Officer Planning Report

Planning Report And Recommendations {{table:377766}}

Officer's Report

The Application Site

1. The application site comprises the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling located on the northern side of Manor Park in Onchan. The dwelling is substantially completed but not finished and not yet occupied.

The Proposal

1. The proposal comprises the construction of paved terrace, steps and boundary fencing to the rear of the dwelling. Planning approval is sought part retrospectively has work on the proposed development has been commenced.

Planning History

1. The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, the following of which are considered material to the assessment of this current planning application:

1. Planning application 08/00377/B sought approval for the erection of a dwelling on plot 23. This previous planning application was approved on the 5th June 2008.

1. Planning application 09/01080/B sought approval for the erection of a dwelling on plot 23. This previous planning application was approved on the 19th August 2009.

1. Planning application 10/01012/B sought approval for the erection of a dwelling (comprising amendments to PA's 08/00377B & 09/01080B). This previous planning application was approved on the 23rd August 2010.

Planning Policy

1. In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as proposed residential under the Onchan Local Plan Order 2000. Planning Circular 1/2000, which constitutes the written statement to be read in conjunction with the local plan, contains one paragraph and two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this planning application:

1. Paragraph 4.20 relates to plots within Manor Park and states:

"There are remaining a number of plots off the slowly developing site known as Manor Park which have yet to be developed. Manor Park is accessed from Harbour Road and runs parallel to Howe Road in a west-east direction. The dwellings in Manor Park are of two distinct types: on the southern side the properties are larger and appear as single storey toward the road and two

storey toward the sea. The dwellings on the other side of the road, backing onto Howstrake Heights are smaller, mostly mock-Tudor in detailing and finish and appear as split level taking advantage of the fall in the slope of the land. The Department is of the opinion that this area in general should be completed as soon as possible and in this context should remain zoned as predominantly residential. All new properties should be designed to complement existing house types and not be detrimental to the outlook or amenities of those existing properties alongside, in front or behind."

1. Policy O/RES/P/7 relates to plots within Manor Park and states:

"Development of the remaining plots within Manor Park will be permitted for residential purposes where such development responds to the style and density of development on each side of the road and where the amenities (outlook, light and privacy) of existing properties which abut the site are not adversely affected."

1. Policy O/RES/P/21 relates to the extension and alteration of existing residential property and states:

"Extensions and alterations to existing residential property will generally not be opposed where such proposals are appropriate in terms of scale, massing, design, appearance and impact on adjacent property."

1. In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains one policy that is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. General Policy 2 states:

"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:

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (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;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (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;
• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• (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."

Representations

1. Onchan District Commissioners recommend that the planning application be approved.
2. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority express an interest in the planning application.
3. The owners and/or occupants of plot 24 Manor Park, which directly adjoins the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the elevated position of the terrace will result in undue overlooking of their property with subsequent loss of privacy. They highlight concerns over the construction of the terracing as it has been built in part on boundary walls not believed to have been constructed for such purpose and also have concerns over drainage from the proposed development into their property. As part of their submission they question the accuracy of the submitted drawings.

1. As stated earlier the planning application seeks retrospective planning approval. It has previously been established that the fact that planning approval is sought retrospectively should neither advantage nor disadvantage consideration of a planning application. Assessment of the development proposed by this planning application is made on that basis.
2. The two key issues to consider in the assessment of the planning application are the impact on public amenity and the impact on private amenity. The proposed development is not considered to affect any other material planning consideration.
3. In terms of impact on public amenity as the proposed development is to the rear of the property its public visibility is limited. Having visited the site and surrounding area it is questionable what, if any, of the proposed development would be visible from public viewpoint. As such, the impact on public amenity is concluded to be limited and acceptable.
4. The impact of the proposed development on private amenity is much more significant. Having visited the site and adjacent property (plot 24) it is evident that the base ground level of plot 23 is already significantly higher than that of plot 24 . These changes in levels cause potential issues with overlooking from the proposed terraces into the rear of plot 24 . It is concluded that the extent of overlooking, or even the perception of overlooking, that would result from the proposed terracing is unacceptably harmful to the reasonable residential enjoyment of the property contained within plot 24 .
5. Plot 24 does contain an elevated area that could be used for any residentially incidental purpose, including as a terrace for sitting out. However, this elevated area is relatively small in comparison to the overall rear garden and that remaining rear garden is at a significantly lower ground level. It is feasible that a smaller terrace at a similar level to that of the raised area adjacent to the boundary on plot 24 may have been acceptable and that the impact of such could potentially have been appropriately mitigated by boundary fencing. However, the proposed terraces are positioned above this adjacent raised area, with the upper of the two terraces being significant higher. They are also substantially larger in area than the adjacent elevated area. Whilst the submitted drawings do show all the necessary information to illustrate the proposed development it is pertinent to note that an illustrative 1.8 m person has not been shown standing on the upper of the two proposed terraces. The proposed development proposes 1.8 m fencing on the boundary that steps down with the changing level of the proposed terraces. Having visited the site it is considered that fencing that would prevent overlooking of the plot 24 would have to be significantly taller than 1.8 m as standing on the upper terrace would offer views over the fencing on the boundary of the lower terrace. Due to the respective changes in levels the effect of such fencing on plot 24 would undoubtedly be overbearing and oppressive. It is therefore concluded that the impact of the proposed terracing cannot be satisfactorily mitigated through boundary fencing.
6. As for other issues raised within representations to the planning application it is concluded that the acceptability of building onto the boundary walls and drainage issues arising from the proposed development are civil matters between the respective landowners. As the Planning Authority has no powers to resolve civil matters they cannot be material considerations in the assessment of a planning application. Any contention over the adequacy of the submitted drawings is not supported as the submitted drawings do show the proposal with sufficient accuracy. With the benefit of site visit it is fully possible to undertake a full and proper assessment of the planning application.

Recommendation

1. It is recommended that the planning application be refused.

Party Status

1. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:

Onchan District Commissioners; The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority; and The owners and/or occupants of plot 24 Manor Park.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal 0 : Notes attached to refusals R 1. The elevated position of the terracing within the proposed development would facilitate an unacceptable level of overlooking of the plot 24 Manor Park. Such overlooking, or perception of overlooking, would be unduly harmful to the reasonable residential enjoyment of the adjoining property. As such, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy O/RES/P/21 of Planning Circular 1/2000 and 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 / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.

Decision Made : Refused Date : Determining officer (delete as appropriate) Signed : Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer Signed : Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control

Signed : Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed : Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager