24/00050/BRefused

28 May 2024 · Acting Head of Development Management (Abigail Morgan)

Proposed new dwelling to be created on vacant plot

44, Victoria Road, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 4hq

Received16 Jan 2024

Validated23 Jan 2024

Decided28 May 2024

4 months

Received16 Jan 2024

Validated23 Jan 2024

Decided28 May 2024

4 months

Why was this refused?

Visual impact and incongruous design
Inadequate parking dimensions
Poor visibility splays and highway safety
Overlooking and harm to neighbour amenity
Failure to respect traditional character

The proposal sought permission for a new four-storey split-level dwelling on a vacant plot within the residential curtilage of 44 Victoria Road, Douglas, featuring an open-plan kitchen/dining/lounge, bedrooms, terraces, balcony, garage, and two parking spaces finished in white render, anthracite grey aluminium windows,…

Refusal Reasons

✗Due to the overall height, width and form of the proposed dwelling, together with its proximity to the existing dwellings at Nos. 44 and 46 Victoria Road, it is considered that the proposal would disrupt the general rhythm of the overall group of buildings, and result in an incongruous built development within an area comprising mainly traditional dwellings, and it is not considered that the new dwelling represents an innovative/modern introduction reflective of its time as required by Paragraph 6.8.3 of the Area Plan for the East. The proposal is, therefore, considered to result in detrimental impacts on the character and appearance, and the context of this part of Victoria Road, contrary to Environment Policy 42, General Policy 2 (b, c and g), and Strategic Policy 3(b) of the Strategic Plan.
✗The parking and access arrangements as proposed would create an adverse impact on the existing highway, as the visibility in both directions would be below the acceptable standards, having obstructions set at 1.6m and 2.2m on either side, which would make it difficult for vehicles to exit the site in a safe and appropriate manner, contrary to the principles of General Policy 2(h and I) and Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
✗The scheme as proposed would result in vehicles projecting onto the adjoining public footway, and the visibility is such that would increase the potential for increased conflict and risk to pedestrians. This would be contrary to Transport policies 6 and General Policy 2 (h) of the Strategic Plan 2016.
✗The proposed first floor terrace and second floor balcony on the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling, by virtue of their proximity to the neighbouring dwellings and boundary, and height above the ground level, would result in unacceptable levels of actual and perceived overlooking from the proposal site into the neighbouring rear gardens. Likewise, the proposed side windows, by virtue of their size and proximity of neighbouring windows on the side elevations hold the potential for significant overlooking of living spaces, to the detriment of their residential amenity. In this respect, the proposed development is considered to be unacceptable when assessed against General Policy 2 (g) and the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide 2021.

Documents (21)

Officer Report Decision Notice Location Plan Application Form

Find Similar Applications

Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.

⚖️

Compare this application

See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.

Search for an application to compare with

Decision & Reasoning

Refused28 May 2024

The officer concluded the proposal would disrupt the rhythm of traditional neighbouring dwellings at Nos. 44 and 46 due to its height, width, form, and proximity, creating an incongruous addition lack…

Policies Assessed (8)

GP2

General Policy 2

Requires development to respect amenity, character, highway safety, and ecology. Failed due to harm to neighbour amenity from overlooking, adverse highway/pedestrian impacts from poor visibility and parking projection, and incongruous design/form disrupting street rhythm.

ENV42

Environment Policy 42

New development must be designed to take account of the character and identity of the area. Proposal's bulk, massing, modern features (e.g. full-height windows, balconies at rear only) failed to respect traditional dwellings with gable chimneys, hood mouldings, and sash windows.

SP3

Strategic Policy 3 - To respect the character of our towns and villages

Development to respect character of towns and villages. Four-storey hipped-roof infill with white render and grey aluminium was uncharacteristic and disrupted building rhythm in traditional street scene.

TP4

Transport Policy 4

Highways must accommodate generated traffic/pedestrian journeys safely. Visibility splays obstructed by 1.6m/2.2m boundary features on busy road; substandard parking/garage (5m vs 6m) per Manual for Manx Roads.

TP6

Transport Policy 6 - Equal weight for vehicles and pedestrians

Considers pedestrian needs alongside vehicles. Short parking would cause projection onto footway, increasing conflict/risk.

TP7

Transport Policy 7

Parking standards. Provided spaces below required dimensions despite meeting minimum number.

SP4

Strategic Policy 4

Protect/enhance nature conservation/landscape in urban areas. Vegetation clearance harmed habitats; DEFA noted no mitigation plans, contrary without landscaping/tree planting conditions.

EP4

Environment Policy 4

Protects ecology/biodiversity. Japanese knotweed and habitat loss concerns mitigable by conditions, but weighed against.

Public Comments (1)

SupportDouglas Borough Council(statutory consultee)

No objection to the principle of development on condition of adequate bin and recycling storage within curtilage and provision for bins to be removed from highway after collection.

Consultation Responses

DOI Highways raised concerns about garage dimensions and setback, recommending amendments. Douglas Borough Council had no objection subject to bin storage conditions. DEFA Biodiversity had no objection to the principle but requested conditions for soft landscaping, bat/bird bricks, and Japanese knotweed management.

Key concern: Japanese knotweed infestation requiring eradication plan and construction exclusion areas

Highway Services HDC

Conditional No Objection

There must be at least 6m between the garage and the back of the footway as per Manual for Manx Roads dimensions (page 174).; The garage should be at least 6m in length internally to accommodate a vehicle and cycle parking.; Therefore, the proposed site layout plan should be amended to take account of the above.

Conditions requested: At least 6m between garage and back of footway as per Manual for Manx Roads (page 174); Garage at least 6m in length internally to accommodate vehicle and cycle parking; Proposed site layout plan should be amended

Douglas Borough Council

Conditional No Objection

The Council has no objection to the principal of development on this site on the condition that there is adequate bin and recycling storage within the curtilage of the property and that the development allows for both refuse and recycling bins to be removed from the highway after collection.; Further advice on these requirements can be found on the Council’s website under the Council’s Waste Management Guidelines for Architects.

Conditions requested: adequate bin and recycling storage within the curtilage of the property; development allows for both refuse and recycling bins to be removed from the highway after collection

DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team

Conditional No Objection

Without replacement landscaping and/or other mitigation measures, this application would be contrary to Strategic Policy 4 (b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan; Mitigation planting should include new tree and hedge planting, and we recommend that a large proportion of this is done along the eastern edge of the garden; Boxes should be placed high up under the eaves but not on the rear elevation due to the planned installation of clear glass balustrades.

Conditions requested: no development to commence unless a soft landscaping plan has been submitted to the Department and agreed in writing; no development to commence unless a bat and bird brick plan has been submitted to the Department and approved in writing

DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team

Conditional No Objection

Japanese knotweed poses a problem for any construction on this site, as irresponsible construction methods could cause it to spread, and it can grow through concrete; Eradication is likely to take a number of years

Conditions requested: no construction works to commence unless a Japanese knotweed avoidance and eradication plan has been submitted to the Department and approved in writing; works must then be undertaken in full accordance with the approved plan

DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team

Conditional No Objection

eradication of the knotweed is likely to take multiple treatments over multiple years so treatment should be ongoing and monitored

Conditions requested: No construction works to commence unless details of a Japanese knotweed construction exclusion area has been submitted to the Department and approved in writing; The works must then be undertaken in full accordance with the approved plan; No development to commence unless a soft landscaping plan has been submitted to the Department and agreed in writing; No development to commence unless a bat and bird brick plan has been submitted to the Department and approved in writing

View on map →

People

Paul Visigah

Case Officer

Tracey Bell

Applicant

Key Information

Reference: 24/00050/B
Decision: Refused
Date: 28 May 2024
Parish: Douglas
Year: 2024
Type: Full Planning Application
Category: New / Dwelling
Scale: moderate

Property Details

Property Type: dwelling
Proposal Type: new build
Context: urban
Storeys: 4

Sale History

£345,000

Aug 2022

Property Planning History (7)

25/90249/BRefused2025

Erection of new four-storey dwelling house

24/00050/BRefused2024Viewing

Proposed new dwelling to be created on vacant plot

08/00039/BRefused2008

Erection of block of four apartments with parking and garage (comprising an amendment to the development refused under 07/00881/B)

07/02162/BApproved2007

Installation of replacement windows and doors (Re submission of 07/00811/B)

07/00881/BRefused2007

Erection of block of four apartments with parking and garage

07/00811/BRefused2007

Installation of replacement windows and doors

05/01069/ARefused2005

Approval in principle to demolish existing property and erect a four storey block of eight apartments with associated parking to rear

Why was this refused?

Visual impact and incongruous design

Inadequate parking dimensions

Poor visibility splays and highway safety

Overlooking and harm to neighbour amenity

Failure to respect traditional character

Refusal Reasons

✗Due to the overall height, width and form of the proposed dwelling, together with its proximity to the existing dwellings at Nos. 44 and 46 Victoria Road, it is considered that the proposal would disrupt the general rhythm of the overall group of buildings, and result in an incongruous built development within an area comprising mainly traditional dwellings, and it is not considered that the new dwelling represents an innovative/modern introduction reflective of its time as required by Paragraph 6.8.3 of the Area Plan for the East. The proposal is, therefore, considered to result in detrimental impacts on the character and appearance, and the context of this part of Victoria Road, contrary to Environment Policy 42, General Policy 2 (b, c and g), and Strategic Policy 3(b) of the Strategic Plan.
✗The parking and access arrangements as proposed would create an adverse impact on the existing highway, as the visibility in both directions would be below the acceptable standards, having obstructions set at 1.6m and 2.2m on either side, which would make it difficult for vehicles to exit the site in a safe and appropriate manner, contrary to the principles of General Policy 2(h and I) and Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
✗The scheme as proposed would result in vehicles projecting onto the adjoining public footway, and the visibility is such that would increase the potential for increased conflict and risk to pedestrians. This would be contrary to Transport policies 6 and General Policy 2 (h) of the Strategic Plan 2016.
✗The proposed first floor terrace and second floor balcony on the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling, by virtue of their proximity to the neighbouring dwellings and boundary, and height above the ground level, would result in unacceptable levels of actual and perceived overlooking from the proposal site into the neighbouring rear gardens. Likewise, the proposed side windows, by virtue of their size and proximity of neighbouring windows on the side elevations hold the potential for significant overlooking of living spaces, to the detriment of their residential amenity. In this respect, the proposed development is considered to be unacceptable when assessed against General Policy 2 (g) and the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide 2021.

Policies Assessed (8)

GP2

General Policy 2

ENV42

Environment Policy 42

SP3

Strategic Policy 3 - To respect the character of our towns and villages

TP4

Transport Policy 4

TP6

Transport Policy 6 - Equal weight for vehicles and pedestrians

Considers pedestrian needs alongside vehicles. Short parking would cause projection onto footway, increasing conflict/risk.

TP7

Transport Policy 7

Parking standards. Provided spaces below required dimensions despite meeting minimum number.

SP4

Strategic Policy 4

Protect/enhance nature conservation/landscape in urban areas. Vegetation clearance harmed habitats; DEFA noted no mitigation plans, contrary without landscaping/tree planting conditions.

EP4

Environment Policy 4

Protects ecology/biodiversity. Japanese knotweed and habitat loss concerns mitigable by conditions, but weighed against.

Consultation Responses

Key concern: Japanese knotweed infestation requiring eradication plan and construction exclusion areas

Highway Services HDC

Conditional No Objection

Douglas Borough Council

Conditional No Objection

Conditions requested: adequate bin and recycling storage within the curtilage of the property; development allows for both refuse and recycling bins to be removed from the highway after collection

DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team

Conditional No Objection

DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team

Conditional No Objection

DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team

Conditional No Objection

eradication of the knotweed is likely to take multiple treatments over multiple years so treatment should be ongoing and monitored