| Appeal No. | AP13/0069 | | --- | --- | | Application No. | 13 / 00534 / B |

REPORT ON AN APPEAL BY MR RM & MRS L NICHOLL AGAINST THE PLANNING APPROVAL GRANTED FOR THE DEMOLITION OF EXISTING PROPERTY AND ERECTION OF A BUILDING OF FOUR APARTMENTS WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AT 145 & 147 ROYAL AVENUE, ONCHAN, ISLE OF MAN

1. I held an inquiry into this appeal on 3 December 2013, following a site visit on 2 December. The following persons appeared at the inquiry: For the Appellants: Mr R M Nicholl and Mrs L Nicholl For the Planning Authority: Mr E Baker For the Applicant: Miss V Lloyd Mr K V Sheppard

THE APPEAL SITE AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

1. The site is on the west side of Royal Avenue about 180 m south of the junction with Main Road. It is occupied by a 2 -storey building containing 2 flats. There is a semi-detached house at 149 Royal Avenue to the north and a detached house at 143 Royal Avenue to the south. There is a further detached house to the west at the head of Kerrocoar Drive.
2. It is proposed to demolish the building and erect a 2 -storey building with 2 apartments on the ground floor and 2 on the 1^{\text {st }} floor. Each apartment would have a private garden at the rear. The land at the front of the building would be laid out as 4 parking spaces with a single central access.

THE CASE FOR THE APPELLANTS

The main points are: 4. The building would deprive the appellants' property ( 149 Royal Avenue) of natural light due to its mass. It is not accepted that the photographs and diagrams provided by the applicant show the relationship of the 2 properties correctly. The only south facing aspect from No. 149 is from the kitchen window, which would face the full height of the side of the building and its roof. The view out would be seriously compromised. The part of the building closest to No. 149 would be much further back on the plot, resulting in light and outlook to the kitchen window only being available from an acute angle. The drive of No. 149 would become like an alleyway. The south facing wall of No. 149 could also become subject to damper conditions for longer periods of time. The replacement of the existing 2 flats with a building containing 4 apartments would represent an over-intensive use of the site and would not be in keeping with its surroundings. 5. With respect to the applicant's claim that overlooking would be reduced, overlooking has not been a problem to date. There would be an inevitable effect on the locality and neighbours due to the size of the building and increases in parking, traffic movements, numbers of occupiers, movements of goods and services, and refuse storage. Quality of life would be adversely affected. It is not agreed that the building has been designed with its locality and neighbours in mind as the applicant has claimed, or that it would necessarily provide a much more pleasing environment for neighbours, as also claimed.

THE CASE FOR THE PLANNING AUTHORITY

The main points are: 6. A previous application for a replacement building to provide 4 larger apartments was refused in January 2013 (PA12/01526/B). The current proposal does not include the rear balcony elements which were part of the reasons for refusal of the previous scheme.

7. The site is in an area recognised as predominantly residential in the Onchan Local Plan ("OLP"). OLP Policy O/RES/P/19 facilitates the erection of new residential properties in areas designated for residential use where these would "fit in with the density, massing, design and character of existing adjacent dwellings". General Policy 2, Transport Policy 7, and the parking standards in Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan ("the Strategic Plan") are relevant. The proposal being for residential development is acceptable in principle in this area. Its effect on public amenity would be acceptable. It would replace a detached building with a detached building of similar height but greater site coverage. In a road where building designs vary, the proposal would be appropriate in the street scene.
8. The proposal would not give rise to a harmful or unacceptable loss of light to existing properties, and specifically to 149 Royal Avenue, for the following reasons:

• although the site lies south of No. 149, the facing gable of the proposed building would be 3 m from the boundary; there would be 6.6 m from that gable to the side elevation of 149 ; and at the front of the building would be 1.3 m further away from No. 149 than the existing building is;
• the building would like No. 149 be 2 -storey; its hipped roof design would reduce any loss of light;
• the rooms in the facing side elevation of No. 149 are either obscure glazed or serve a kitchen, and so these are not rooms which are particularly sensitive to loss of light;
• the land on the south side of No. 149 forms a drive not a garden.

9. The proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on the aspect or outlook from No. 149 because:

• views to the garden to the west and to the road to the east would be unaffected;
• the windows in the south gable of No. 149 are either obscure glazed or serve a kitchen and utility room, and so are to rooms which are not especially sensitive to loss of outlook;
• the aspect from No. 149 would not be appreciably dissimilar to the current arrangement.

10. The proposal would be unlikely to lead to a significant increase in activity, given that the existing flats are larger units than the 4 proposed apartments. The proposal is for a residential use next to existing residential property. Nothing in the layout or design would give rise to particular environmental conflict with No. 149.
11. The proposal is not over-development of the site bearing the following points in mind:

• the road contains houses of varying designs, shapes and sizes;
• the building would have a simple 2 -storey hipped roof form;
• it would be similar in appearance, size and footprint to other properties nearby;
• the building would be similar in footprint to the appellants' property at No. 149;
• the area of hard-standing at the front would not harm the character and appearance of the road.

12. The apartments would provide acceptable living standards for their occupiers. The 4 on-site parking spaces proposed accord with the standards in Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan. The dimensions of the spaces and manoeuvring space are acceptable to the Highways Division. The impact on highway safety would be acceptable. The appeal should be dismissed and the planning approval upheld.

THE CASE FOR THE APPLICANT

The main points are: 13. The purpose of the scheme is to replace a building which is no longer fit for purpose with contemporary apartments. Problems with the existing building include settlement, lack of insulation, consequent condensation and mould growth, dampness by water ingress, difficulties in heating properly and efficiently due to the layout and outmoded systems, high energy consumption and \mathrm{CO}_{2} emissions, and

overlooking of the garden for the ground floor apartment from the 1^{\text {st }} floor apartment. The new apartments would be well planned, economic and energy efficient. 14. The proposal accords with relevant planning policy including in the following respects:

• the residential use is in keeping with the zoning under the OLP;
• the design would be in keeping with the architecture of the locality;
• with reference to Policy O/RES/P/19 of the OLP, the density, massing, design and character of the building would be consistent with adjacent dwellings;
• the apartments would provide acceptable living standards;
• the impact on highway safety and car parking arrangements would be acceptable;
• there would be full compliance with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.

15. The proposal would not have any significant adverse impacts on 149 Royal Avenue because:

• the floor and eaves levels of the building would sit well below those of No. 149;
• whilst the 2 -storey element would be closer to No. 149 than that which exists at present, the building as a whole would be 1.5 m further from the boundary;
• submitted cross sections and sun-path diagrams show that any increase in overshadowing/loss of sunlight would be nominal and unlikely to be perceivable at the kitchen window of No. 149 during most parts of the year - any increase in overshadowing would be limited to low level only and to periods when the sun sits lower in the sky;
• the kitchen window is a secondary window;
• there is no right to a view over someone else's property.

16. The proposal would not have any significant impact on 18 Kerrocoar Drive taking account of the following points:

• the existing topography, hedging, trees and fencing already provide requisite privacy;
• the distance to the boundary would be 7.9 m or so at ground floor and 11.5 m or so at 1^{\text {st }} floor level;
• lower floor levels, contoured patios and fencing would eliminate any perceived loss of privacy;
• the provision of compact individual gardens would be an improvement over the existing situation;
• noise is not a planning matter, but such nuisance would be likely to be reduced due to the smaller individual gardens proposed and the types of residents likely to occupy the units. The proposal would have a negligible effect on 112 Royal Avenue, as the properties of Royal Avenue are more than 25 m apart and this intervening highway is an extremely busy road.

17. The general massing of the proposed building would be in keeping with that of the semi-detached blocks which prevail in the area. The 4 parking spaces proposed reflect the 2 parking spaces per house generally found in the area. The access arrangements would improve safety by eliminating the need to reverse on or off the busy highway. The number of bedrooms on the site would remain the same, and so the number of potential occupants would remain largely the same.
18. The diagrams contained in the applicant's evidence are accurate having been produced by 3D CAD computer modelling. As the proposal accords with planning policy and the concerns of neighbours are unfounded, the appeal should be dismissed and the planning approval confirmed.

OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

19. As well as objections from Mr & Mrs Nicholl on similar grounds to those detailed above, the following representations were made at application stage:

• the Director of Highways did not oppose the proposal subject to notification prior to any works within the highway;

• Isle of Man Water & Sewerage Authority had no objection subject to conditions relating to sewer connections, no surface water discharge to foul drainage systems and protection of a culvert;

• Onchan District Commissioners recommended approval (reiterated at appeal stage);

• Mr Glennon (who gives his address as 18 Kerroo Coar, but the submitted OS based location plan indicates that this adjacent property is 18 Kerrocoar Drive) objected due to the proximity of the building and its gardens to his property, and referred to previous occurrences of loud music and fires in the gardens;

• Mrs L Scholefield (116 Royal Avenue) objected on grounds of overlooking, loss of privacy and loss of light to her property;

• Mr G E Makin (112 Royal Avenue) considered the provision of 4 parking spaces to be inadequate as each flat could have 2 occupants.

INSPECTOR'S ASSESSMENT AND CONCLUSIONS

20. The main issue is the effect the proposal would have on the living conditions of adjacent residents, with special reference to the effect on the occupiers of 149 Royal Avenue by loss of light and outlook.
21. The appeal site lies to the side of the semi-detached dwelling at No. 149, and so the proposal would have no material effects on the main habitable room windows of that property. Those windows - which comprise the windows to the main reception rooms and bedrooms - face towards the front and rear gardens rather than towards the appeal site. Consequently, light to and outlook from the main habitable rooms of No. 149 would be unaffected by the erection of the proposed building.
22. Four of the windows in the side elevation of No. 149 which do face the appeal site comprise a landing window, obscure glazed 1^{\text {st }} floor windows to a bathroom and WC and a ground floor window to a utility room. The internal spaces lit by those windows do not constitute main habitable rooms. Given the obscure glazing of some of those windows, and the specific functions of the rooms served by those windows, refusal of the proposal on grounds of loss of light to, and outlook from, those windows could not be justified. In any event, as the proposed building would be in excess of 6.5 m away from the facing side elevation of No. 149, levels of daylight within those rooms would remain satisfactory.
23. The main matter of concern to the appellants relates to the other window in their side elevation - the ground floor window in the kitchen. The view from that window would undoubtedly be affected by the proposal, due to the fact that the proposed building would extend significantly further back on the site beyond the footprint of the existing building, and taking into account also that the 2 -storey element of the building would be some 3.1 m or so closer to the facing side elevation of No. 149 than the position of the 2 -storey element of the existing building. The view from the kitchen window would be restricted relative to the existing view, but in planning terms there is no right to a view over land in another ownership, and so that consideration could not justify refusal of the proposal. Furthermore, the spacing that would remain between the kitchen window of No. 149 and the side elevation of the proposed building of over 6.5 m would in my assessment be sufficient to ensure that the proposed building would not be over-dominating or oppressive in the outlook from the kitchen of No. 149 to an extent that would support refusal of the scheme. It is also relevant in reaching that conclusion that the evidence indicates that the eaves level of the proposed building would be below the eaves level of No. 149, and that the proposed building would have a hipped roof form with a side roof slope rising away from No. 149.
24. With respect to the effects on light received within the kitchen of No. 149, the separation distance between the proposed building and the kitchen of window of No. 149 would in my assessment be sufficient to ensure adequate levels of daylighting in the kitchen. That would be assisted by the hipped roof form of the proposed building, and by the fact that the rearmost part of the proposed building

would be single storey. Those factors would limit the reduction in the arc of view of the sky that would remain from the kitchen of No. 149. Furthermore, the sun-path diagrams submitted by the applicant indicate that overshadowing of the kitchen window of No. 149 would be limited, as would any consequent loss of sunlight. Once again, the hipped form of the proposed roof, and the separation distance that would remain between the 2 buildings, would assist in limiting any overshadowing. While the appellants doubted the accuracy of the sun-path diagrams, they put forward no alternative technical information, and consequently those diagrams must be regarded as the best available evidence. There is no evidence to support the contention that the side of No. 149 would suffer damper conditions. 25. The proposal would have no undue impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of 18 Kerrocoar Drive. There would be a minimum separation distance of about 20 m between that dwelling and the proposed building, with a greater separation to the 2 -storey element of the building. Taking account also that there would be a substantial angle between the closest main elevations of these respective buildings and that there is a substantial extent of fencing/vegetation on the intervening boundary, there would be no significant loss of light, outlook or privacy caused to this neighbouring dwelling. Given that what is proposed is a residential use in a residential area, there is no reason why any substantial nuisance should be caused by noise or the lighting of fires within the gardens of the proposed apartments. Should such nuisance arise, this would be likely to be a matter more properly addressed under powers other than planning legislation. 26. There would be no material impact on No. 116 Royal Avenue by overlooking, loss of light or loss of privacy, as that property is opposite and separated from the appeal site by the intervening highway. That is also true of the impact on other dwellings on the opposite side of the road. 27. Having regard to all the matters referred to above, I have concluded that the proposal would not cause any significant harm to the living conditions of adjacent residents, including with regard to the effects on the occupiers of 149 Royal Avenue in terms of loss of light and outlook. I have found no conflict in that respect with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, which amongst other matters requires that development should not affect the amenity of local residents adversely. 28. On other matters, the proposal accords with Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan, and the related parking standards in Appendix 7 of that Plan, as 4 off-site spaces are proposed to serve the 4 apartments which are shown to have only one bedroom each. Consequently, a refusal on grounds relating to the proposed parking provision could not be justified. Sufficient space would exist to allow cars to enter and leave the site in forward gear, and so there would be no material detriment to highway safety. 29. The 2 -storey hipped roof building proposed would not be out of keeping in scale or appearance with the character of existing buildings in the immediate vicinity, which include a substantial development of existing flats on the opposite side of Royal Avenue close by to the north. There are other properties nearby where front gardens have been surfaced for car parking purposes, and so that feature of the proposal would not be out of character with the locality to a material extent. The proposal would comply with the elements of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan which expect development to respect the site and surroundings, including in terms of siting, layout, scale, form and design, and to not have adverse effects on the character of the locality and of the surrounding townscape. It would also comply with the similar expectations of OLP Policy O/RES/P/19. 30. I have taken account of all other matters drawn to my attention but I have found nothing of overriding significance. In the absence of significant harm with respect to the main issue and other matters referred to above, I have reached the overall conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed and that the

Planning Authority's decision to grant planning approval should be upheld. However, there is one matter which I consider should be subject of a condition which is not covered by the conditions attached by the Planning Authority. This concerns the floor/ground levels at which the building is to be constructed. These levels are of material significance to the effect the development would have on 149 Royal Avenue, and the relative levels are shown on diagrams in the applicant's statement. However, the detailed drawings which would form the basis of the planning approval do not specify the levels. Consequently, I consider that a condition should be attached to require that details of levels are submitted and approved before building commences, and that the development should be carried out in accordance with the approved levels.

RECOMMENDATION

31. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed and that the Planning Authority's decision to grant planning approval be upheld, but I further recommend that the following condition be attached in addition to the 3 conditions attached to the Planning Authority's original decision:

32. Prior to the commencement of the development details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority of the proposed finished floor levels of the building, and of the proposed ground levels within the site around the proposed building, including within the rear gardens and the front car parking area. The development shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved levels.

Stephen Amos MA (Cantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Inspector

Appeal No. AP13/0069

Page 6