Planning Officer Report Recommendations

Officer's Report

Application No.:	13/00270/B
Applicant:	Miss Lynne Earnshaw
Proposal:	Demolish existing and erection of a replacement dwelling
Site Address:	117 King Edward Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 2AX
Case Officer:	Miss Melissa McKnight
Photo Taken:
Site Visit:
Expected Decision Level:	Planning Committee

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED

The Application Site

1. The application site is the residential curtilage of 117 King Edward Road, an existing single storey detached bungalow located on the northern side of King Edward Road set above the highway, in Onchan.

1. The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of property types varying in size, form, layout and design. Given the topography of the area, the lane running in front of the dwellings slopes upwards west to east.

The Proposal

1. The proposal comprises the demolition of an existing single storey detached bungalow to be replaced with a three storey glazed modern styled detached dwelling.

1. The existing single storey dwelling has a maximum width of just less 13.5 metres and is built up to and on the boundary with No. 119 King Edward Road. The existing dwelling has a maximum depth of 7.8 metres and a maximum height of 5.5 metres. The existing dwelling has a floor space of 144.59sqm. The existing dwelling is finished in painted brickwork and has provision for three on site car parking spaces; one contained within an integrated garage.

1. The new proposed three storey replacement dwelling would have the same width as the existing, however the applicants have purchased an additional 0.7 metres from No. 119 King Edward Road so the new dwelling would not be erected onto the boundary with the neighbouring property. The new dwelling would have a maximum depth of 18.5 metres including a front elevation balcony and would have a maximum height of 11.5 metres. The floor space of the proposed dwelling would be 467.16sqm which equates to a 223% increase in the overall floor space from the existing.

1. The new proposed dwelling would be finished in a painted render and would provide parking provision for five vehicles with two contained within an integrated garage.

Planning History

1. Planning permission was granted in 2005 for the erection of a single storey rear extension under PA 05/01080/B. Prior to this, planning permission was granted in 1997 for the alterations and extensions to dwelling under PA 97/01450/B.
2. No. 125 King Edward Road has been the subject of one previous planning application that is considered specifically relevant to the assessment of this current planning application. PA 07/00487/B sought approval for the demolition of existing dwelling and erection of a replacement two storey dwelling with integral garage. The dwelling actually appears to be three storey given the topography of the landscape and the incorporation of a garage and ground floor level. The dwelling is of similar form, layout and appearance as to that proposed under this current scheme. However, prior to this planning application, planning permission was sought in 2006 for the alterations, erection of a two storey extension to replace existing single storey extensions to rear, raise roof level to create a new first floor level, erection of a double garage, landscaping and amendments to parking hard standing and vehicular access which was granted planning approval under PA 06/01849/B at appeal.

Representations

1. Onchan District Commissioners have no objection to the current planning application.
2. The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division do not oppose the current planning application and request that the applicant contacts the Network Operations Section of the DOI prior to carrying out any works.
3. The Isle of Man Water \& Sewerage Authority have no objection to the current planning application subject to the following conditions:

1) The proposed development must be connected to the public sewer(s). Full details of the foul and surface water disposal routes from this dwelling must be submitted as part of any subsequent detailed planning application. 2) There must be NO discharge of surface water (directly or indirectly) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s) so as to comply with the requirements of the Isle of Man Water \& Sewerage Authority.

1. The owner/occupier of No. 57 Howe Road objects to the planning application and states that the replacement dwelling would be twice the height of the existing dwelling to be replaced which would be considerably higher than No. 115 King Edward Road.
2. The owners and/or occupiers of 121 King Edward Road wish to make comment on the planning application but do not object to the planning application. The representation outlines what they consider are a number of inaccuracies and/or misleading statements that have been made within the design statement. However, these are not considered by the reporting officer to be material planning considerations. The representation goes on to state that whilst it is not an objection the owners and/or occupiers of 121 King Edward Road feel that the proposed new property would be too tall and exceed the height of adjacent bungalows.
3. The owners and/or occupiers of No. 59 Howe Road object to the planning application on the grounds that the proposed building is too high, will obscure the wonderful views of the bay and is disproportionate to other properties on the lane.
4. The owner/occupier of No. 137 King Edward Road does not object to the planning application but raises concerns over the impact of the development on the road to the front of the dwellings given the damage of the impact that was caused during the rebuilding of No. 125 King Edward Road. The representation also mentions the approval of these type of properties amongst smaller properties and they are out of keeping.

1. The owner/occupier of No. 61 Howe Road objects to the planning application on the grounds that the proposed building is too high, would obscure views to the bay and is disproportionate to other properties on the lane.
2. The owner/occupier of No. 133 King Edward Road has made a representation on the current planning application outlining concerns regarding the impact to the road in front of the dwellings during the construction period. Other concerns raised relate to the type of development within the area and how the area has changed through development.

Planning Policy

1. In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within an area designated as Predominantly Residential under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Onchan Local Plan) Order 2000 Map No. 1. There are two policies within Planning Circular 1/2000, the written statement that accompanies the plan that are considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application:

Policy O/RES/P/19, which relates to residential development in other parts of Onchan, states: "The erection of new residential properties may be permitted within areas designated for residential use where these would fit in with the density, massing, design and character of existing adjacent dwellings."

In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains four policies that are 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; (1) 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."

Housing Policy 4 states:

"New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10;
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and
• (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."

Housing Policy 6 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."

Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."

Appendix 7 sets out the parking standards for different types of development. For typical residential: "2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling.

Assessment

1. Given the nature of proposal and level of development proposed it is imperative to consider the following points within the assessment of this planning application:

1) Whether the level of proposed development would constitute over development on the site; 2) The impact of the proposal on the street scene; and 3) The impact of the proposed development on the amenities of neighbouring properties.

Level Of Development

1. The principle of residential development on the site accords to the land use designation identified in the Onchan Local Plan Order 2000. Therefore it remains necessary to assess the site specific impacts of the proposed new dwelling.
2. In terms of the level of development, it is considered that the overall amount proposed is not an over-intensive use of the application site. Comparison of the footprint of the proposed dwelling and the existing dwelling can be seen in drawing number:- 12.0858.4 which demonstrates that the width of the proposed dwelling would remain the same as the existing. However, the proposal does represent in a significant increase in the height of built development on the application site but that in itself is not seen as automatic grounds for refusal of the planning application. It is therefore necessary to assess the impact of the development and the effect of such a form of development in the area. Given the topography of the landscape of King Edward Road rising from west to east, there are a number of properties most particularly those at the eastern part of the lane that are set higher than their neighbouring property to the west. In this case, the proposed dwelling, whilst lower than No. 119 King Edward Road would be significantly higher than the neighbouring property to the west. However, the application site and neighbouring property 119 King Edward Road are at the same level and would therefore be significantly higher than the neighbouring property. In addition, 115 King Edward Road is set lower than the application site and again the new

proposed dwelling would be higher than the neighbouring property to the east. However, one should note that if 115 King Edward Road was at the same level as the proposed property then there would not be much difference in height.

1. As previously mentioned the dwellings along King Edward Road are set at various levels and are of different forms, design, layout and appearance. It should be noted that in the Planning Inspector's report, paragraph 27, for PA 06/01849/B states that, subject to the appropriateness of the design, there should be no objection to the proposed development being higher than the neighbouring dwellings.
2. The level of development proposed on the site would not significantly compromise amenity space for the residents of the new dwelling and would complement the site well. Whilst the proposal does represent an increase in the height of built development on the application site but that in itself is not seen as automatic grounds for refusal of the planning application as previously mentioned.

Street Scene

1. In terms of the effect on street scene, it is appropriate to have regard to the character of the existing dwellings in the surrounding area. In this respect it has to be acknowledged that King Edward Road contains a variety of dwellings of different forms, designs and mass. At paragraph 22 of the report into previous planning application 06/01849/B for the replacement dwelling at 125 King Edward Road the appointed Planning Inspector concluded that the existing dwelling and those around it have little architectural merit.
2. It has to be recognised that there is no distinct over-riding design of dwellings within the area and no applicable planning policy directly relating to the design of new dwelling in existing residential areas. The main objections relate to the height of the dwelling and not the design of the proposed dwelling. In terms of assessing the design it is appropriate that elements of all these viewpoints are recognised and it is concluded that the complete redesign that is allowed by a replacement dwelling constitutes an acceptable design that will positively contribute to the improvement of the quality within the area and what is proposed under this current scheme would replicate a similar design to 125 King Edward Road and a lesser but similar form of the modern appearance of 115 King Edward Road.
3. The proposed dwelling constitutes a modern dwelling within a street scene of a mix of single storey and two storey dwellings that are not considered to contribute architecturally to the locality. Whilst there have been some reservations on the design of the dwelling with concerns raised regarding the overall appearance of the area with these modern built dwellings, this is simply just a matter of personal taste and opinion. It has to be recognised that there is no distinct over-riding design of dwelling within the area and no applicable planning policy directly relating to the design of new dwelling in existing residential areas.
4. The proposed new dwelling is not considered to be out of keeping with the immediate and wider locality of King Edward Road.

Impact On Neighbouring Properties

1. In terms of assessing the impact of the proposed development on the amenity of neighbouring properties, it is necessary to primarily have regard to the effects on privacy, sunlight and whether the dwelling would appear overbearing.
2. In terms of privacy the main affected properties would be No. 115 King Edward Road and 119 King Edward Road. The application site would be erected just less than 5.8 metres from No. 115 King Edward Road. At present there are six windows on the eastern elevation of 115 King Edward Road that directly face the application site property. The proposed new

dwelling would have five windows installed and one long roof light. There are two long length windows that would be installed on the edge of the elevation to the front of the dwelling with the mid elevation being small windows that would serve two bathrooms. The roof lights would serve a hall way with the remaining two windows on the third floor serving bathrooms also. The two large windows at ground and first floor would serve the apartment lounge and kitchen respectively. Whilst the lounge is considered a principle room it should be noted that the height of the existing hedge boundary would prevent any instances of overlooking. Whilst overlooking may well be achieved from the first floor kitchen area, one should note that the kitchen is not somewhere where one is likely to be constantly and is likely to be used only infrequently.

1. The proposed dwelling would be erected 5.5 metres from No. 119 King Edward Road and would have a similar glazing pattern to the western elevation albeit a long window on the first floor that would serve a stair case and atrium area. The two large side windows would also serve an atrium and therefore there would be no overlooking on the residents of No. 119 King Edward Road.
2. In terms of the effect of the proposed development on levels of sunlight enjoyed by the neighbouring properties, it is considered that the extent and form of development is such that any impact is limited given the orientation of the properties. When the sun is at its highest in the sky the front of the properties will receive uninterrupted sunlight. The rear gardens are north facing and therefore would not receive copious amounts of sunlight. Overall it is concluded that the impact of the proposed development on the residential amenity is acceptable.
3. A number of other concerns have been raised within representations to the planning application, impact of construction traffic and construction works on the privately owned lane leading that runs in front of the dwellings, the height of the dwelling, loss of views and the long term objectives of the applicant. Taking each of these concerns in turn: the issue of construction traffic in relation to domestic scale development is not normally held to be a material planning consideration and therefore cannot be a material consideration in the assessment of the planning application, as any impact is short-term and not permanent. Secondly, the design and form of the dwelling has been addressed within the assessment of this current planning application. Thirdly, there is no right to a private view and it has been considered that No. 59 Howe Road would be the most affected property in terms of view and outlook. However given the distance from the application site, 60+ metres, and topography it was concluded that the residents of No. 59 Howe Road would still have significant views across the bay and out to sea. Fourthly, the department cannot simply refuse a planning application on the grounds of what might happen and therefore whilst the ground floor of the dwelling has been described as an apartment with a guest bedroom a condition can be implemented to ensure that this part of the dwelling is only used incidental to the main house.

Recommendation

1. Having regard to the above assessment it is considered that the development proposed by the planning application is acceptable and accords with policy O/RES/P/19 of the Onchan Local Plan Order 2000 and General Policy 2, Housing Policy 4, Housing Policy 6 and Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.
2. It is therefore recommended that the application be permitted.

Party Status

1. The local authority, Onchan District Commissioners, is by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5)(d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.

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

The Isle of Man Water & Sewerage Authority The owner/occupier of No. 59 Howe Road

1. The Highways Division is part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is also part. As such, the Highways Division should not be afforded separate party status.

1. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status:

The owner/occupier of No. 57 Howe Road The owner/occupier of No. 61 Howe Road The owner/occupier of No. 121 King Edward Road The owner/occupier of No. 133 King Edward Road The owner/occupier of No. 137 King Edward Road

---

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 23.04.2013

---

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

---

C 1.

The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

---

C 2.

This approval for the demolition of the existing single storey dwelling and erection of a replacement dwelling relates to Site Location Plan, Design and Access Statement and drawing number 12.0858.1, 12.0858.2A, 12.0858.3, 12.0858.4, 12.0858.5, 12.0858.6 and 12.0858.7 all date stamped 5th March 2013.

---

C 3.

The proposed ground floor apartment may be used in association only with the main dwellinghouse '117 King Edward Road' and for purposes incidental to the main use of the main dwellinghouse as a single dwelling.

---

2 May 2013 13/00270/B Page 7 of 8

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

Decision Made : Committee Meeting Date :

Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate

YES/NO