Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/00106/B Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 24/00106/B Applicant : Lowline Ltd Proposal : Demolition of existing dwelling; construction of 2 replacement dwellings; minor relocation of existing entrance and formation of new entrance Site Address : East View Sulby Bridge Sulby IM7 2EU
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 15.05.2024 Site Visit : 15.05.2024 Expected Decision Level :
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 21.06.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. Due to the overall density of development, layout of the individual plots, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them, coupled with the quantum of development on the application site, the proposal is considered to result in a visual overdevelopment of the site. The scheme is also considered to be at variance with the context, character and appearance of this part of Surby, which is defined by detached buildings laid out within medium sized plots, thus failing to comply with Strategic Policy 3(b), Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 (b, c & f), and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan.
R 2. The siting, height and design of the proposed second floor bedroom windows on the north elevation of the north facing semi-detached dwelling, which is proposed as part of the development would result in unacceptable levels of actual and perceived overlooking from the proposal site into the rear garden of 6 Carrick Park, to the detriment of the residential amenity, and contrary to General Policy 2 (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and the Residential Design Guide 2021.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that although they have made written submissions these do not relate to planning considerations:
Manx Utilities Authority Drainage; and
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/00106/B Page 2 of 11
DOI Flood Risk Management
It is recommended that 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):
8 Carrick Park / "Hill View", Surby; and 6 Carrick Park, Surby
As they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of East View, Sulby Bridge, Sulby, which is a detached two storey traditional Manx stone Cottage painted white with a single storey garage/outbuilding to the south that sits to the West of the highway. The dwelling has a footprint of 10m by 5.6m and the outbuilding a further 6.6m by 5.6m, with a total floor area of 80m2.
1.2 The site is broadly level and shares a boundary with Mill View to the south and to the rear No.8 Carrick Park (Hillview) and also at the rear is No.7 Carrick Park. The design of the existing dwelling on site is such that does not allow views into neighbouring dwellings or their gardens from first floor level.
1.3 Currently, the site is covered in mature overgrown vegetation which has fully enveloped the entire site area, such that access is currently not achievable into the site, whether through the vehicular access, or pedestrian access.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Demolition of existing dwelling; construction of 2 replacement dwellings; minor relocation of existing entrance and formation of new entrance.
2.2 The proposal would include the demolition of the existing traditional dwelling on site, and its replacement with a new two storey semi-detached dwelling on site. The new dwellings would feature a total built frontage of 15.67m (although the entire length would be 16.66m), while its width would be 10.1m at its widest point. The new semi-detached dwellings would have a combined ground floor area of approximately 133.4sqm, which is a reduction of about 36.6sqm when compared with the floor area of the recently refused scheme which measured about 170sqm in floor area. The height of the dwellings would measure 7.5m tall, excluding the chimneys which are about 1.1m tall (about 5.3m to the eaves), which would be a reduction over the previously refused scheme which measured about 8.1m from the ground level to the top of its roof ridge (excluding the chimneys), and 5.1m to the eaves on the main dwelling core.
2.3 The proposed property is designed such that one dwelling would face the main highway, while the second dwelling would front onto the rear garden of Plot 6 Carrick Park, Sulby. The dwelling fronting onto the highway would have an open plan kitchen/dining area, a lounge, WC, covered porch, and hall on the ground floor, while the upper floor will house three bedrooms (one with ensuite), and family bathroom.
2.4 The second dwelling which fronts onto the rear garden of Plot 6 Carrick Park, Sulby, would have an open plan kitchen/dining area, a covered porch, hall, Master bedroom with ensuite, dressing area, and enclosed terrace on the ground floor, while the upper floor will
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/00106/B Page 3 of 11
provide for a lounge with enclosed balcony with fully glazed wall, two bedrooms, and a bathroom. 2.5 The dwellings would be finished in painted smooth render, while the roof would be finished in natural slate roof tiles. All windows, bifold doors, and glazed section would be finished in grey UPVC units. Sections of the external wall would be clad in timber cladding/composite cladding.
2.6 The site layout is set out such that the dwelling fronting onto the highway would have a site area measuring about 254sqm, while the second curtilage would measure about 221.7sqm. The existing access would be closed up, with two new accesses both measuring about 3.4m wide created to provide access to the adjoining highway. Both sites would have access to two parking spaces, with cycle storage for three bikes also created within each site.
2.7 The scheme would also include: i. The installation of an ASHP for each dwelling. The proposed units would be Mitsubishi units 960mm wide, 330mm deep, and 740/943mm tall, located 300mm from obstructions. The noise emission graph for the units show that Based on the noise emissions graph for this unit show that the expected noise emissions are proposed as: o 4 meters to outbuilding at Mill View = 38dB(A) o 15 meters to 8 Carrick View = 25dB(A) o 11 meters to 7 Carrick View = 28dB(A).
ii. Installation of solar panels. A row of solar panels would be installed on the southern roof plane to serve one dwelling, while another row would be installed on the western (rear) roof plane. No details are provided on the type of solar panels or energy output.
2.8 The application is supported by a Planning Statement and Flood Risk Assessment.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific: 3.1.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised on the Sulby Local Plan of 1998 as Predominantly Residential. The site is not within a designated conservation area, there are no registered trees on site, and only a small part of the site is identified as being at flood risk from river flooding. The highway to the front and surrounding land is not identified as being at flood risk.
3.2 National: STRATEGIC PLAN 3.2.1 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application: a. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. b. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources. c. Strategic Policy 2 - Development focussed in existing towns and villages. d. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to safeguard character of existing towns and villages and to avoid coalescence. e. Strategic Policy 4 - Development to protect or enhance setting of Registered Buildings, landscape quality and biodiversity, and not result in unacceptable environmental pollution. f. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact. g. Strategic Policy 10 - Sustainable transport. h. Strategic Policy 11 - Housing needs. i. Spatial Policy 4 - Need for new development to maintain the existing settlement character, be of appropriate scale (local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities). Sulby included. j. Environment Policy 4 - Protection of species and habitats. k. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats. l. Environment Policy 10 and 13 - Development and flood risk. m. Environment Policy 22 - Protection of environment and/or residential amenity from pollution.
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/00106/B Page 4 of 11
n. Environment Policy 42 - Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality. o. Housing Policy 1 - Housing needs. p. Housing Policy 4 - New Housing to defined existing towns. q. Housing Policy 6 - Residential development to be undertaken in accordance with development brief or Paragraph 6.2 of Plan. r. Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to existing public transportation services. s. Transport Policy 4 - Highway Safety t. Transport Policy 7 - Parking Provisions. u. Paragraph 4.3.8: "The design of new development can make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. Recent development has often been criticised for its similarity to developments across the Island and elsewhere - "anywhere" architecture. At the same time some criticise current practice to retain traditional or vernacular designs. As is often the case the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. All too often proposals for new developments have not taken into account a proper analysis of their context in terms of siting, layout, scale, materials and other factors. At the same time a slavish following of past design idioms, evolved for earlier lifestyles can produce buildings which do not reflect twenty first century lifestyles including accessibility and energy conservation. While there is often a consensus about what constitutes good and poor design, it is notoriously difficult to define or prescribe."
3.3 Area: AREA PLAN FOR THE NORTH AND WEST
3.3.1 It must be noted at the time of writing, the draft area plan for the North and West is not formally adopted and is only, at this stage, a broad direction of how planning policy is reviewing the areas. Their proposals can still be challenged at a public enquiry where an inspector could reach a different opinion to the drafts. The final draft would also need to be ratified by COMIN. This means that the 1982 development plan remains the correct land use designation and no material weight is given to the draft area plan for the North and West.
4.0 OTHER MATTERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Residential Design Guidance 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. Section 2.0 on Sustainable Construction, Section 5 on Architectural Details, and 7.0 on Impact on Neighbouring Properties, are considered relevant to the current application.
4.2 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025 seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary. Section 21 deals with Habitat loss actions through promoting a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and to ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for.
4.3 Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The application site has been the subject of the following previous planning applications that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. These include:
5.2 PA 06/01940/B for Alterations and extension to form additional living accommodation - Approved. The scheme proposed a first floor, pitched roofed extension over the existing garage/store, which had its roof ridge set considerably lower than that of the main dwelling, making it appear as a subordinate extension. The existing hardstanding was also to be extended by the removal of the existing hedge and part of the existing lawn, to provide an additional off
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/00106/B Page 5 of 11
street parking provision (total of two spaces). This scheme which did not propose any first floor windows to the sides and rear of the dwelling was not implemented.
5.3 A recent application under PA 20/01452/B for Erection of a replacement dwelling - Refused. The application was refused on the following ground: "The proposal is considered contrary to General Policy 2 b, c, & g and Environmental Policy 42 and the recent Residential design guide 2021 as the design would be read at odds with the character of the surrounding street scene and is considered over development for the site leading to an adverse visual harm with a perceived harmful impact upon the neighbouring properties. It is therefore concluded that the planning application is recommended for refusal."
5.3.1 The scheme proposed a total built frontage of 22.4m and a ground floor area of approximately 170sqm (including integral garage).
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 stated that the proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, they raise no objection to the proposal subject to all access arrangements to accord to Drawing No. 1081-11 (28 February 2024).
6.2 Manx Utilities Drainage have stated that they had requested minor changes to the general site plan for the above planning application. They also state that the drawing, 1081-11 rev A, now indicates a proposed Surface Water drain connection to existing public drains, whilst noting that the drainage route proposed is purely indicated as an alternative should percolation testing prove inadequate for the preferred soakaway system (31 May 2024).
6.3 DOI Flood Risk Management Team have stated that they recognise that this site is within a flood zone and as such defer comment until they have received and reviewed a Flood Risk Assessment which should include Flood Mitigations (19 February 2024).
6.3.1 Following this request, the applicants submitted a Flood Risk Assessment on 29 May 2024.
6.3.2 Having reviewed the submitted FRA, the DOI Flood Risk Management Team have stated that they do not oppose the application subject to a condition covering the mitigation measures in the FRA (21 June 2024).
6.4 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team have made the following comments regarding the application (28 February 2024): o They note that the Proposed Site Plan (Dwg No. 1081.11) proposes replacement features including a new boundary hedge around the whole site (apart from the new entrances) and 5 new native trees as mitigation for the loss of the exiting front hedge, but note that no species details have yet been provided. o They believe that the proposed plantings are largely acceptable mitigation for the loss of the front hedge, whilst stating that the front hedge is likely providing breeding space for nesting birds, which will be lost in the short term whilst replacement vegetation is growing, and as such request that two (one per property) nest bricks/boxes are erected on site. o They recommend that the Nest boxes should be placed on northerly elevations, not above or below windows or doors, and that one open fronted and one entry hole nest box should be utilised. o They request that conditions related to provision of soft landscaping plan, and bird box plan be included should this application be approved. o They refer to comments made with previous application for the site, and recommend that recommend that a preliminary assessment for roosting bats is undertaken on the building. o They provide an advisory regarding protected species.
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/00106/B Page 6 of 11
6.4.1 In response to the comments made by the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team, the applicants have made the following comments in their correspondence dated 25 March 2024: o They state that no planning permission is required for the demolition of the detached dwelling, whilst noting that the Wildlife Act protects bats and their roosts, and as such they couldn't demolish the building if bats or any breeding birds were evident in the building. o They state that a Survey would have to be undertaken prior to demolition in any event. o They note that as a planning approval will allow 4 years to commencement, a survey at this juncture may not be accurate in 3-4 years when demolition takes place, so would be appropriate for a condition to be applied to an approval requiring that "A Bat survey be undertaken prior to demolition", as this would safeguard any roosting Bats for the full extent of the approval.
6.5 Lezayre Parish Commissioners have recommended that the application be refused for the following reasons (8 March 2024): o The development will obstruct the view and some light to the house on the west side and affect its privacy. o The northern proposed dwelling will look north over the open grassed space/building plot. o The proposed dwellings will be built at a higher level than neighbouring dwellings and 230mm/9" above the existing floor level, possibly affecting those neighbouring properties - see Flood Risk o The Commissioners dispute the assertion on the front of the Flood Risk Assessment that 'the existing dwelling has no history of flooding'. o They consider that the proposal was overdevelopment, particularly during road closures, as there is insufficient parking space on site for two properties. They note that this might lead to a tendency to park on the road which they would not wish to see. o They appreciate that the existing property cannot be saved however they believe its replacement should be the same size as existing, therefore one property rather than two. o They note that a previous application for a larger property on this site in 2020 was refused.
6.6 The owners/occupiers of 8 Carrick Park / "Hill View" have made the following comments on the application (26 February 2024): o They state that the new scheme still appears to be over developing the existing plot by increasing the number of dwellings from 1 to 2 with the overall building size being much taller and wider than the existing dwelling, along with additional access to the TT Course. o They state that the proposed design of the new dwellings is very different to the existing dwelling as it's a mixture between a Manx cottage and a modern contemporary design which isn't in keeping with properties in the immediate area. o They note that the new scheme would appear to be closer to their property than the previous scheme and therefore will have more of overbearing impact due to the overall increase in size of the proposed new dwelling that is directly adjacent to their property (currently a single storey garage) along with the additional noise that maybe introduced by the two air source heat pumps in close proximity to each other in particular during the winter months. o They note that most of the reasons for refusal of the previous scheme still applies to the new scheme. 6.7 The Owners/occupiers of 6 Carrick Park object to the application on the following grounds (7 March 2024): o Loss of privacy from any and all first-floor windows of the proposed north facing property regardless of the proposed 1.8m fence. o Every property/house in the immediate surrounding area is detached whether it be single or two storey and therefore the proposed dwellings are not in keeping. o They note that the proposal would prejudice the use of our adjoining land as would likely restrict any intended use. o They note that the proposal has not changed considerably from the previous scheme.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/00106/B Page 7 of 11
a. The principle of development (STP1, STP2, SPP4, HP4, & HP6); b. Impacts on the character and appearance of the site and area.(STP3, STP5, GP2, EP42, RDG'21) c. Impact on Neighbouring Amenity (GP2(g), EP 22 & RDG'21); d. Highway Safety (STP10, GP2 h&i, TP4&7); e. Potential Flood Concerns (GP2, EP 10 & 13); f. Biodiversity Impacts (EP 4, EP 5 & GP2).
7.2 THE PRINCIPLE 7.2.1 In assessing the principle of the proposed development, it is considered that the site is 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. 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.
7.2.2 It is vital to note 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 given its proximity to main public transport corridor. While this 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. Therefore, in terms of the acceptability of the use of the site for residential development it is concluded that the proposal basically accords with the goals of Strategic Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
7.2.4 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that as the application aligns with the zoning of the area within the Sulby Local Plan of 1998, and the development of the site for residential purposes would be acceptable in principle. It is, however, worth noting that the factors highlighted above do not in any way denote automatic approval for the scheme as proposed, given that 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, drainage, flood potential 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 7.3.1 In terms of the size (footprint) of the dwellings and relationship with the spaces between the buildings which serve to define the character of the area, it is considered that the density of the development would be at variance with the immediate vicinity, particularly the properties on this part of Surby, which are set within moderate sized plots with proportionately sized landscaped gardens.
7.3.2 A review of the densities of the dwellings in the immediate vicinity would reveal that the average density here is 5.6 dwellings per acre (1 dwelling per 763.04sqm); 7 Carrick Park is 6.2 Dwellings per acre (1 dwelling per 657.5sqm); 8 Carrick Park is 5.1 dwellings per acre (1 dwelling per 791.8sqm; Mill View is 4.3 dwellings per acre (1 dwelling per 938.1sqm); 2 Carrick Park is 6.2 dwellings per acre (1 dwelling per 651.5sqm), 3 Carrick Park is 5.9 dwellings per acre (1 dwelling per 680sqm); 6 Carrick Park is 3.5 dwellings per acre (1 dwelling per 1147.3sqm), with the current scheme proposing 18.4 dwellings per acres (1 dwelling per 221.7sqm) for Plot 2 which faces north, and 15.9 dwellings per acre (1 dwelling per 254sqm), which are well over the densities currently obtainable within the locality. If the Gross dwelling density for the site was factored in, the density would be 17.18 dwellings per acre or 1 dwellings per 237.85sqm, which is significantly high, given the extant character of the area. In fact, the these density values almost triple the densities within the adjoining plots, such that it is not considered that the new densities proposed respect the character of the area.
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/00106/B Page 8 of 11
7.3.3 Further to the above, the quantum of built development would be considerably increased over that which currently exists at the site which already has the highest density in the locality in its current form (8.6 dwellings per acre or 1 dwelling per 475.7sqm), given that a new two storey element would replace the single storey garage to the south, whilst a large two storey element about 2.6m wide would also be added to the north elevation. The impact of the increased quantum of development would further be exacerbated by the fact that the increased height would sit about 1.2m taller than the existing dwelling on site. When the proposed scheme is read in conjunction with the surrounding properties that border the site, the proposed two storey detached dwellings would still result in over development of the site, with the reductions in length and width from the previously refused scheme is not so significant as to diminish the impacts on the site area and immediate vicinity.
7.3.4 Additionally, the scheme would introduce a semi-detached property in an area where none exists with the proposed mix of elevation orientations also considered to be at variance with the dominant layout and design of buildings in the area, characterised by two storey or single storey detached dwellings. It should be noted that the proposed semi-detached dwellings would stand taller than the surrounding properties and it would be difficult to argue that the new design reflects those in the immediate vicinity which are more akin to chalet style bungalows with accommodation in the roof space, or the traditional design of the dwelling on site or its adjoining neighbour at Mill View to the south due to the mix of elevation orientations, building proportions, materials finish and introduction of fully glazed balconies and veranda which are not in any way reflective of the traditional dwelling design. As such, it is also considered that the current design fails to fit with the character of the locality in its current form, as it has not been designed to take into account the context of the site and immediate vicinity, in terms of building designs, orientations, dwelling density, and site layout.
7.3.5 Moreover, when the current scheme is read against the property to the south 'Mill View' the proposal would still be significantly at odds in appearance, particularly twinned with the scale and massing, and would appear very dominant and have an over bearing impact on the road side frontage of this street scene, and this which would change the appearance and character from what it is now. Thus, it is not considered that the current scheme would overcome this key concerns which resulted in the refusal of the previous proposal for the site under PA 20/01452/B, even though the width and length of the proposed building has been altered.
7.3.6 Overall, it is judged that the proposed development does not respect the site or its surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form and design, as well as dwelling density. Therefore, it is considered that the scheme would alter considerably this part of the locality and result in detrimental impacts on the character of the locality and townscape, contrary to General Policy 2 (b, c, & g), Environment Policy 42, Strategic Policy 3 (b), and Strategic Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan, as well as the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide 2021.
7.4 IMPACTS ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES 7.4.1 In terms of the potential impacts on neighbouring amenity, it is considered that the level and scale the proposed development holds the potential to result in impacts on neighbouring amenity. In the first instance, the orientation of the dwelling facing north and the introduction of three first floor windows set at about 3.7m above the ground level at the lowest point would result in significant overlooking of the rear garden of 6 Carrick Park, such that privacy of the occupants of this property would be significantly compromised. Whilst it is noted that overlooking of bedrooms would not occur given the distance between both buildings is more that 20m, the scheme would result in significant overlooking of the private garden area, which is the main outdoor area for this neighbouring property. This concern is exacerbated by the fact that two of the windows proposed at first floor level for the proposed north facing dwelling would serve two habitable rooms, with these windows having views to every extent of the rear garden resulting in almost no actual or perceived privacy.
==== PAGE 9 ====
24/00106/B Page 9 of 11
7.4.2 With regard to potential overlooking concerns for the dwellings at 7 and 8 Carrick Park, it is considered that the two new first floor windows on the west elevation of the road facing semi- detached dwelling hold the potential to create impact on the privacy of these dwellings. However, one of these windows (window to toilet) would be installed with obscure glazing, while the other window serves a stairway where overlooking should be diminished, although it must be noted that the landing area would offer a landing area where stationary views of both neighbouring gardens could be achieved. Thus, it is not considered that any impacts from the window to the stairs would be so significant as to warrant refusal of the proposal.
7.4.3 In assessing the potential loss of light (overshadowing) and overbearing impacts that would result from the proposed dwellings, it is considered that the potion of the dwelling northwest of its neighbours where overshadowing is expected to be diminished (as the sun's orientation is east to west), the separating distance between the rear elevation of the new dwellings and the neighbours to the south, which is about 15m from the existing dwellings to the rear (10m from the extension approved at the rear of 8 Carrick Park), and the presence of mature trees on the boundary with 8 Carrick Park would diminish the potential for loss of light or overbearing impacts to occur. The separating distance of 14.8m to the side elevation of Mill View would also diminish any potential for overbearing impacts or loss of light for this neighbour.
7.4.4 With regard to the potential impacts that would result from the proposed ASHP's, the main issue is with the potential noise impacts that could result for the occupants on the neighbours, particularly those at Mill View, 6, 7 and 8 Carrick Park. With proposals such as these, Environment Policy 22 which is the relevant policy indicates that development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties. With this scheme, the sound power calculations provided by the applicants, which gives as indication of the noise generated indicates that the noise levels would be 38dB(A) measured at a distance of 4 meters to outbuilding at Mill View; 25dB(A) at 15 meters to the rear of 8 Carrick View; and 28dB(A) at 11 meters to 7 Carrick View, which are values set lower than the permitted development noise output of 42db(A), although it must be noted that the noise output is only one of a number of conditions which must be met for the installation of ASHP's to be classed as permitted development. A condition should be added in respect of the ASHP's to ensure no other model with a different sound level is installed should approval be granted.
7.4.5 On balance, it is considered that although the impacts of noise impacts would be acceptable, with overshadowing and overbearing impacts not considered to be key concerns with the application, the level and scale of development proposed here are judged to cause significant harm to the enjoyment of 6 Carrick Park in terms overlooking impacts, and would harm the amenity of this neighbour, contrary to General Policy 2 (g) and the principles advocated by the Residential Design Guide 2021.
7.5 HIGHWAY SAFETY 7.5.1 In terms of impacts on highway safety, it is considered that the access alterations, and creation of new access, including visibility would be appropriate for the site and number of dwellings proposed for the site, and offer a safe access onto the existing highway and as such is acceptable.
7.5.2 With regard to off road parking, the dwellings would have at least 2 spaces provided within the site for each dwelling, which would meet the requirements of Transport Policy 7 as stipulated within Appendix 7 of the IOMSP. Additionally, the site sits along a public transport corridor, which increases the public transport options available to future occupants.
7.5.3 In addition, Highway Services have assessed the proposal and find it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking, subject to the inclusion of a condition that all access arrangements accord with Drawing No. 1081-11 submitted as part of the application documents.
==== PAGE 10 ====
24/00106/B Page 10 of 11
7.5.4 Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would align with STP10, TP4 & 7 and GP 2 (h&I) of the Strategic Plan, which relate to highway safety and parking requirements.
7.6 POTENTIAL FLOOD RISK MATTERS 7.6.1 In terms of flood risks associated with the development, it is noted that part of the site is within an area associated with high river flood risks, with the DOI Flood Risk Management requesting that a flood risk assessment as required by Environment Policy 10 is provided prior to determination of the application.
7.6.2 The applicants have provided a Flood Risk Assessment which has been reviewed by the DOI Flood Risk Management Team who raise no objections to the proposal, whilst requesting that the mitigation measures detailed in the FRA be conditioned as part of any approval granted. As such, it is considered that the scheme as proposed would meet the requirements of Environment Policies 10 and 13, as well as General Policy 2 (i).
7.6.3 The comments made by the Lezayre Commissioners regarding the potential for the scheme to increase flood impacts for neighbours is noted. However, the advice from the DOI Flood Risk Management indicates that there are no concerns in this regard. Perhaps, it would be vital to state that the policy test (as stipulated in EP 10 and EP 13) is whether the proposal would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, and in this case it has not been advised that the impacts would be significant. As such, it is considered that the scheme proposed under the current scheme would align with the relevant Strategic Plan Policies.
7.7 BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS 7.7.1 In terms of potential impacts on site ecology and protected species resulting from the proposed development, it is considered that the demolition of the existing dwelling on site to facilitate the new development holds potential to result in impacts on site biodiversity. Whilst the applicants have noted that planning approval is not required to remove the building, it is being removed to enable the erection of the proposed dwellings, and the dwelling has not been occupied in a very long period such that the overgrown shrubs and undisturbed property would serve as potential habitat for biota.
7.7.2 It is also noted that the Isle of Man Biodiversity Strategy seeks to promote a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for, which would mean that a survey which highlights all the biodiversity potential are vital.
7.7.3 Notwithstanding the factors above, the applicants have indicated that they are willing to have surveys conditioned as part of the proposal, which although could result in the approved scheme being changed should vital biota which needs protection be found on site, it is not considered that in this case approval would preclude such surveys, given the current state of the site which could not be easily passed for not housing potential biodiversity habitats. Therefore, it is considered that although the non-provision of ecological information weighs against the proposal, conditions could be imposed to request that surveys precede demolition, given the extant state of the site and property.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The following issues weigh in favour of the proposal; the zoning of the area for residential development; the acceptable highway safety impacts, and the contributions to housing provision resulting from the development.
8.2 Conversely, the following issues weigh against the proposal; the potential adverse impacts upon the visual amenities of the area, the potential overdevelopment of the site, and the adverse impacts on the residential amenity of 6 Carrick Park.
8.3 Overall, it is considered that although the proposal seeks to address the concerns raised with the previous proposal at the site under PA 20/01452/B which was refused, the proposal
==== PAGE 11 ====
24/00106/B Page 11 of 11
would still result in significant adverse impacts as has been noted in the assessment section of this report and summarised in Paragraph 8.2 of the report. As such, it is considered that the proposal would fail the requirements of General Policy 2 (b, c, & g), Environment Policy 42, and Strategic Policy 3 (b), and the relevant sections of the Residential Design Guide 2021.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) 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; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
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 in Article 6(4) 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 __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Acting Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status
Decision Made : Refused Date : 15.07.2024
Determining officer
Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan
Acting Head of Development Management
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