Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90249/B
Page 1 of 17
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90249/B Applicant : Tracey Bell Proposal : Erection of new four-storey dwelling house Site Address : Land Adjoining 44 Victoria Road Douglas Isle Of Man
Principal Planning Officer: Belinda Fettis Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 12.06.2025 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. By virtue of the proximity to the existing buildings, no.44 and no.46 Victoria Road, the proposed building would disrupt the general rhythm of the overall group of buildings and result in an incongruous built development between the period buildings. Therefore the proposal does not accord with the Residential Design Guide (2021) and is contrary to Strategic Policy 4 and 5, Environment Policy 42 and General Policy 2 (b), (c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).
R 2. The design does not protect or enhance the local character and there is no overarching need that outweighs that harm. Therefore the proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy 4 and 5, Environment Policy 42 and General Policy 2 (b), (c) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).
R 3. The design, incorporating elevations beyond neighbouring front and rear elevations and balconies would result in unacceptable levels of actual and perceived harm to existing residential amenity. Therefore the proposal does not accord with the Residential Design Guide (2021) and is contrary to General Policy 2(g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
Douglas Corporation - no objection.
Highway Services - no objection. __
Officer’s Report
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90249/B
Page 2 of 17
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site relates to the residential curtilage of a four storey Georgian styled semi-detached dwellinghouse. This pair of semis deeper in depth than they are in width. The semis are separated from the road by an enclosed area. The lower ground floor windows can be seen from the footpath.
1.2 The area proposed for development abuts the north side elevation of the building. The hard standing area is used for off-road parking and the remainder is garden. The land slopes away from the road and the rear elevation. A wall along the boundary between the application site and garden of no.44 graduates in height as the land slopes away. The stone wall runs along most of its boundary with No. 44. There boundary with no.46 is part fence. The garden widens as it extends away from the buildings until the rear boundary meets its boundary with a woodland area on Castlemona Avenue. Much of the garden area has been cleared of overgrown shrubbery.
1.3 Abutting the northern boundary of the site is a ramp providing side access to no.46 and pedestrian access exists to the rear outdoor space of no.46.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for the erection of an open market new detached four storey dwellinghouse comprising a garage at street level, central staircase and balconies on the rear elevation. The dual pitch building incorporates a floating bay window below a dual pitch roof over the first and second floor. Details are as follows: a) Lower ground floor: w.c. & utility and storage rooms, open plan kitchen diner & lounge with access to the patio area and garden. b) Upper ground floor (street level): garage, entrance hall, w.c., cloak room, study room, bedroom no.3 with en-suite bathroom and access onto a private glass balustrade enclosed balcony measuring approximately 5.3m x 2.3m. c) First floor: bedrooms 1 and 2 both with en-suite bathrooms. Bedroom 2 has access onto a private glass balustrade enclosed balcony measuring approximately 5.3m x 2.3m. d) Second floor: a walk in wardrobe and bathroom, master bedroom with access onto a private glass balustrade enclosed balcony measuring approximately 3.6m x 1.42m. e) All the glass balustrades are proposed fitted marine grade stainless steel and obscure glass approximately 1m in height on the rear elevation and approximately 1.8m on the side elevations with angled corners towards the rear elevations. f) All windows on the south (right) side elevation and north (left) side elevation are proposed fitted with obscure glazing. g) All the windows on the rear elevation are floor to ceiling, 4 panels, either bi-fold or part patio door style openings. h) All the windows are proposed to be powder coated Aluminium in RAL 7016 Anthracite Grey i) Of the external finishes, the hipped roof is proposed in new slate, the walls a mix of smooth render painted white except for at ground floor level on the front elevation where the render would have Ashlar scribing. Vertical slates that match the roof to be hung between the windows on the projecting bay. j) Swift bricks are proposed on the north (left) side elevation and Bat bricks on the south (right) side elevation. k) New planting proposed at the rear.
2.2 The following documents are submitted in support of the proposal. o Planning Statement in which a case is made that this proposal addresses the reasons for refusal. o Proposed plans for the site, elevations and floors. o Site photographs
2.3 Separation distances no.44:
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90249/B
Page 3 of 17
The side elevation facing no.44 is separated by an increasing distance, front to back, measured electronically on the submitted plan as approximately 1.4m, 1.6m and 1.8m. The front elevation at first and second floor would protrude approximately 2m beyond the front elevation of no.44 and 1m at ground floor level.
2.4 Separation distances no.46: The side elevation facing no.46 is separated by an increasing distance, front to back, measured electronically on the submitted plan as approximately 2.5m, 2.6m and 2.7m. The front elevation is set back from the front elevation of no.46 approximately 5.6m at ground level and 4.5m at upper floor levels. The rear elevation protrudes approximately 10m at lower ground level and 8.4m at ground level and 6.7m at first floor level and 5.6m at second floor level.
2.5 The new dwelling is not presented as being an 'affordable' dwellinghouse therefore it is assumed to be an open market dwellinghouse.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific 3.1.1 Abutting the site on Victoria Road, the area road is showing as being susceptible to surface water flooding, but that risk is displayed as being low. The site is not within a flood zone.
3.1.2 None of the following constraints are adjacent to or within the setting of the site. o Conservation Area or Registered Building; o Protected tree or area of protection.
3.1.3 The site is located within an area designated for 'Mixed Use' on the Area plan for the East (Map 4) but is opposite an area designated for 'Predominantly Residential' development. In the Area Plan for the East Written Statement the site is not on land subject to a design brief however elements of the Area Plan are relevant.
3.1.4 Section 3.4 talks about the spatial vision for the East, its importance as a location to work and live, providing good infrastructure and suitable housing. Recognising the distinctive sense of place that built heritage provides, and sensitive relationships between old and new buildings and the spaces between them.
3.1.5 The following points and sections are from Section 6.6. Principles of good design;
3.1.6 (6.6.1) 'New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island.'
3.1.7 (6.6.2) 'A positive contribution means making places which are attractive and safe areas to live, work and invest in. In order to achieve this, it is essential that detailed design proposals be based around an understanding of constraints and opportunities of the site and that the proposal responds positively to local context, in terms of its scale, form, layout, materials, colouring, fenestration and architectural detailing.'
3.1.8 (6.6.3) A good understanding of the local character distinctiveness is essential; 'Local character is defined by the natural and physical features of an area, including its topography, the pattern of streets and public spaces, the street scene, the density of development, the scale and form of buildings and the materials used in construction.'
3.1.9 (6.6.6) 'The layout, orientation and design of buildings can reduce the need for energy consumption by maximising the [natural] potential'. Where this is not achievable due to constraints such as existing character or juxtaposition of adjacent buildings, 'applicants should
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90249/B
Page 4 of 17
demonstrate how the design of the development has reduced the need for energy consumption.'
Historic environment; 3.1.10 (6.8.1) Local characteristics within the built environment provide attractive living and working conditions, and tourism opportunities. 'It is essential that local character is safeguarded'.
3.1.11 (6.8.3) 'Existing and new development can exist side by side, even with some visual differences. New development does not have to mimic existing development but can be of its own time.
3.1.12 However, (Urban Environment Proposal 3 page 53) 'Development proposals must make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Traditional or contemporary approaches may be appropriate, depending upon the nature of the proposal and the context of the surrounding area.'
3.2 Strategic Policy 3.2.1 Based on the above details and observations the following strategic policies are relevant in assessing the proposed development.
3.2.2 Strategic Policy 1: Development should make the best use of resources by (a) optimising the use of previously developed land and (b) ensure efficient use of sites and (c) utilise existing infrastructure and services.
3.2.3 Strategic Policy 3(b): Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of towns and villages is protected or enhanced by the criteria (a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation and (b) having regard to the design and use of local materials and character.
3.2.4 Strategic Policy 4: Development proposals must protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas. Paragraph 4.3.8 notes the criticism of 'anywhere' architecture, but that it is important for new developments to properly analyse the 'context in terms of siting, layout, scale, materials and other factors.' However acknowledging that replication of historic architecture 'can produce buildings which do not reflect twenty first century lifestyles including accessibility and energy conservation.' And noting that 'there is often a consensus about what constitutes good and poor design, it is notoriously difficult to define or prescribe.'
3.2.5 Strategic Policy 5: 'New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.'
3.2.6 Strategic Policy 10: New development should be located and designed to take advantage of existing and planned transport networks and not adversely affect highway safety. New development should be located where it could encourage minimal private car use and encourage the use of public transport and for example, walking and cycling.
3.2.7 Spatial Policy 5: New development will be in defined settlements.'
3.2.8 General Policy 2: Development in accordance with land-use zoning will normally be permitted provided that they meet the relevant criteria of (a) to (n). Although the site is in open countryside, outside land-use zoning for development, the following general provisions of development are considered relevant to most development on the island, in specifically to this application.
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90249/B
Page 5 of 17
(b) respect the site and surrounding in terms of citing layout scale for design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protective wildlife or habitat or water courses; (e) does not adversely affect public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features; (g) firstly does not adversely affect the amenity of local residents or local character; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards including access parking and manoeuvring; (i) does not have unacceptable effect on road safety; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (l) is not at risk from unreasonable risk of flooding; (m) takes account of community, personal safety and security in the design of buildings and spaces around them; and how this policy is met is unclear however the windows facing the street and the parking would add to natural surveillance. Similarly, although the side elevations are proposed obscure glazed the level of glazing in the rear elevation would add to natural surveillance on the rear elevation. (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption. The proposal does not include methods such as solar panels or air source heat pumps, fossil fuel boilers are prohibited. However the design of glazing on the south elevation would enable interjection of light and warmth therefore in this regard the design works.
3.2.9 Environment Policy 4: Protects ecology and biodiversity/important habitats. Refer to G2 (d)
3.2.10 Environment Policy 42: New development should be designed to take into account the character and identity of the area. Refer to G2 (b) (c) (g)
3.2.11 Chapter 8 provides detail on the Government's housing objectives and approach to area plans, and how and where housing should be. Paragraph 8.3.1 states that new housing should be located only where it can be properly and economically serviced, and where it does not damage the character, appearance, and ecology of the Island, and does enhance the existing natural and built environment.
3.2.12 Housing Policy 1: The housing needs of the Island will be met by making sufficient provision which includes enabling 5,100 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2011 to 2026.
3.2.13 Housing Policy 4: New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages.
3.2.14 Housing Policy 6: When a site within an existing residential area is not covered by a Development Brief, the proposal must be in accordance with paragraph 6.2 of the Strategic Plan; General Policy 2.
3.2.15 Transport Policy 1: Proximity to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes important for new development.
3.2.16 Transport Policy 7: All new development is required to provide parking provision in accordance with current standards detailed in Appendix 7 of the Plan; two parking spaces are required for a new dwellinghouse however a reduced number will be considered if (a) the location is close to public transport, employment and public amenities, and (b) the size of the dwelling and (c) restrictions on occupancy and (d) impact on surrounding character.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90249/B
Page 6 of 17
4.1 Residential Design Guide (2021): Although the guidance does not specifically deal with construction of one dwelling, Section 3 provides advice on the design of new houses 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. Paragraphs 3.1.3 to 3.1.7 replicates Strategic Plan guidance that whilst good modern design should not be considered amongst older buildings, the proposal has to take account of the sites context and not result in a loss of the sense of place.
4.2 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025): 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.
4.3 Manual for Manx Roads (2021): 4.3.1 Quality Standards (Table C.2): 4.3.1 Driveway parking space in front of garage; Minimum Length - 6.0m; Minimum width - 2.6m; Minimum Width if driveway provides pedestrian access - 3.4m.
4.3.2 Garages (Table C.3): Standard Single: Length - 6.0m; Width -3.0m; Min Door width
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 There are several planning applications that incorporate the site and encompass the adjacent buildings no. 44 and no46. The following previous applications are considered materially relevant to this application:
5.2 PA 24/00050/B 'new dwelling to be created on vacant plot'. Refused for the following reasons: R1. 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 and 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.
R2. 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).
R3. 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.
R4. 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
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90249/B
Page 7 of 17
unacceptable when assessed against General Policy 2 (g) and the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide 2021.
5.3 PA 08/00039/B for Erection of block of four apartments with parking and garage (comprising an amendment to the development refused under 07/00881/B) - Refused. This application was refused at Appeal for the following reasons: R1. The overall scheme would constitute over-development of the site, and would fail to respect the character of the existing neighbouring dwellings; the proposed extension to No.44 would upset to an unacceptable degree the symmetry of the pair of dwellings, the design of the windows and front door fenestration would be unacceptable, the square-section aperture to the car park would be out of character; the proposed development would thereby have an adverse impact on the local street scene.
R2. The car parking provision would be insufficient to comply with the required standards, and insofar as it is at the rear, would adversely affect the living conditions of existing residents living either side of the site.
R3. The proposed access is unacceptable in terms of visibility.
5.4 PA 07/00881/B - Erection of block of four apartments with parking and garage - refused on 6 December 2007. Refused for the following reasons: R1. The proposed development would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the development has not be [sic] designed to take account of the existing character and identity of buildings in which the development will join onto and will be an incongruous addition to the pair of semi-detached properties, to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality.
R2. The proposed development would be contrary to Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that: i) the proposed car parking provision is inadequate in number to serve the needs of the existing flats of No.44 and the proposed flats and will result in further on-street parking in the area, which will lead to noise and general disturbance to local residents;
ii) the proposed access will have inadequate visibility splays to allow safe egress from the site onto the public highway of Victoria Road and therefore would be detrimental to highway safety.
5.5 05/01069/A - Approval in principle to demolish existing property [no.44] and erect a four storey block of eight apartments with associated parking to rear - refused on review 29 September 2005. The reason for refusal was as follows: R1. There is in the submitted application insufficient information to enable a full and proper assessment of a. the access and egress arrangements; b. the drainage proposals; and c. the impact on the street scene.
R2. In any case, it is clear that there would be unreasonable and adverse impact on the enjoyment of adjoining residential buildings and gardens.
5.6 PA 02/02347/B - Erection of 28 apartments in two blocks with parking and garaging to replace existing Residential Home [no.46, no.48]. Refused fir the following reasons: R1. The proposals would constitute a gross over-development of the site which would
(a) affect adversely the street-scene on Victoria Road; block "A" would be intrusive and out of scale with nearby buildings; and
==== PAGE 8 ====
25/90249/B
Page 8 of 17
(b) affect adversely adjoining property as a result of (i) the overlooking of rear gardens from block "B"; (ii) disturbance from the arrival and departure of motor cars; and (iii) the impact on the outlook from the rear of the houses.
R2. Approval for Block "B" would establish a precedent for further, similar development on nearby land, so exacerbating the adverse effects identified in reasons (1).
5.7 There are other planning applications made for no.44 and no.46 Victoria Road in which the land subject to this planning application has been included within the red or blue line. There are others, however the following applications were considered primarily to assess whether any previous application had a condition relating to the land upon which this application is proposed. None were found. o 06/01217/B - creation of additional apartment - parking was considered and found not to be a concern due to the proximity of the property to Douglas centre and public transport. o PA 99/01791/A - Approval in principle for construction of apartments to replace existing nursing home. Permitted. Condition no. There must be provided a minimum of 2 parking spaces (off-street) for each dwelling. o 87/04827/A - Approval in principle to extensions to form additional bedrooms and dining room. o 84/01279/B - Use of premises [no.46] as a residential care home.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 Local Authority 6.1.1 Douglas Corporation: (21.03.2025) does not object but sufficient storage space should be made available within the curtilage of the property for storage of recycling and general waste. Amended drawing no.23-111-01 Rev.E was submitted and the Corporation advised on the 2nd of June 2025 however as of the date of this report no further response has been received therefore it is assumed that the concern is addressed (10.06.2025).
6.2 Statutory Consultees: 6.2.1 Highways: (20.03.2025) does not object; would not have significant negative impact upon highway safety, adequate off-road parking, visibility splay acceptable for the road speed, access previously been used for vehicles without known issues.
6.2.2 Highways, drainage: (16.04.2025) allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene s58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. The applicant should be made aware of this and demonstrate compliance with the above clause.
6.2.3 The Ecosystem Team: (03.04.2025) Content to not object, subject to the mitigation conditions incorporating the reasons for not objecting; i) Integrated bat and swift bricks to be installed in the locations shown on the Proposed Elevations (Drawing No. 23 - 111 - 02 Rev C) ii) No works to commence until a soft landscaping plan has been submitted to the Planning Department and approved in writing.
6.2.4 Manx Utilities water and electricity were consulted on the 10th of March however at the time of drafting this report (02.06.2025) no response has been received and so it is assumed that there are no objections to the application.
==== PAGE 9 ====
25/90249/B
Page 9 of 17
6.2.5 Forestry, Amenity and Lands were consulted on the 10th of March however at the time of drafting this report (02.06.2025) no response has been received and so it is assumed that there are no objections to the application.
6.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 There have been several applications for development of the site either as an extension to no.44 or a detached building as in this application proposal. There are recurring reasons for refusal relating to the access and egress arrangements and impact upon the streetscene and impact upon the residential amenity of the adjacent neighbour and adjoining neighbour.
7.2 Previous applications for residential development on site have established that the principle of residential development is acceptable. There have been no changes to Policies since the last refusal, therefore the principle of residential development remains acceptable.
7.3 However the principle alone is insufficient to permit development, proposals must also meet relevant criteria of other associated Policies.
7.4 In addition, when considering an application post refusal, a material consideration is whether the new proposal removes or adequately addresses the reasons for refusal.
7.5 In essence the principle of the proposed building was not contested therefore it is not discussed in this report. The reasons for refusal, including the most recent (24/00050/B), centre around the design and scale, parking and highway safety and ecological impacts. Therefore as part of this assessment consideration is given as to whether this proposal addresses those reasons for refusal. The assessment has been compartmentalised as follows:
(7.6) Design Character Impact (refusal reason 1); (7.7) Impact on Neighbour Amenity (refusal reason 4); (7.8) Impacts on Parking and Highway Safety (refusal reason 2 and 3); (7.9) Ecological Impacts; (7.10) Planning Balance; (8.0) Conclusion
(7.6) Design Character Impact 7.6.1 New development should respect the existing built environment and sense of place and be sympathetic to the character of the locality, enhancing where possible. Therefore in assessing the design of the new building it is important to know the context. In considering the context of the site it is worth noting previous contextual assessments. The Inspectors Appeal Report relating to the refusal under PA 08/00039/B is relevant. In paragraph 36 (a) the Inspector describes his opinion noting that 'bulk and massing is an important matter in the street scene. No.s 42 and 44, like 40 and 38 [ ] read as pairs.' In referencing separation distances and set back positions, the Inspector goes on to state that although there are extension links between no.40 and 42, 'these are small and set well back from the frontage such that the builds appear as separate dwellings.' The Inspector noted that the proposal would 'upset the symmetry of the semi-detached pair of no.s 42 and 44 to an unacceptable degree.'
7.6.2 Except for the modern semi-detached dwellings north of the site (no.50 onwards), the adjacent buildings of the site and others in proximity are traditional period buildings. Features such as gable chimney stacks, mouldings and 50/50 ratio sliding sash windows are commonplace.
7.6.3 Construction and design on the site are problematic because the site is a relatively narrow strip of land between two large dominant buildings; the semi-detached building can be
==== PAGE 10 ====
25/90249/B Page 10 of 17
viewed as one large structure. In addition the land falls away from the road providing the only usable outdoor amenity space for the neighbouring buildings.
7.6.4 Also noted is General Policy 2 (e) stating that development should not adversely affect public views of the sea. The existing gap between no.44 and no.46, the site, at some point in time probably provided passing pedestrians with a view of the sea. However at the time of this application the mature trees obstructing the view are outside the control of the applicant, in the area accessed from Castlemona Avenue. Therefore, while the proposal would forever remove the potential for those views to reopened, it is considered that as a result, loss of a view of the sea is not a reason for refusal in this instance; if the trees were removed the situation could be different.
7.6.5 The essence of refusal reason (1) Scale and character; 'the overall height, width and form of the proposed dwelling were considered to '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 and innovative/modern introduction reflective of its time as required by Paragraph 6.8.3 of the Area Plan for the East.' Therefore the proposal was '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)'.
7.6.6 The design submitted with this application has changed, stating the changes have taken account of the reasons for refusal and following a conversation with the reporting officer.
7.6.7 The height of the proposed building has been reduced and the front façade is proposed incorporating two gable ends fronting onto the street. The gable ends pick up features on the semi-detached dwellings from no.50 Victoria Road onwards and include similar finishes and fenestration. The walls incorporate finishes from the adjacent Georgian buildings. Opaque glazing has been inserted in all the side elevation windows and side panels of the proposed balconies.
7.6.8 Design appropriateness is a matter of opinion and preference therefore it is often difficult to find common ground. New buildings or extensions on or close to Registered Buildings or characterful period buildings can either replicate the existing character or be of a very modern innovative design.
7.6.9 Assessing the front façade and position, the proposed gable ends in design and material are not innovative and appear out of character between two Georgian styled buildings. The fenestration design appears to replicate the dwellings from no.50 onwards. Had the site been between no.46 and no/50 it would be more acceptable. The front elevation protrudes beyond the front elevation of no.44. The new building would not be seen in views travelling into the City of Douglas but they would be in the streetscene when travelling out of the City. Therefore in much the same way as the Inspectors Appeal Report relating to the refusal under PA 08/00039/B commented that an archway would be out of character with the buildings either side. so are the two dual pitch gables on the front elevation.
7.6.10 It is worth noting that at paragraph 37 (b) the Inspectors Appeal Report relating to the refusal under PA 08/00039/B he commented that the 'detailed design in terms of windows and front door fenestration would, in my opinion, be acceptable.' The fenestration on the front elevation of this proposal does not protect the character of the vintage buildings either side; Nor does it provide modern design or stand out architecture of its time.
7.6.11 Assessing the rear façade and position, because of the orientation of the new building the large patio style windows would allow lots of light into the habitable rooms; the balconies providing additional outdoor amenity space. The design of the rear elevation is modern and not dissimilar to modern blocks of flats built on the Island. However because of the close proximity
==== PAGE 11 ====
25/90249/B Page 11 of 17
of buildings, there are residential amenity impacts that are discussed in section 7.7 of this report. The rear elevation protrudes beyond the rear elevation of no.46 and this introduces unneighbourly impacts discussed in section 7.7.
7.6.12 Therefore in respect of position and the facades, the building needs to be in line with the front and rear elevations of no.44 however, the reduced depth would require a reduced internal space. In respect of the façade, it either needs to be ultra innovative or include features from the Georgian buildings. In respect of residential amenity, the position is key and the balconies unacceptable; discussed in section 7.7.
7.6.13 Assessing the overall reduced height, the design results in multiple eaves and ridge heights which in essence do nothing for the character of the setting. The materials whilst referencing the semi-detached dwellings at no.50 and northwards, and some elements from the period adjacent building, they do not provide cohesion in the setting, or provide a standout modern feature. Overall it is considered that the design would stand out as an incongruous addition to the immediate street scene, drawing negative attention to it rather than positive.
Streetscene: The Gap 7.6.14 The supporting statement says that the new design and scale would fill the gap between no.44 and no.46 which is uncharacteristic of the streetscene and therefore result in better assimilation within the street; It does not assess why the gap is uncharacteristic.
7.6.15 It is considered that the 'gap' has occurred because of the topography that has resulted in Victoria Road's convex curve at this point. Filling the gap when the existing buildings were constructed would have meant a curved building, therefore it was likely cheaper to leave a 'gap'. In that context the space between the buildings is not waiting to be filled, it is part of the historic character of road.
7.6.16 Strategic Policy 3 requires new development to ensure that individual character of towns and villages is protected or enhanced. (a) relates to avoiding coalescence through adequate separation and although relating to settlements, it could also be relevant to the 'gap'.
7.6.17 Accounting for matters that would be explored if approved, such as biodiversity gain and surface water management, the proposal meets Strategic Policy (SP) SP1, SP10; Spatial Policy 5; GP2 (e), (f), (h), (i), (j), (m); and could improve on SP3(b), SP4; G2 (d),(l), (n); EP4;
7.6.18 Based on the above assessment it is considered that the scheme is unacceptable because it fails to meet SP3(b), SP4, SP5 GP2 (b), (c), (g), EP42.
7.7 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITY
7.7.1 In the wider context neighbours from across the road would observe the loss of the gap between no.44 and no.46 but no adverse harm to residential amenity is observed. With the appropriate design a building within the gap would not appear out of place.
7.7.2 The existing neighbours closest to the proposal are the inhabitants of no.46 (residential care home) and no.44 (4 flats (PA. 06/01217/B). The rear elevation of no.46 faces east-and the rear elevation on no.44-east-south. Separation distances are provided at paragraph 2.3 and 2.4 of this report.
7.7.3 No neighbour comments have been received by the Planning Department, nevertheless consideration is given to the impacts of the proposal on the existing and future neighbours. Impacts are assessed on inside and outside amenity spaces. Inside rooms are broken down into their level of importance, most used.
==== PAGE 12 ====
25/90249/B Page 12 of 17
7.7.4 The Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025 provides a definition of a non-habitable room, 'bathroom, utility room, hallway, corridor, stair, landing, garage, porch, and storage'.
7.7.5 The Residential Design Guide (2016) (RDG) Section 7 includes definitions of habitable rooms in which living rooms are categorised as 'Primary Habitable Rooms' and bedrooms as 'Secondary Habitable Rooms'. Paragraph 7.2.4 of the RDG states that 'any secondary window serving a Primary Room will be considered as if it were a window serving a Secondary Room.' Paragraph 7.2.1 states the common impacts of loss of light/ overshadowing, overbearing / impact on outlook and overlooking / loss of privacy.
Loss of light / shadowing 7.7.6 The side elevation windows on no.46 are south facing, and the side elevation windows on no.44 are north facing. The separation distance between no.44 and no.46 is approximately 9.9m, that allows light to all windows.
7.7.7 In respect of no.44, the separation distance would be reduced to approximately 1.6m, together with the height and depth of the building, light would be significantly reduced to the stairwell and bathrooms on the first and second floor; plans show a bathroom window at ground floor level but this appears bricked up. The spaces are not habitable rooms however the significant reduction in light would have implications for the occupants.
7.7.8 There are Secondary Habitable Room windows on the side elevation, a bedroom on the ground floor and on the first and second floor the rooms are annotated as 'lounge' (06/01217/B).
7.7.9 On the rear elevation, because of the orientation, the Primary Windows will provide most of the natural light. The proposals rear elevation is in line with the rear elevation of no.44 therefore there would be no overshadowing or loss of light from the building. The balconies would introduce some shadowing but, even with the obscure glazing filtering light, it is unlikely that the level would be unacceptable.
7.7.10 On the front elevation, the nearest windows at ground, first and second floor level are shown as bedrooms and those windows are the only source of natural light to those rooms; Secondary Habitable Rooms. Being on a north-west elevation natural light would be at its best later in the day as the sun sets. Although the elevation of the proposal would protrude beyond these windows it is unlikely that it would result in a significant loss of light or overshadowing.
7.7.11 Returning to the side windows of no.46, the separation distance has been measured electronically on plan as around 2.5m. Because the rear elevation of the proposal projects approximately 8.8m from the rear elevation of no.46, approximately 11m with the balcony, and because the rear elevation is south-east facing, and because the eaves height of the proposal is close to the third floor windows, it is likely that there would be a significant loss of light to the side windows between the ground floor and the third floor where there would be a loss of light but less significant. Previous assessments have concluded that because the side windows generally allow light into corridors they have less significance, and they are non-habitable rooms. However given the function of a residential care home, loss of light to the corridors on the lower floors would give rise to the need for more lighting at a cost to the residential care home, therefore I consider that there is an impact of material relevance in this case, albeit not a sole reason for refusal.
Right to light 7.7.12 Considering the right to light, in both cases, due to the proximity of the proposed new building, the proposal does not accord with paragraph 7.3.4 and 7.3.5 in the RDG. Diagram 7.A demonstrates how a daylight, 25 degree assessment should be made. It is accepted that there are many residential buildings in Douglas that are close together however this generally relates
==== PAGE 13 ====
25/90249/B Page 13 of 17
to existing buildings or groups of new buildings. This site is between two period buildings that in all probability, due to the orientation, were designed with the side windows and separation distance to allow natural light into the stairwell and corridors.
Overbearing 7.7.13 In considering whether the proposal would be overbearing paragraph 7.4 is applicable. Paragraph 7.4.2 states that, 'new dwellings should not be dominant or have an adverse impact on the primary windows of a primary habitable room or on the private garden that may be present in a neighbouring property.'
7.7.14 In respect of no.44 the new dwelling would not have an overbearing impact upon Primary Windows or Rooms. In respect of no.46, whilst the new building would be seen in some views, it is considered that this would not be overbearing to the point of being a reason alone for refusal. Paragraph 7.4.4 states that consideration should be given to the impact upon a private garden. The new building would introduce an element of overbearing upon the garden of no.44 and no.46 by virtue of its existence where presently there is open space.
7.7.15 In respect of the front elevation, because of the proximity, less than 1.5m, the proposal is likely to result in the perception of being overbearing. This would be particularly noticeable because at present there is a good separation distance between no.44 and no.46.
Overlooking 7.7.16 Adverse overlooking results in loss of privacy, therefore in situations where overlooking doesn't exist but would be introduced, extra care should be taken in making the assessment. Paragraph 7.5.2 provides a list of varying factors for consideration; overlooking of a spot, area being overlooked, typical duration of usage and mitigation methods such as opaque glazing.
7.7.17 In making this assessment, from the site 'garden' it appears that rear elevation windows on floor levels above ground would be afforded some or clear views into the neighbouring gardens. As such overlooking exists.
7.7.18 Taking account of the recent refusal, this proposal includes opaque glazing in the side elevation windows and the side panels of the balconies, however the scale and position is the same.
7.7.19 Opaque glazing in the side elevation windows would mitigate the harm. Opaque glazing in the side panels of the balconies would not.
7.7.20 Between paragraph 7.5.1 and 7.5.4 the Planning Officers report (24/00050/B ) states that the balconies would introduce an unacceptable level of overlooking. Generally balconies end up with seating and become a social space and in this location with views outward to sea it is inevitable that the duration of use would be substantial. The position of the balconies, forward of the rear elevation and elevated above the gardens would introduce overlooking and harm to neighbouring amenity. It is acknowledged that new flats often have balconies in close proximity to each other, however they are built that way, unlike this situation where balconies or even a building presently exist. From any point or area in the garden of no.44 the balconies will be in view, and vice-a-versa, and in respect of the first and second floors, no amount of screening would reduce that. The front 'garden' amenity space of no.44 is small, the front area of the site is proposed as parking, the front area of no.46 is small, therefore the rear gardens are the main outside amenity space for the existing and proposed property; including the balconies.
7.7.21 In respect of the front elevation, no overlooking concerns are observed.
7.7.22 The balconies would introduce harm to the residential amenity of occupants of no.44 and no.46. Cumulatively, the position beyond the rear elevations of no.44 and no.46, the scale
==== PAGE 14 ====
25/90249/B Page 14 of 17
of the balconies and the height would result in significant harm to neighbouring amenity and so fails to accord with General Policy 2 (g) and the principles advocated by the RDG.
7.7.23 The essence of refusal reason (4) Residential amenity; the '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.'; and the 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.' Therefore 'unacceptable when assessed against General Policy 2 (g) and the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide 2021.'
7.7.24 Whilst attempts have been made to address the reasons for refusal, the amended scheme does not address the adverse impacts of overlooking from the balconies that would exacerbate the perception of overlooking, and so the proposal fails to accord with the RDG and GP2 (g).
7.8 Impacts on Parking and Highway Safety 7.8.1 Section 7.8.2 of the Area Plan for the East Written Statement identifies an area of regular congestion due to the volume of traffic. The junction on Victoria Road with Glencrutchery Road is far enough away from the site to not add to this traffic issue.
7.8.2 The essence of refusal reason (2) Highway safety / parking; visibility in both directions would be below acceptable standards making it difficult for vehicles to exit the site in a safe and appropriate manner. Therefore contrary to the principles of General Policy 2(h and I) and Transport Policy 4.
7.8.3 The essence of refusal reason (3) Highway safety / parking; '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)'.
7.8.4 Reviewing the existing streetscene and parking, it is observed that the period buildings along this section of Victoria Road were designed without off-road parking. Where off-road parking has been created, the visibility splay is limited due to the existing built form.
7.8.5 The present situation on the site is that the site is used for parking vehicles, presumably occupants of no.44. Vehicles arrive and depart with the existing visibility. The curve of the road and existing built forms of the adjacent buildings mean that the visibility splays cannot be improved upon. Similar situations exist along the street where more modern dwellings with private parking exist.
7.8.6 No mention is made of where the existing users of the parking area will park, presumably on the street, therefore there would be some impact upon the existing occupants of no.44 and other neighbours who park on the street. A previous application in 2008 proposed parking at the rear of the buildings, however this was, and remains an unacceptable to harm to residential amenity.
7.8.7 The position of the proposed dwellinghouse allows for 6m between the front elevation and the highway, allowing parking for two vehicles. The integral garage is designed to accommodate one vehicle and measures 6m x 3m internally. The garage and the site overall has ample space to store bicycles.
7.8.8 The Highways department have reviewed the application and concluded that the proposal would have no significant negative impact upon highway safety or functionality, and
==== PAGE 15 ====
25/90249/B Page 15 of 17
that the off-road parking is adequate, as are the visibility splays. No adverse issues have been reported regarding the existing use of parking and as a result of the amended detail, and the location of the site, no reasons for refusal are raised.
7.8.9 Ownership of vehicles is inevitable however the location close to Douglas City and availability of public transport should result in less pressure to use vehicles and encourage walking or cycling.
7.8.10 Overall the proposal meets the aims and objectives of Transport Policy 6 and General Policy 2 (h)' and is acceptable.
7.9 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
7.9.1 As stated in the report for PA 24/00050/B the site had already been cleared of vegetation that could have provided levels of habitat foraging and or nesting for a variety of species. Whilst the vegetation in the rear garden is not protected, except for obligations under the Wildlife Act, as part of the application for the new building, consideration should have been given to General Policy 2 (d) and (f) which seek to ensure that developments protect locally important habitats on site. Therefore an assessment of protection and retention cannot be made. It was however established that disturbance of the site which contains Japanese Knotweed would exacerbate growth.
7.9.2 In the application supporting statement it references to a Reason (5) for the refusal (24/00050/B ) however there is no Reason (5). However during the assessment of the application discussions took place regarding the recent clearance of the site prior to submission of the planning application and concerns regarding Japanese Knotweed were raised.
7.9.3 The supporting statement states that a Japanese Knotweed eradication programme has been implemented in accordance with advice from the DEFA Biodiversity Team.
7.9.4 The plans incorporate Bat and Swift bricks in accordance with DEFA Biodiversity Team guidance.
7.9.5 A soft landscaping scheme is proposed although specific species detail is not detailed.
7.9.6 The DEFA Biodiversity Team have commented that the proposal is acceptable subject to conditions relating to details of the soft landscaping being submitted and approved and nesting boxes in situ. If recommended for approval conditions would be attached.
7.10 Planning balance
7.10.1 As outlined in the report, the proposed design is contrary to both the RDG and Plan Policies because of the design, position and resultant harm to neighbouring residential amenity. These elements are the basis for the recommendation of refusal. However there is a need for housing. As such the conflicts are between the provision of housing and, the protection of the local character, sense of place, and neighbour amenity versus design incorporating natural daylight / sunlight. Therefore the planning balance must be assessed.
7.10.2 The site is within a strategically accepted location and housing polices state that the Government will meet housing need by provision of sufficient development opportunities and that opportunities are best met in existing urban settings. However that is not to the detriment of other factors.
7.10.3 All previous assessments for development on this site have identified to the character of the locality because of scale and design. This application does not remove those concerns
==== PAGE 16 ====
25/90249/B Page 16 of 17
and there is nothing within the submission, such as a sequential test for example, to demonstrate an overriding housing need that would outweigh the harm and result in approval.
7.10.4 In respect of residential amenity, the design incorporates large glazed openings that appear disproportionate but modern and they will maximise natural light and heat from the sun to internal areas. However that appears coincidental rather than as part of a sustainable environmental design feature. The proximity and topography would introduce harmful overlooking that is not outweighed by any other benefit.
7.10.5 In respect of design it is acknowledged that replication of historic architecture can produce buildings that do not reflect modern lifestyles in respect of internal space and accessibility. Reviewing the history of the site it is observed that a variety of designs have been refused on a recurring theme of harm to residential amenity and harm to the character of the adjacent buildings and the street scene. With that in mind, perhaps it is simply that the site does not readily accommodate another building.
7.10.6 In assessing this proposal it is acknowledged that amendments have been made to try address the reasons for refusal however it is considered that the proposal does not accord with Environment Policy 42 or General Policy 2 (b), (c), (g), and the RDG and there is nothing within the submission to demonstrate an overriding housing need in this location.
7.10.7 It is considered that due to the adverse harm to residential amenity and harm to the character of the locality, and because there is no identified need that would outweigh the harm, then the planning balance is weighted for refusal.
8.0 CONCLUSION
8.1 By virtue of the location of the proposed development, the proposal accords with the Area Plan for the East and associated written statement, the Strategic Policies 1 and 10 and Spatial Policy 5, Housing Policy 1 and 4.
8.2 The proposal adequately meets the aims and objectives of General Policy 2 I, (f), (h), (i), (j), (m) and could improve on (d), (l), (n). Therefore the proposal adequately meets or almost meets the aims and objectives of Environment Policy 4, Housing Policy 6, Transport Policy 1 and 7. Elements of these policies would be conditioned for discharge if approved.
8.3 The proposal does not accord with paragraph 7.3.4 and 7.3.5 in the RDG however in assessing the right to light the use of spaces is not explored. Assessed under loss of light, because the impacts do not adversely affect Primary Habitable Rooms, the loss of light is less than significant and not a reason for refusal.
8.4 Reducing the separation distance, 'the gap', between no.44 and no.46 would change the relationship between these two buildings, and cause harm to the character of the street scene and the setting of the Georgian Buildings and so fails to recognise the importance of the existing character.
8.5 Reducing the separation distance also reduces the level of natural light to side elevation windows in the adjacent windows, not a reason for refusal, but the shadowing as a result of protrusions beyond the front and rear elevations of the adjacent buildings would at least result in a perception of overbearing and loss of light.
8.6 Overall the scheme is contrived over-development of the site that, by virtue of the mismatch design would have an adverse visual impact on the period buildings either side and the local street scene and, by virtue of the rear fenestration and balconies would have an unacceptable adverse effect on the living conditions of the neighbouring residents.
==== PAGE 17 ====
25/90249/B Page 17 of 17
8.7 For the reasons stated in the report and the conclusion the proposal is recommended for refusal.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE
9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.
9.5 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 the Right to Appeal. __
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 and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 16.06.2025
Determining Officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal