Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
11 December 2014 14/01219/B Page 1 of 9 PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 14/01219/B Applicant : Lynn Strivens Proposal : Extension to existing apartment development to provide ground floor garages and first floor apartment Site Address : Block 1 Oakhill Court Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2NJ
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 13.11.2014 Site Visit : 13.11.2014 Expected Decision Level :
Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The application site is a triangular parcel of land including the Oakhill Court apartment block in the Farmhill areas of Douglas, which is a three-storey building accommodating six no. one-bedroom apartments located on the eastern side of Stevenson Way. The site has a car parking area that can accommodate 12 vehicles and is otherwise grassed and open but for occasional trees and bushes. To the north of the application site are three apartment blocks of similar style, while to the east are the residential properties of Nos. 6 -12 (evens only) Manor Hill.
1.2 The land is stepped in this area: the site, although flat, is stepped down from the highway, while on the eastern edge of the site it is stepped downwards again such that the dwellings of Manor Hill, which appears to rise slightly in a southerly direction, are sat down from the application site. From the site visit it was apparent that some of the dwelling's ground floor could not be observed from the site due to these topographical differences. Some hedging and the occasional mature tree are also present along this boundary.
1.3 Planning approval was previously granted for 6 new apartments adjoining the existing apartment block 1 to the north (PA 07/02338/B). The agent to the application has stated as follows:
"I can confirm that the additional 6no apartments approved under PA 07/02338 have not been built yet although the car park extension and access drive realignment also approved under PA 07/02338 has been completed. Advice given by your planning office at that time confirmed that this constituted commencement of works and implementation of the planning approval hence there has been no request to extend the approval. It is the applicants intention to complete the works approved under PA 07/02338 at the same time as this current development proposal is constructed."
1.4 From the site visit, it appeared that the car park had been extended but that the access road realignment did not appear to have been carried out. The road remained a left- hand curve into the car park as opposed to the realigned right-hand curve that was proposed,
==== PAGE 2 ====
11 December 2014 14/01219/B Page 2 of 9 while the lamp-post shown for re-positioning on the earlier planning approval appeared to still be in situ.
2.0 PROPOSAL
2.1 Full planning approval is sought to extend the existing apartment block to the south and thereby provide three garage spaces on the ground floor and one apartment on the first floor. The apartment would have one bedroom, a separate bathroom and lounge/kitchen area. This would be directly above the garages and would adjoin the existing apartment block.
2.2 The proposed extension would be finished in matching materials in all aspects, and would be of a broadly identical design to that currently in situ, although would be smaller in scale than the existing apartment block.
2.3 The agent was contacted for further advice as to the basis of the application, with the query being that what was proposed seemed a large extension for just one extra apartment. He advised as follows: "Whilst the proposal creates only 1 no additional unit, it will when the development is completed provide residential block of 13no units which will be economically viable to manage based on economies of scale. The area that the proposed units (both previously approved and currently proposed) will occupy, is predominantly grass and is a significant liability and burden to the management company. The maintaining of this cannot be justified and there is the possibility that the management company may allow this area to go unkempt to reduce management costs which will be of detriment to the occupiers of the units and the general environment. This proposal when completed will reduce this management liability. The site is within an area zoned as predominantly residential. The proposals make efficient use of under developed land."
2.4 It should be noted that 8 Manor Hill is incorrectly identified on the submitted plans as 27 Manor Hill.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 As noted above, the site has an involved planning history, and one that is material to the current application given the type of development for which approval was sought and also the decision issued.
3.2 The 2007 planning application already referred to sought full planning approval for: "Erection of an extension to existing building to create six additional apartments and creation of additional car parking provision". As noted, this application (07/02338/B) was approved subject to five conditions. It not immediately clear as to whether or not this application has been commenced, and it is not within the remit of the Department to make what is a legal judgement in this respect.
3.3 Of far more relevance is the more recent application that is on a similar site to that now proposed for development. PA 08/02237/B sought full planning approval for: "Extension to existing apartment building to provide garaging with apartment over". This extension was of a broadly similar form to that now currently proposed, but had an additional element that 'kinked' in a southeastern direction towards the end of the site and would have been almost parallel to the rear elevation of 10 Manor Hill to the rear.
3.4 This application was refused on the following ground: "The proposed development would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that:
==== PAGE 3 ====
11 December 2014 14/01219/B Page 3 of 9 (a) it would impact on the neighbouring properties of Manor Hill in terms of being overbearing, overshadowing, loss of light and visual intrusion; and (b) it would result in the introduction of a prominent and excessive building within the streetscene which will result in the loss of an area of open green space to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality."
3.5 This decision was made under delegated authority and no appeal was lodged.
3.6 The four apartment blocks in the area were erected following approval to PA 90/00895/B, which itself was submitted following approval to PA 89/04189/A.
4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
4.1 The application site is within an area of "Residential Use" under the Douglas Local Plan, which was adopted by Tynwald in 1998.
4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains three policies which are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application - Housing Policy 6 of the Strategic Plan states: "Development of land which is zoned for residential development must be undertaken in accordance with the brief in the relevant area plan, or, in the absence of a brief, in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 6.2 of this Plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive."
4.3 General Policy 2, which is set out at paragraph 6.2 of the Strategic Plan, states (in part): "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; (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".
4.4 Building on Housing Policy 6 in a more general way is Environment Policy 42: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services, in an email dated 14th November 2014, advised that they do not oppose the application.
5.2 Douglas Borough Council, in correspondence date-stamped as having been received 11th November 2014, offered no objection to the application.
5.3 A number of private representations have been received. The addresses of the representors, and dates their representations were received or date-stamped as having been received (as appropriate), are provided below:
==== PAGE 4 ====
11 December 2014 14/01219/B Page 4 of 9
The owner/occupier of 6 Manor Hill, Douglas: 17th November 2014
5.7 The issues raised by these objectors are as follows:
Construction of the proposed extension would cause noise and disruption.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 Given the nature of the proposed development it is therefore appropriate to assess the proposal against the impact of the proposal upon the existing apartments to the north, impact on the properties to the south and the impact the proposal would have on the surrounding area in general. This is no different to the assessment of the previous proposal on this site, which was smaller but not altogether dissimilar in terms of the overall and resulting impact it would have.
6.2 Before continuing with the assessment, it should be noted that there have been no changes to the Development Plan since the determination of the previous application. While it is likely that the site has changed over the course of time via the growth of vegetation, the general circumstances of the application site will not have changed significantly since the determination of the previous application. With this in mind, it is worth re-stating the reason for refusal to the previous application on this site:
"The proposed development would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that:
(a) it would impact on the neighbouring properties of Manor Hill in terms of being overbearing, overshadowing, loss of light and visual intrusion; and (b) it would result in the introduction of a prominent and excessive building within the streetscene which will result in the loss of an area of open green space to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality."
6.3 This suggests that there are three key issues to take account of: (i) the impact of the proposal on public amenity in respect of the design and the streetscene; (ii) the impact of the
==== PAGE 5 ====
11 December 2014 14/01219/B Page 5 of 9 proposal on public amenity in respect of the loss of open space, and (iii) the impact of the proposal on neighbouring residential amenity, with specific reference to Manor Hill to the east.
6.4 It should first be noted that the site's zoning and location amongst other, existing housing development is such as to mean that the general principle of residential development here is acceptable.
The impact of the proposal on public amenity in respect of the design and the streetscene
6.5 In terms of the impact of the proposal upon visual amenities of the locality, it was previously considered, that together with the previously approved apartment block to the north (PA 07/02338/B), the existing apartments and the proposed garages, the massing of the proposed extension would be too excessive and would be out of character for the locality. It is considered that such an assessment today relies upon the building to the north having an extant planning approval. Given the uncertain situation surrounding this, it is considered that a firm conclusion cannot be reached as to whether or not the previously-approved building to the north has been commenced. A Building Control application for these works has started, but Douglas Borough Council has received "no notification of a commencement of works and no inspections have been carried out".
6.6 The previous conclusion with respect to the extension proposed in 2007 was that it, along with that proposed to the north, "would introduce a large dominant building to the street scene as it would be sited close to the boundary of the application site along Stevenson Way and in a prominent area of spacious apartment blocks". It is, for the reasons outlined above, difficult to reiterate this concern given that it is unclear as to whether or not the northern building can be built.
6.7 It is also noted, and this is perhaps the more important point in any case, the extension now proposed is smaller than that previously proposed. While it would be a fairly large building, it is of a similar design - the Mansard-style roof being particularly appropriate in this sense - as the existing apartment block. It is therefore not considered that the proposal would, as previously, result in the introduction of an excessively large building in the streetscene to its detriment. This is, however, a subtly but distinctly different assessment to whether or not the loss of the green space is acceptable.
The impact of the proposal on public amenity in respect of the loss of open space
6.8 As noted, the zoning of the site is for residential use and therefore the principle of developing the site for housing is acceptable. But on a visit to the site it was evident that the area in which the proposed development would be positioned is one of only a few areas within Farmhill that has open space similar to this. It is considered that to lose this open space would be detrimental to the visual amenities of the locality. It is further considered the argument that the open space currently provides a maintenance burden is not reason to overcome this concern. Open space provides an important element of an area's attractiveness and sense of wellbeing for residents; it is normally considered an asset to property. It therefore seems unlikely that the management company would allow such an asset to become overgrown as such an action could well devalue the property they own.
6.9 While the land may not be public open space in the true sense of the term, it is not considered that this in itself means that concerns in respect of the loss of the amenity the land provides should be reduced. A recent appeal decision issued to a planning application for new residential development on land zoned as public open space in Ramsey (PA 14/00605/A) is instructive in this regard. The Inspector concluded that even though the land was in private ownership it retained amenity value, "Public amenity can legitimately be regarded in planning terms as including public visual amenity". This is equally considered to apply in this case, and it is considered that to refuse the application on the basis of the loss of
==== PAGE 6 ====
11 December 2014 14/01219/B Page 6 of 9 green space that provides a valuable community asset in and of itself, given the provisions of parts 'c' and 'g' of General Policy 2.
The impact of the proposal on neighbouring residential amenity
6.10 The case officer's report into the previous application included the following two paragraphs:
"Due to the change in ground level (approx 2.4m) from the application site compared with the level of Manor Hill, the proposed development would result in an overbearing impact on 9, 10, 11, and 12 Manor Hill (11 Manor Hill in particular). The proposed extension would only be 2m from the boundary of 11 Manor Hill and approx 11.4m between elevations.
"The height of the extension would be 7.1m and together with the change of ground levels and the close proximity of the development to the neighbouring properties, this would result in an intrusive and overbearing impact on the properties of Manor Hill. As a result 10 and 11 Manor Hill would be affected by the loss of direct sunlight which would cause undue overshadowing to an unacceptable degree."
6.11 It must first be noted that 9, 10, 11 and 12 Manor Hill referred to in the case officer's report should actually have been 6, 8, 10 and 12 Manor Hill respectively, as outlined in the opening paragraphs of this report.
6.12 Manor Hill borders the application site to the south east and there would be a number of the properties which would be affected by the development. It is considered that the extension proposed would cause an overbearing impact on these properties. While the proposed building omits the southeastern 'kink' that brought it to within 1.6m of the rear boundary of 10 Manor Hill under the 2008 application, and this is welcome, it is still by virtue of its positioning in terms of distance and topographic differential likely to have an unduly oppressive and overbearing impact on residents of that property, but also and perhaps primarily on residents of 8 Manor Hill. It must be remembered that a proposal's simply being less harmful than a previous proposal does not automatically make the later proposal acceptable.
6.13 It should not be ignored that those dwelling sit at an angle from the proposed extension, and that this does reduce these concerns. However, the rooms to the rear of these dwellings are likely to be bedrooms and, downstairs, lounges (in short, principal accommodation) where the greatest level of protection to private residential amenity should be afforded. It is also noted that a number of residents of this street have independently objected to the proposal along these lines, suggesting that this is a relevant and acknowledged concern material to the determination of the application.
6.14 This, too, is a similar judgement to that reached in respect of the 2008 application. Clearly, and as noted, the overbearing effect at that time would have been notably worse given that the proposed extension would have sat less than 2m from the boundary of the dwelling to the rear. The proposed extension would lie to the northwest of properties whose gardens and rear elevations face northwest; these properties, including their gardens, would have direct sunshine at certain times of the year but, given the sun sets in the west, direct obstructions to natural light would not occur for prolonged periods of the year. However, there would clearly be such an effect and, given the noted lower level of the dwellings of Manor Hill, this effect would be felt by the residents of 8 Manor Hill most keenly. This is something of a balanced judgement, though.
6.15 Equally, however, the overbearing concern remains significant enough to warrant the application's refusal on grounds of its unduly harmful impact on residential amenity to nos. 8
==== PAGE 7 ====
11 December 2014 14/01219/B Page 7 of 9 and 10 Manor Hill in particular. The loss of light that would result further exacerbates this concern.
6.16 Concern has been raised in respect of a loss of privacy to Manor Hill properties that would result from the proposals. It is not considered that there would be any serious impacts in this respect. There are no windows serving the proposed apartment that would look directly into the properties of Manor Hill. While the perception of being overlooked can be a material Planning consideration, it is noted that only three windows would face the Manor Hill dwellings. Two of these are rooflights and would face upwards at a steep angle given the very low pitch of the Mansard-style roof. The third window would serve a hallway and, while people outside the building would not necessarily know this, the fact that it would indeed serve a hallway and would be the sole new window in the building facing the properties to the rear is such that the proposal could not be said to be unduly harmful from a privacy point of view.
Other matters
6.17 Issues of construction disturbance and the need or otherwise for new residential accommodation are not material Planning considerations.
6.18 The concern raised by local residents in respect of noise nuisance or headlight shining from new residents is not considered to be serious enough to warrant the application's refusal. Residents are already present here and the addition of one new flat and its concomitant activity in terms of noise or light pollution is unlikely to be significantly different from that experienced now. There is no way to control, in Planning terms, the times during which people use their garages and the same concerns raised in respect of the possible 24 hour use of the proposed garages, creating noise, could just as easily be raised in respect of existing residential accommodation on Manor Hill itself. There exists Environmental Health legislation for controlling noise nuisances and any issues that might arise from the use of the garage would be assessed against this legislation rather than Planning legislation.
7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
7.1 The proposal submitted here is an improvement over that for which planning approval was refused previously. Lack of certainty with regard the lawful commencement of the block to the north, along with the smaller size of the building now proposed, is such that concerns with respect to the impact of the building on the streetscene are not, in this instance, considered significant enough to warrant the application's refusal.
7.2 However, the application founders in respect of its impact on public amenity in terms of the loss of open space that would result - open space that has a public benefit in an area generally characterised by its built environment - and also, and primarily, in respect of its harmful impact on the living conditions of the properties of 8 and 10 Manor Hill in particular.
7.3 It is therefore recommended, on balance, that the application should be refused.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
==== PAGE 8 ====
11 December 2014 14/01219/B Page 8 of 9 8.2 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and Article 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
The owner/occupier of 12 Manor Hill, Douglas.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused
Date of Recommendation:
11.12.2014
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals
R 1. The proposed apartment block extension would remove an important area of open space that provides public amenity in and of itself. This is contrary to Environment Policy 42, and parts 'c' and 'g' of General Policy 2, of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
R 2. By virtue of its height, scale, siting and topographic position relative to the dwellings of Manor Hill to the east, the proposed apartment block extension would cause undue loss of light and have an overbearing impact on the residents of those dwellings. This is contrary to part 'g' of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
--
I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer.
Decision Made : Refused
Date : ...11/12/14...
Determining officer (delete as appropriate)
Signed :...
Signed :...
==== PAGE 9 ====
11 December 2014 14/01219/B Page 9 of 9 Chris Balmer
Senior Planning Officer Sarah Corlett
Senior Planning Officer
Signed :...M Gallagher Michael Gallagher
Director of Planning and Building Control
Signed :... Jennifer Chance
Head of Development Management
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
