three storey dwelling with integral garage, associated parking, ground works and landscaping Site Address : Land Adjacent To Roy Cottage Bradda East Port Erin Isle Of Man

Planning Officer Paul Visigah Reporting Officer As above

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Committee at its meeting held on 24th February 2024, overturned the recommendation of the case officer to approve the application and recommended refusal.

Reason for Refusal

R 1. The proposed development by virtue of its scale and mass would fail to respect the site and its surroundings and would represent an overdevelopment of the site contrary to General Policy 2 (b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide 2021.

R 2. The proposed development by virtue of its scale, mass and proximity to the neighbouring property Roy Cottage would result in an adverse overbearing impact to the residential amenities to the occupants of Roy Cottage contrary to General Policy 2 (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide 2021.