192818 — 24/00320/A | Planning Portal IoM | Isle of Man Planning Portal

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      24/00320/A                                     Page  1  of  10

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No. : 24/00320/A Applicant : Mr And Mrs Martin Hall Proposal : Approval in Principle for demolition of existing garage and erection of new detached dwelling Site Address : Garage 2 Rear Of Reayrt Ny Baie Complex Albert Terrace Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 3LQ

Planning Officer: Hamish Laird Photo Taken : 01.08.2024 Site Visit : 01.08.2024 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 13.08.2024 __

Reasons for Refusal

R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons

R 1. The proposed development of the site via the erection of a dwelling is unacceptable because it would result in a cramped form of development, that would appear incongruous on this side of the access road, and which would out of keeping with the adjoin 4-storey residential development at the Reayrt Ny Baie complex opposite the site approx. 6.5m away to the east; and, the adjoining 2-storey dwelling at 10 Auckland Grove to the east of the site, which is also approx. 6.5m away from the indicated rear wall of the applications sketch dwelling. The submitted details, although indicative at this stage, emphasise the difficulties in accommodating a viable, in terms of accommodation to be provided, form of residential development. This is contrary to the advice contained in the Isle of Man Residential Design Guide 2021; and, the provisions of General Policy 2 (b), (c) and (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

R 2. The proposed development of the site via the erection of a dwelling is unacceptable because there would be an unacceptable degree of overlooking of windows serving living accommodation in the upper side wall of No. 10 Auckland Grove in that the occupants of the new dwelling due to:

o at the rear of the dwelling and from the rear deck in respect of these windows would be able to directly observe activities at No. 10 from the outdoor terrace serving the new dwelling and from ground, first floor and second floor level windows, be able to see up to and across to these higher level windows in the rear side elevation of No. 10; and,

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      24/00320/A                                     Page  2  of  10

o the proximity of the rear balcony/terrace serving No. 10, which would result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking of this rear balcony/terrace which would also be overlooked from views obtained from the rear windows in the new dwelling and from the rear decked area.

This would be contrary to the advice contained in the Isle of Man Residential Design Guide 2021; and, the provisions of provisions of General Policy 2 (b), (c) and (g); and, Environment Policy 22 (iii) which covers - inter alia - light and noise pollution; and, Environment Policy 23 - of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, in that the Department will require that consideration be given to the potential adverse impact of the proposed changes to existing neighbours.

R 3. The proposed development of the site via the erection of a dwelling is unacceptable because the occupants of No. 10 Auckland Grove would be able to see and observe activities and comings and goings to the rear of the new dwelling and would have direct window to window views across the rear garden area of the same windows in the new dwelling as advised in Reason 2 of this Refusal Notice. They would further obtain views of the rear balcony/terrace serving the new dwelling, all of which would result in an unacceptably low level of residential amenity for future occupants of any proposed dwelling on the site. This is contrary to the advice contained in the Isle of Man Residential Design Guide 2021; and, the provisions of provisions of General Policy 2 (g) and Environment Policy 23 (in part) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, in that the Department will require that consideration be given to the potential adverse impact of the proposed changes to existing neighbours. This works both ways in respect of overlooking and loss of privacy. __

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they meet the requirement of being located within 20.0m of the site boundary; and, are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are mentioned in Article 4.2:

10 Auckland Grove, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 3JR

as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2021). __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site comprises an area of overgrown garden land containing a dilapidated single storey garage structure of unpainted rendered walls under a fibre-cement sheet, mono-pitched roof with a boarded-up Sterling board vehicular entrance onto the access road to the rear of the Reayrt Ny Baie Residential Complex. It has a door and window in the side elevation and a window in the rear elevation and has a footprint of 41.25m2. The site is contained by relatively tall Manx stone with blockwork above walls on its side and rear boundaries with the area of garden land to the rear of the garage being overgrown. A pedestrian access walkway to the rear portion of the site lies to the immediately to the south of the garage. The site level rises from the road towards the rear with a height variance across the site of approx. 1.5m-1.75m.

1.2 To the south of the site is a separate garage which also fronts onto the access road, and beyond is the side wall of flats at 3-5 Windsor Court containing windows overlooking the site at first floor level. To the rear (east) of the site is the side wall of the neighbouring dwelling at 10 Auckland Close, which has a row of windows at high level facing out onto, and overlooking the site. In addition, a first floor level, flat-roofed terrace/balcony/sitting out area

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      24/00320/A                                     Page  3  of  10

serving this dwelling is located approx. 10m-12m away from the site. This outdoor area provides its occupants with clear views of the site. To the north is the car parking area to the rear of and serving the Reayrt Ny Baie Residential Complex. This Complex is 4-stories in height and contains residential apartments with windows at all levels facing out onto the site. The site lies within the settlement boundary of Douglas and the surroundings are residential.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks 'Approval in Principle' for the demolition of the existing garage and the erection of a new detached dwelling. The application is accompanied by completed application forms; a Site Location Plan; Site Survey Drawing; a Visibility and Access Plan; Proposed 'Sketch' Site Plan showing an indicative design for a three storey, detached dwelling with a footprint of 42.76m2 providing the following accommodation:

Ground Floor: Integral garage; entrance door into hallway; stairs up; and, a utility room at the rear.

First Floor: Lounge/Dining Room with rear patio doors leading out onto a decked area and the rear garden; Kitchen; Study; stairs up/down.

Second Floor: 2 Bedrooms, one with en-suite shower room; main bathroom; and, stairs down.

2.2 A Planning Statement containing details of the proposals and photographs also supports the application. This advises of the details of the proposals stating that there would be little difference in the footprint of the dwelling and that of the existing garage, with the dwelling being approx. 5m2 larger in footprint area. The new dwelling would provide its own parking area and would be set back from the access road and the private garden area (excluding the decked area) would be just over 34m2. It further advises that the site is within easy walking distance of Douglas City Centre and affords an opportunity to develop a semi-derelict, under- used brownfield site to provide a new modern home in the heart of the City which would help to improve the housing stock and achieve the Governments overall aims.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 As advised above, the site lies within the settlement boundary for Douglas in a 'Predominantly Residential' area as shown on inset Map 5 "Douglas Town Centre" in the Area Plan for the East (2020). The site is not located within any Conservation Area, and there are no Registered Buildings or Registered Trees on or around the site.

3.2 In the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are of relevance: General Policy 2 as follows: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways. (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; 33 (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      24/00320/A                                     Page  4  of  10

(m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption. "

3.3 Environment Policy 4: Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect: (a) species and habitats of international importance: (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats;

3.4 Environment Policy 5: In exceptional circumstances where development is allowed which could adversely affect a site recognised under Environmental Policy 4, conditions will be imposed and/or Planning Agreements sought to: (a) minimise disturbance; (b) conserve and manage its ecological interest as far as possible; and (c) where damage is unavoidable, provide new or replacement habitats so that the loss to the total ecological resource is mitigated.

3.5 Environment Policy 22: Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution. Environment Policy 24 (second Policy ENV 24 in the IomSP): "Pollution-sensitive development will only be allowed to be located close to sources of pollution where appropriate measures can be taken to safeguard amenity."

3.6 In the Isle of Man Residential Design Guide 2021, the following advice is of relevance:

Paragraph 7.34: Existing Settlements 7.34.1 Every settlement in the Island has its own individual character and identity which needs to be conserved and enhanced. If such characteristics and qualities are not to be lost, any new development must be appropriate to the locale in terms of scale, siting, design, relationship with other buildings and land uses. Area Plans should identify important spaces within settlements, whether in the form of village greens, squares or areas which simply add to the attractiveness and interest of particular areas which have positive amenity value. It is important to the attractiveness and individuality of centres that over intensive development is avoided as well as the gradual merging of towns and villages in order to preserve a sense of identity and sense of place. In terms of existing settlements, in both rural and urban areas, new development will be expected to follow the following design principles. Development will need to:

i. be of a high standard of design, taking into account form, scale, materials and siting of new buildings and structures; ii. be accompanied by a high standard of landscaping in terms of design and layout, where appropriate; iii. protect the character and amenity of the locality and provide adequate amenity standards itself; iv. respect local styles; and v. provide a safe and secure environment. 3.7 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant in the assessment of the proposal are; Infrastructure Policy 5, Environment Policy Community Policies 7, 10 and 11, Transport Policies 4 and 7

4.0 RELEVANT SITE HISTORY

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      24/00320/A                                     Page  5  of  10

4.1 There is no recorded planning site history for the site.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS 5.1 DoI Highways (28/6/24) comments: "24/00718/A - After reviewing this Application, Highway Services HDC finds it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking as the site can provide parking and access suitable for the proposals. Please note the garage on the plans is not large enough to store vehicles, but there is a parking area in front to sufficiently park vehicles adequately. Reserved matters should include the vehicle access details (taking into account the parking on Paddocks Lane in front of the site), parking layout and bin store area."

5.2 Douglas Borough Council (17/4/24) comments: "Good morning, in relation to the above planning application the Council would kindly request further details regarding the storage of both waste and recycling receptacles as the submitted plans do not show where recycling boxes and wheelie bins will be stored within the curtilage of the property. If the applicant requires any further information on what is required I would kindly suggest that they contact the Council's waste services management team on 696449."

5.3 Ecosystems Policy Team (23/4/24): "The applicant has ticked no to both tree questions within the application form. However, photos submitted within the Planning Statement and recent aerial photographs show there are clearly trees within the development footprint which will need to be removed to facilitate the development. Therefore, DEFA Forestry need to be consulted on this application. The applicants will also need to provide details of proportionate ecological mitigation for the loss of the trees prior to determination of the application. We suggest new landscaping and integrated swift boxes on the new property."

REPRESENTATIONS 5.4 10 Auckland Grove, Douglas (30/7/24) comments: "I am joint owner of 10 Auckland Grove along with my partner and we both live on the premises.

I am writing to the planning committee to object to the approval in principle to a dwelling as outlined in planning application number 24/00320/A, and we wish to be considered as interested parties

My objections are primarily, but not solely, based on the impact of the development on our property, ourselves and our quality of our life.

loss of privacy 2.loss of sunlight 3.overintensive development

I enclose a plan showing the proposed development on our adjacent property. It shows our building footprint and our amenity areas consisting of a glass conservatory, the garden and a roof garden area which is accessible from within the house via a disabled lift, as well as by internal stairs. Access to sun and light to us in private, which is currently available to us, is essential to our well-being and quality of life.

We are both grandparents with young grandchildren, and are able to enjoy our facilities with them at our home. Windows at the first and second floors of the West elevation of the proposed development directly face over our property and into our bedroom windows and the south elevation is on the same line as our garden wall, so the occupants of the proposed development would have a clear view over our garden roof, garden and conservatory.

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      24/00320/A                                     Page  6  of  10

Such a loss of privacy to us would have a highly detrimental impact on our lives. The proposed development can be seen from the plan to be to the South East of our garden and conservatory.

It is three stories high and above our garden wall. I am of the view that it would significantly reduce the amount of sunlight we receive, particularly during the morning and lunchtime hours, and the proposal represents an over-intensive development of the land.

I am enlosing photographs showing the east facing Facade of our property which would be impacted on by the proposals.

I think that it would be beneficial for someone from the planning department to visit and see how the proposal will impact on our property and us, first hand.

Redacted Redacted If approval in principle were to be granted, we would respectfully request that minimum conditions are applied in order that any detailed application addresses our concerns regarding light and privacy. It is our view however that due to the highly intensive nature of the planned development, this will not be possible

Thank you for your consideration, and I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this objection."

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this current planning application in principle are: (i) The principle of development; (ii) Impact on the streetscene, (iii) Impact on neighbouring amenity (overlooking, loss of light and over bearing); and, (iv) Impact on highway safety; (v) Biodiversity

(I) The principle of development 6.2 The application site is shown in the Area Plan for the East (2020) as being in a 'Predominantly Residential' area, and as such there is a presumption in favour of residential development here as set out in the aforementioned policies of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016. The principle of residential development on the site, is therefore, accepted.

(ii) Impact on the streetscene, 6.3 The site comprises a detached garage outbuilding with garden land to the rear. Manx stone walls with concrete blockwork atop mark the sites side and rear boundaries and prevent observation of the site from street level. To the rear of the site at a higher level, and with windows facing directly onto the site and with a terraced patio area at first floor level to the side/rear is the residential dwelling at No. 10 Auckland Close. A Garage building lies immediately adjacent to the site to the south, beyond this is the side wall of flats at 3-5 Windsor Court containing windows overlooking the site at first floor level. A car park serving the Reayrt Ny Baie Residential Complex lies immediately to the north whilst the apartments contained in the Reayrt Ny Baie Residential Complex lie directly across the access road to the east of the site. The distance between the site boundary and the wall of the 4-storey high Reayrt Ny Baie complex is approx. 6.5m. The approx. distance between the rear wall of the proposed dwelling and that at No. 10 Auckland Grove is 9.5m; and, 10.0m between rear wall of the new dwelling and the balcony serving No. 10.

6.4 The application is accompanied by a Proposed 'Sketch' Site Plan showing an indicative design for a three storey, detached dwelling with a garage and ancillary accommodation at ground floor/street level, living accommodation at first floor level; and, 2 bedrooms and a bathroom at second floor level. It measures approx. 8.0m high to the eaves and 10.2m high to

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      24/00320/A                                     Page  7  of  10

the ridge. It would have a width of just under 7.0m; and, a depth of 10.0m at GF level; and, 8.0m at second floor level. It would be served by windows in both front and rear elevations, with a terrace deck at first floor level to the rear leading from the house into the rear garden; and, a Juliet balcony with inward opening double doors in the front elevation facing out onto the Reayrt Ny Baie complex. The Planning Statement accompanying the application advises that would have a footprint approx. 5m2 larger in footprint area than that of the existing garage with a footprint of 42.76m2; would have its own parking area (integral garage) and that the private garden area (excluding the decked area) would be just over 34m2. The rear garden depth would be approx. 6.5m and the rear decked area would measure approx. 3.0m wide x 1.8m deep. This would provide room for a couple of chairs and a picnic table.

6.5 General Policy 2 indicates that development will normally be permitted where it is accordance with the current land use zoning 'Predominantly Residential' and where the proposal:

(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; and,

In addition, the provisions of General Policy 2 (g) and (h) are of relevance and are rehearsed below where:

"(g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;

(h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;"

6.6 It is considered that the proposal, which although submitted in principle, provides an indicative form as to how the site could be developed, would result in a dwelling that would appear isolated in the context of its surroundings, being 3 stories high next to a car park on one side and a single storey garage on the other, but also within close proximity (approx. 6.5m) of the 4-storey high Reayrt Ny Baie complex which would dominate the outlook from the front of any new dwelling. Given what lies to either side of the site of the new dwelling, any structure at three stories in height is likely to appear incongruous. Such a height would be required to offer a 'viable' dwelling in terms of internal living accommodation and car parking provision. The limited depth of the site - where when taking out the dwelling's footprint - the rear garden would have a depth of approx. 6.5m - would result in a cramped form of development. This is further emphasised by the relatively close proximity of the neighbouring dwelling to the rear (west) of the site at 10 Auckland Grove, which is sited at a higher level than the site as witnessed by the access staircase from the adjoining car park to the north to get to Auckland Grove outside No. 10, and which has a row of clear glazed, high level windows serving living accommodation at its second storey level. These windows afford immediate views over the site and what would be the rear garden and rear aspect of the new dwelling approx. 7.5 metres away. Overall, it is considered that the erection of any viable dwelling on the site would appear cramped and incongruous and would fail to accord with the provisions of General Policy 2 (b), (c) and (g) of the IOMSP 2016.

(iii) Impact on neighbouring amenity (overlooking, loss of light and over bearing); 6.7 As indicated above, Policy General Policy 2(g) requires new development should not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality. In respect of residential amenity, it is noted that the proposal would result in a dwelling that would very likely be 3 stories high next to a car park on one side, a single storey garage on the other, but also within close proximity (approx. 6.5m) of the 4-storey high Reayrt Ny Baie complex which would dominate the outlook from the front of any new dwelling. The 'sketch' drawings also

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      24/00320/A                                     Page  8  of  10

indicate a first floor level Juliet balcony with double, inward opening patio doors that would serve the lounge. A further two windows would be inserted at second floor level one serving a bedroom, and the other a bathroom, although this would most likely be obscure glazed. It is considered that the relationship and close proximity of the dwelling from the various windows serving apartments in the Reayrt Ny Baie complex opposite the site would give rise to an unacceptable degree of overlooking, and loss of privacy to occupants of these existing apartments - and vice versa in respect of future occupants of any new dwelling on the site. Furthermore, it is considered that at a distance of approx. 6.5m away, the 4-storey high Reayrt Ny Baie complex would appear overbearing in relation to the outlook from the windows in the front elevation of the proposed dwelling.

6.8 In addition, the relationship with the adjoining dwelling to the rear at No. 10 Auckland Grove also gives cause for concern. The occupants of No. 10 have raised concerns about the relationship of the new dwelling with windows in the side/rear elevation of their property; and, in respect of views obtainable of the site from their rear balcony/terrace which is used for outdoor leisure purposes. The neighbours have provided photographs of the site from their property with their representation.

6.9 The limited depth of the site - where after taking out the dwelling's footprint - the rear garden would have a depth of approx. 6.5m - and the extent and relationship of the proposed rear deck - which would be screened to some degree from views from the rear terrace/deck serving No. 10 by the extended rear wing of the new dwelling which would project out to the depth of the deck (approx. 1.8m depth) - would overall, result in an uncomfortable relationship between the new dwelling and No. 10.

6.10 The occupants of the new dwelling would, at the rear of the dwelling and from the rear deck, be able to see up to these higher level windows in the rear side elevation of No. 10, and these windows would also be directly observable from the outdoor terrace serving the new dwelling and from ground and first floor level windows; and, directly the rear garden across from the second floor bedroom window (although the rear second floor bathroom window would most likely be obscure glazed).

6.11 The rear balcony/terrace serving No. 10 would also be overlooked from views obtained from the rear windows in the new dwelling and from the rear decked area, as advised by the occupants of No. 10. This too is considered to be unacceptable. Overall, in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy to the occupants of No. 10 Auckland Grove, the siting of the new dwelling would give rise to an unacceptable loss of residential amenity to the occupants of this neighbouring dwelling contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 (g) and Environment Policy 22 (iii) which covers - inter alia - light and noise pollution; and, Environment Policy 23 which requires that: "When considering alterations and improvements to existing facilities the Department will require that consideration be given to the potential adverse impact of the proposed changes to existing neighbours."

6.11 It is also a case of 'see and be seen' in that occupants of the new dwelling would be observable in reverse from the same relationships with No. 10 Auckland Grove. The occupants of No. 10 Auckland Grove would be able to see and observe comings and goings to the rear of the new dwelling and would have direct window to window views across the rear garden area of the same windows in the new dwelling. They would further obtain views of the rear balcony/terrace serving the new dwelling, all of which it is considered, would result in an unacceptably low level of residential amenity for future occupants on any proposed dwelling on the site.

6.12 Overall, the proposed development would due to the amenity issues described above, fail to accord with the provision of General Policy 2 (b), (c) and (g); Environment Policy 22 (iii) which covers - inter alia - light and noise pollution; and, Environment Policy 23 of the IOMSP 2016.

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      24/00320/A                                     Page  9  of  10

(iv) Impact on highway safety; 6.13 The site is currently occupied by an unused residential garage. Access to the site is derived from the access road running from Albert Terrace around to the rear of the Reayrt Ny Baie complex. The comments received from DoI Highways are noted in that Highways considers that the proposal have no significant negative impact upon highway safety. DoI Highways also comments that the garage on the plans is not large enough to store vehicles, but there is a parking area in front to sufficiently park vehicles adequately. Vehicle access details, parking layout and bin store area van be covered at the Reserved Matters stage. Given these comments, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and accords with the provisions of Policies T4 and T7 of the IOMSP 2016.

(V) Impact on Biodiversity 6.14 The Ecosystems Policy Team's comments are noted. From the Case Officer's site visit on has commented advising that there are trees on 1/8/24, it was noted that there are no trees on the site. The nearest tree to the site is a Rowan tree located on the adjoining car park area which in part overhangs the site. It is likely that this tree would be compromised and require removal in order to facilitate the development. It is not a specimen tree, although it is sited on third party land. A Sycamore tree is located on the adjoining garage site, although its crown spread does not overhang the application site. It too is not a specimen tree, although it would not necessarily require removal to facilitate the development of the site with a dwelling. In the event of an approval being granted, the provision of Swift boxes could be conditioned. This would accord with the provisions of the provisions of Environment Policy 3; and, Environment Policy 4 (c) of the IOMSP 2016.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed development of the site via the erection of a dwelling is unacceptable because it would result in a cramped form of development, that would appear incongruous on this side of the access road, and which would out of keeping with the adjoin 4-storey residential development at the Reayrt Ny Baie complex opposite the site approx. 6.5m away to the east; and, the adjoining 2-storey dwelling at 10 Auckland Grove to the east of the site, which is also approx. 6.5m away from the indicated rear wall of the applications sketch dwelling. The submitted details, although indicative at this stage, emphasise the difficulties in accommodating a viable, in terms of accommodation to be provided, form of residential development. This is contrary to the advice contained in the Isle of Man Residential Design Guide 2021; and, the provisions of General Policy 2 (b), (c) and (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

7.2 The proposed development of the site via the erection of a dwelling is unacceptable because there would be an unacceptable degree of overlooking of windows serving living accommodation in the upper side wall of No. 10 Auckland in that the occupants of the new dwelling due to:

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      24/00320/A                                     Page  10  of  10

of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, in that the Department will require that consideration be given to the potential adverse impact of the proposed changes to existing neighbours.

7.3 The proposed development of the site via the erection of a dwelling is unacceptable because the occupants of No. 10 Auckland Grove would be able to see and observe activities and comings and goings to the rear of the new dwelling and would have direct window to window views across the rear garden area of the same windows in the new dwelling as advised in Reason 2 of this Refusal Notice. They would further obtain views of the rear balcony/terrace serving the new dwelling, all of which would result in an unacceptably low level of residential amenity for future occupants of any proposed dwelling on the site. This is contrary to the advice contained in the Isle of Man Residential Design Guide 2021; and, the provisions of provisions of General Policy 2 (g) and Environment Policy 23 (in part) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, in that the Department will require that consideration be given to the potential adverse impact of the proposed changes to existing neighbours. This works both ways in respect of overlooking and loss of privacy.

7.4 For the reasons as set out in this report the application is recommended for refusal.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 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.

8.2 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.

8.3 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 a Principal Planner 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: 20.08.2024

Determining officer Signed : C BALMER

Chris Balmer

Principal Planner

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.