Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/01248/A Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/01248/A Applicant : Mr And Mrs Brumby Proposal : Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling, including siting of dwelling. Site Address : Heather View Vicarage Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2QF
Planning Officer: Mr Peiran Shen Photo Taken : 01.12.2020 Site Visit : 01.12.2020 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 25.02.2021 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The principle of residential development is acceptable, given the land use designation. However, the size and positioning of the proposed dwelling is considered to lead to an overdevelopment of the site, with negative impact on the street scene and insufficient amenities for future occupiers. Although several matters are reserved, insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that an additional dwelling could be accommodated on the site without having unacceptable impacts on existing neighbouring properties, including Rozanne. The proposal would therefore be contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
None __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 'Heather View', Vicarage Road, Douglas. It is located at the south of Vicarage Road, close to its roundabout with Meadow Crescent.
1.2 The site fronts onto the south of a private driveway that links with Vicarage Road. It is among a row of four single-storey detached dwellings on the same private driveway. They have an north-facing orientation and are aligning west-east. It is to the east of "Moorcroft", west of "Rozanne" and north of 5 the Meadows.
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/01248/A Page 2 of 8
1.3 The site is approximately 0.163 hectares in size. "Spring Lodge", "Rozanne" and "Heather View" all have a roughly-square-shaped site of a similar size. "Moorcroft" has a roughly triangle-shaped site and is approx. three quarter the size of the other three.
1.4 There are tall trees around the side and rear boundaries of the site. The trees on the west and rear boundary of the site are within the boundary of the site. The trees on the east side of the site are within the boundary of "Rozanne" and they are taller than the existing roof.
1.5 The existing house is a single-story bungalow with two extensions on the northeast corner of the property and a conservatory on the east elevation. The main dwelling is set back from the private driveway for approx. 15m. There is a curved and grassed front garden to the west of the site in front of the dwelling, a small square front garden to the northeast corner of the site and a hard-surfaced driveway in front of the bungalow. The driveway is also used as off-street car parking spaces.
1.6 "Heather View" is approx. 275 square metres in the footprint area. The footprint area of the existing dwellings (including attached extension) rang from approx. 250 square metres (Moorcroft) to 390 square metres (Rozanne). All four dwellings are north facing.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application is for the approval in principle for a dwelling (supporting information suggests single-storey) with new access and off-street parking within the application site, east of the existing property "Heather View". This would split the existing site into two planning units. The only matter to be determined now (i.e. which are not reserved) is the siting.
2.2 The northeast extensions and the conservatory of the existing "Heather View" will be demolished to make room for the new dwelling, which requires a separate planning application.
2.3 The new dwelling will be on the east of the site. It is west facing. The dwelling consists of two parts: one part besides the existing "Heather View" and the other part north of the first part, roughly where the existing northeast extensions of "Heather View" are. A small section of the existing curved front garden next to the private driveway will be hardened to facilitate the vehicular access and visibility splay for both dwellings.
2.4 The plan shows an approx. 2m gap between the boundary wall of the proposed dwelling and the nearest wall of Heather View. There is a proposed fence line in the middle of the gap on their joint boundary, from the private driveway to the rear boundary of the site.
2.5 After the proposal, "Heather View" will have a site area of approx. 0.123 hectares and a footprint of approx. 178 square metres. The new dwelling will have a site area of approx. 0.04 hectares and a footprint of approx. 160 square metres.
2.6 The application form also indicates that there are "trees, large shrubs or hedges" within 15 metres of the development site, which has been mention in paragraph 1.4. However, no action will be taken to alter them in the plan. The proposed dwelling is around 1.6m away from the east boundary and the tall trees.
2.7 The application form indicates that new soakaways would be constructed and the development would connect to the existing foul sewer. However, this will be dealt with as a reserved matter as it's not selected for determination right now.
2.8 The plan shows alterations to the existing driveway to accommodate two off-street car parking spaces north of the proposed dwelling next to the private driveway. However, this will be dealt with as a reserved matter as it's not selected for determination right now.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/01248/A Page 3 of 8
3.1 Alterations and extension to dwelling including conversion of garage to playroom and new conservatory was APPROVED under PA 01/02040/B. The plan shows the new extension is the erection of the conservatory on the east elevation of the main dwelling.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of local policy, the site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East.
4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
4.3 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."
4.4 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. "
4.5 General Policy 2: "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; (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 service; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan.
4.6 Environment Policy 42 states: "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."
4.7 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." The currents stands are set out in Appendix 7.
4.8 Appendix 7.6 states typical residential development should have "2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the building."
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/01248/A Page 4 of 8
4.9 Residential Design Guidance (July 2019) provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to an existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property.
4.10 RDG 2 sets out key consideration regarding the requirement for new housing developments. These include the character, traffic, private and public space allocation and land use density.
4.11 RDG 2.7 sets out key consideration regarding the efficient use of land, including a description table of density level corresponding with typical locations and development. It also states that development may "be of a higher or lower desntiy and, as determined by the context of the stie and/or the location."
4.11 RDG 7 sets out key considerations regarding the impact on neighbouring properties. These include the potential loss of light/overshadowing, overbearing impact upon outlook and overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy.
5.0 REPRESENTATION 5.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection to this application (17/11/2020).
5.2 DoI Highway Services states there is no highway interest in this application (20/11/2020).
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The following issues are relevant in the determination of this application: (i) principle of developing the site for residential purposes (ii) visual impact of the partial demolition (General Policy 2 (b), (c)); (iii) character of the area and street scene (General Policy 2 (b), (c) and Environment Policy 42); (iv) the amenity standards of future occupiers (General Policy 2 (h)); (v) the amenities impact on neighbouring properties (General Policy 2 (g)); (vi) road safety and parking (General Policy 2 (h) and (i) and Transport Policy 7); provision of services (General Policy 2 (j).
6.2 Although the application is an approval in principle for the siting of a single storey dwelling, given the size of the site, there are limited options for the detail (including massing) of the proposed building to address issues at the Reserved Matters stage and so many of these matters above warrant consideration at the AiP stage.
Residential Purposes 6.2 The first issue to consider is the general principle of residential development within the application site. In this respect, as stated earlier, the application site is located within a wider area designated as predominantly residential under the Area Plan for the East. Furthermore, Strategic Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan requires that new dwellings be located within existing sustainable settlements.
6.3 The Strategic Plan also identifies that a total of 2440 new dwellings are required to be provided between the years 2011 to 2026 in the east of the Islan. A total of 5,100 dwellings are required over this same period throughout the Island. Given Douglas is regarded as the main employment and services centre for the Island, it is reasonable to consider the majority of these dwellings are likely to be provided in or around Douglas.
6.4 Accordingly, in terms of the principle of developing the site given the land use designation, there is a presumption in favour of any residential development. However, this is not an automatic reason to allow the development as further material planning matters as
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/01248/A Page 5 of 8
indicated above need to be considered, to determine if the principle of the proposed single dwelling on the site is appropriate.
Partial Demolition of the Existing Dwelling 6.5 The demolition is for the conservatory and the original garage. The main dwelling will remain unchanged with space enough for all necessary amenities, and as the 01 application has already considered the loss of the function of the garage acceptable.
6.6 After demolition the footprint of "Heather View" will be the smallest among the four. However, there is no negative impact on the street scene so it is considered acceptable in this regard.
Charter and Street Scene of the Area 6.7 When considering character, there is not a specific standard that applies to all sites. For development within an existing settlement boundary, especially a small development like this application, the character and amenities standards are informed by the existing situation, often meaning how they and their surroundings were originally designed. If a proposal would result in major changes to the existing character and amenities provision, it would be desirable for this to be a net improvement rather than a reduction.
6.8 The variations in the size of the different residences are an important character that makes up different communities and, on a larger scale, settlements and cities. If unchecked, many residential sites will end up at higher densities if this is more profitable and may lose their original characters in the process. Vicarage Road is part of the north boundary of Douglas. Along the road, there are usually tall hedges or trees on both side of the road, as it is on the rear boundary of many dense residential estates. This site, along with other sites on the same private driveway, is the only few properties that are directly facing Vicarage Road. The street scene consists of four north-facing single-storey properties, setting back from the private driveway, all with a width similar to the width of their wide plots. It is consistent with the low- density character of the area. This character is different compare to the other detached properties along Vicarage Road and makes it a unique part of the street scene.
6.9 There is a common perception that further away from the settlement centre, building density decreases and but the size of individual buildings may increase. After the proposal, the site is split into two plots. "Heather View" will still create a similar street view as the other sites. The new dwelling, however, will be set much closer to the private driveway, and naturally, Vicarage Road. It will also only have a narrow elevation facing Vicarage road. Along with the new fence and the tall hedges on the east boundary, it presents a much higher density that disrupts the existing low-density character.
6.10 This character can also be measured by building density, calculated by the average number of dwelling within a hectare (dph). The four sites on the private driveway currently have a density of 6 dph. After the proposal, the density of the whole private driveway will be increased to 12 dph. Focusing only on "Heather View" and the new dwelling individually, "Heather View" has an existing density of 6 dph. After the proposal, "Heathe View" will have a density of 7 dph and the new dwelling will have a density of 33 dph. According to 2.7.2 of the RDG, this is a density that usually exists for larger sites close to the settlement centre or within the town centre, makes it a huge deviation from the "large sites towards the edge of settlement" impression given from the rest three sites.
6.11 The planning statement lists 1 Ashberry Avenue as a similar example. However, the two dwellings at 1 Ashberry Avenue have similar-sized plots, garden areas and front elevation width. They are also similar to the size of 2-12 Ashberry Avenue. For this application, the four existing dwellings on this driveway all have a broad width with short projection and set back further from the private driveway while the proposed dwelling has a narrow width with long projection and protruding towards the private driveway. The proposed bungalow will be the
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/01248/A Page 6 of 8
only property on the driveway to have a narrow front elevation. It will also be the only bungalow protruding from the existing setbacks. Therefore, it is considered that the proposal would be an overdevelopment of the site and contrary to General Policy 2(b) and Environment Policy 42.
Amenities of Future Occupiers 6.12 When considering amenities, the consideration should not only be given to the existing occupants but also the general occupiers. In other words, consideration should be given not only to the current/immediate occupiers but also to the future ones. Properties can change hands from time to time. Just because one occupier does not require or rely on these amenities does not mean future occupiers would feel the same.
6.13 The high-density character of the new dwelling also reflects on the amenities it can provide. There are only a small front garden (beyond parking/manoeuvring areas) and a narrow rear garden compares to the other sites. The proposal will also reduce amenities, including outlook
6.14 Even though layout and design is a reserved matter and no position or size of any window is provided on the plan, it is quite visible that there are potential concerns regarding the outlook of the proposal. The proposed dwelling is only approx 1m and 1.6 m to its west and east boundary, being fences and tall hedges, meaning there is limited outlook, and concerns over sufficient sunlight for the west side and east elevations regardless of the size of the window.
6.15 The outlook of the south elevation is being constrained by the tunnelling effect created from the west and east boundary treatments. It will also be the only elevation that has direct sunlight intake.
6.16 Only the outlook of the north elevation could be considered acceptable. Considering the proposed car parking spaces, the only acceptable outlook for the whole dwelling is the east part of the north elevation. However, the north elevation is also constantly being overshadowed by the dwelling itself.
6.17 The fence and tall hedges are the sole facility to prevent the proposed bungalow being overlooked by the neighbouring property as the proposed dwelling is only approx. 2m and 6m from them.
6.18 With no detail drawings that have been submitted, including details of the layout/design of the dwelling, this aspect cannot be considered in full at this stage. However, it is hard to conclude that the proposal would be able to provide sufficient external amenity for its future occupiers.
The Impact on Neighbouring Amenities 6.19 The proposed dwelling will be adjacent to two properties, "Heather View" and "Rozanne". As the land use is the same, and there are existing fence and tall trees along the boundary with "Rozanne", it is considered that it will not have any additional impact on "Rozanne", except potential overlooking issues compared to the existing site. Meanwhile, there are many impacts on "Heather View" as the two dwellings will only be about 2 meters apart.
6.20 After the proposal, the rear garden of Heather View will reduce to 80% of the existing. This is considered acceptable as the remaining space are still enough for cloth-drying and recreation activities.
6.21 As mentioned in 6.17 above, although there are no windows proposed as part of the application, the siting indicates that two property would overlook each other from several potential primary and secondary windows if there is no boundary treatment. If the application
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/01248/A Page 7 of 8
was to be approved, it is considered that a condition should be attached which requires the fencing and hedges to retain permeate to prevent overlooking. As the hedges are within the boundary of "Rozanne", this is not controlable through this application and therefore, the potential impact of overlooking is not considered acceptable.
6.22 As there are no details in terms of the design of the dwelling, a full assessment cannot be made at this stage and such matters would be considered at a later planning application. However, if the application was approved, it is considered a condition should be attached which requires any dwelling being a single storey only.
Road Safety and Parking 6.23 The application indicates that Means of Access is a reserved matter. Although there is no visibility splay plan given, it is noted that the proposed fence is to the edge of the driveway and different height of the fences could have a different impact on the visibility splay of both properties. If the application was to be approved, it is considered that a condition should be attached which requires the fencing on the front driveway could only be no more than 1m tall.
Summary 6.24 The principle of residential development is acceptable, given the land use designation. However, the size and positioning of the proposed dwelling are considered to lead to an overdevelopment of the site, with a negative impact on the street scene and insufficient amenities for future occupiers. Although several matters are reserved, insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that an additional dwelling could be accommodated on the site without having unacceptable impacts on neighbouring properties. The proposal would therefore be contrary to General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan.
6.25 It should be noticed that the boundary treatment has been heavily referenced throughout the assessment. There are issues created with them and more issues without them. Also, conditions cannot be attached which require neighbouring properties to retain their hedges. These are all indications that the proposal is not suitable for this site.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal is considered to fail to comply with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan. Therefore, it is recommended for a refusal.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land which the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision-maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status.
==== PAGE 8 ====
20/01248/A Page 8 of 8
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management 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
Decision Made : Refused Date : 02.03.2021
Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal