Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/01452/B Page 1 of 7
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/01452/B Applicant : MD Racing Proposal : Erection of a replacement dwelling Site Address : East View Sulby Bridge Sulby Isle Of Man IM7 2EU
Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 13.08.2021 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The proposal is considered contrary to General Policy 2 b&c,g and Environmental Policy 42 and the recent Residential design guide 2021 as the design would be read at odds with the character of the surrounding streetscene and is considered over development for the site leading to an adverse visual harm with a perceived harmful impact upon the neighbouring properties. It is therefore concluded that the planning application is recommended for refusal.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4): 7 Carrick Park, Sulby Hill View, 8 Carrick Park, Sulby Mill View, Sulby Bridge, Sulby
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/01452/B Page 2 of 7
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of East View, Sulby Bridge, Sulby. The property is a detached traditional Manx stone Cottage painted white with a single storey garage/outbuilding to the south that sits to the West of the highway. The dwelling has a footprint of 10m by 5.6m and the outbuilding a further 6.6m by 5.6m. with a total floor area of 80m2. The site is broadly level and shares a boundary with Mill View to the south and to the rear No.8 Carrick Park (Hillview) and also at the rear is No.7 Carrick Park.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the current buildings on site and a replacement dwelling with integral garaging.
2.2 The scope of works would see the new dwelling having a main two storey core of 11m wide by 8.4m deep and ridge height of 8.0m bookended with chimneys and a pitched tiled roof and painted render. The front elevation would feature a covered porch and balcony above with natural stone cladding to its elevations with a glass balustrade. The main part of the building will have an extension either side, both measuring 3.1m wide and 7.1m deep which has two floors of accommodation, the higher level being partly accommodated in the roof space and having a lower ridge height. To the south of this will be an attached single storey double garage measuring 5.1m wide and 5.3m deep with 1.3m extension to accommodate a car length and two motorcycles.
2.3 The property would feature a total built frontage of 22.4m and a ground floor area of approx. 161m2 or 1732sqft (inc garage).
2.4 The area in front of the new house will be hard surfaced but separated from the road by a 1m high wall providing parking and turning space. The vehicular entrance will be 5.5m wide with a further 10.5m of hard surfacing behind the roadside wall and with a further 12m of planted/grassed garden to the north.
2.5 The applicant's agent explains that the site lies largely outside the flood risk zone with only a small portion of the site lying within it. They describe that the site is near the crest of a rise on the main road and the road is not included in the flood risk zone. They note the floor level of the existing dwelling as being 99.77 with the highway sitting at 99.8 and has no history of flooding. They refer to the implementation of a flood defence scheme in 2005 constructed to minimise the risk of flooding in the area. The proposed dwelling floor area is set at 100 (230mm above the existing and 200mm higher than the road). They conclude that the proposed dwelling will not therefore be at risk of flooding.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised on the Sulby Local Plan of 1998 as Predominantly Residential. The site is not within a designated conservation area, there are no registered trees on site, and only a small part of the site is identified as being at flood risk from river flooding. The highway to the front and surrounding land is not identified as being at flood risk.
3.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains a number of policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
3.3 Strategic Policy 2 New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.
3.4 Strategic Policy 3
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/01452/B Page 3 of 7
Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by: (a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character.
3.5 Strategic Policy 5 New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.
3.6 Strategic Policy 10 New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement
3.7 Spatial Policy 4 (in part) In the remaining villages development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities. These villages are: 'Sulby'
3.8 General Policy 2 (GP2) (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;
3.9 Environment Policy 10 Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4.
3.10 Environment Policy 13 Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted.
3.11 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.
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/01452/B Page 4 of 7
3.12 The text preceding Environment Policy 42 gives helpful guidance for new development within existing settlements with respect to protecting the character and identity of the streetscene; "In terms of existing settlements, in both rural and urban areas, new development will be expected to follow the following design principles. Development will need to: i. be of a high standard of design, taking into account form, scale, materials and siting of new buildings and structures; ii. be accompanied by a high standard of landscaping in terms of design and layout, where appropriate; iii. protect the character and amenity of the locality and provide adequate amenity standards itself; iv. respect local styles; and v. provide a safe and secure environment.
3.13 Housing Policy 4 (in part) states that: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans..."
3.14 Transport Policy 4 The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan.
3.15 Transport Policy 7 The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7.
3.16 LOCAL DISTINCTIVENESS The Strategic Plan (2016) states at paragraph 4.3.8, The design of new development can make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. Recent development has often been criticised for its similarity to developments across the Island and elsewhere - "anywhere" architecture. At the same time some criticise current practice to retain traditional or vernacular designs. As is often the case the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. All too often proposals for new developments have not taken into account a proper analysis of their context in terms of siting, layout, scale, materials and other factors. At the same time a slavish following of past design idioms, evolved for earlier lifestyles can produce buildings which do not reflect twenty first century lifestyles including accessibility and energy conservation. While there is often a consensus about what constitutes good and poor design, it is notoriously difficult to define or prescribe.
3.17 Other Material Considerations The Department has published the Residential Design Guidance (July 2021) which provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property. This includes specific guidance on new houses, and impacts on Neighbouring Properties.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
4.2 The most relevant previous application here relates to the land immediately to the north. 10/01160/A - Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling - Land Adjacent To East
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/01452/B Page 5 of 7
View, was refused for the reason that "Whilst the area is designated for residential development, the planning application does not adequately demonstrate that a dwelling could be satisfactorily accommodated within the constraints of the application site, particularly providing a safe and convenient access and manouevring [sic] space which would not adversely affect the neighbouring property Riverside in terms of noise and loss of privacy." This application included part of the curtilage of East View as now defined.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief - full reps can be read online) 5.1 Lezayre Parish Commissioners commented 18/05/21 objecting unanimously as they consider the proposal too high; acknowledge a reduction in bedrooms; footprint is too large and minimal amenity space.
5.2 Highways Services have commented (23.12.20 & 04.05.21 & 10.06.21) with no objection.
5.3 Eco Systems Policy Officer commented (07/01/21) on the age of the property, its located near a river corridor, could provide a habitat for nesting bats and recommends an assessment for bats prior to demolition.
5.4 Mill View, Sulby; (17.01.21 / 13.05.21) impacts on land/ buildings they own and the proposals will impact them; errors with the inaccuracy on the drawings and level of details shown; loss of privacy; removal of existing tree and impacts on their property; size of the proposal is imposing and not in keeping, plot is too small for a large residence; inaccuracy of the plans.
5.5 8 Carrick Park / "Hill View" (17.01.21) (21/06/21) commented whilst do not object as the new owners they echo the previous owners concerns of overbearing nature and size of the proposed structure and Impact on their privacy, imposing and not in keeping with the surrounding. Trees removal will impact them too.
5.6 7 Carrick Park (16.01.21) & (07/06/21) comment on the ridge height, size, overlooking, loss of privacy, request more screening to mitigate privacy; not in keeping and request the ridge height should be in keeping with the surroundings; risk of overshadowing due to its height; its visual impact and needs to be in keeping with the surrounding properties; inaccuracies with the plans;
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
(i) the principle of development (STP1, STP2, SPP4, HP4); (ii) the visual impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.(STP3,STP5, GP2b,c,j,EP42, RDG'21) (iii) the impact upon the amenities (overlooking, loss of light; over bearing impact, privacy and visual amenity) of the neighbouring properties. (GP2(g), RDG'21) (iv) Highway Safety (STP10, GP2 h&i, TP4&7)
6.2 Principle The starting point here is the land designation within the area plan which designates the site as predominately residential. The site currently has one dwelling on site and the proposal is to replace this with a much larger (footprint and height) dwelling. The location of the site as identified is within Subly, which is a named as a village in Spatial Policy 4, which in turn ensures development within existing towns and villages is broadly supported through Strategic Policy 2 and Housing Policy 4. As this site is adjacent and surrounded by existing residential dwellings the proposal would satisfy the criteria for Strategic Policy 1.The principle of a new residential dwellinghouse here is acceptable.
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/01452/B Page 6 of 7
6.3 Visual Impact Strategic policy 3 seeks that local material and character are used (emphasis on 'character' here) which is echoed through strategic policy 5 where new development should make a positive contribution. This is somewhat echoed through environment policy 42 that broadly seeks the character of the area is protected and local identity is respected which dovetails into those aspects of General Policy 2.
6.4 The proposal would see the demolition of the existing dwellinghouse and the construction of a detached dwelling at two stories in height overlapping the existing and nearer to the highway. The proposed design is subjective and has been designed specifically to the sites constrictions, making the property, wide and tall. Whether this design is appropriate for the streetscene is subjective but few of the properties here are of the height, massing and layout/floor area that is proposed here.
6.5 When read in conjunction with the surrounding properties that boarder the site, the proposed replacement dwelling (100% larger than the existing) would be seen as over development of the site as it would stand taller than the surrounding properties and of a design that is contrary to the character, where those to the rear are more akin to chalet style bungalows with accommodation in the roof space.
6.6 When read against the property to the south 'Mill View' the proposal would seem significantly at odds in appearance, particularly twinned with the scale and massing, would be very dominant and have an over bearing impact on the road side frontage of this streetscene which would change the appearance and character from what it is now. The proposal would be considered contrary to GP2b as it cannot be said the proposed development respects the site or its surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form and design. As the proposal fails to satisfy the test of GP2b, in turn the proposal would be considered to have a significant adverse impact on the character of the surrounding area, contrary to GP2c.
6.7 On balance the comments from the local authority and the neighbouring properties that consider the proposal over development, would be justified and this part of the proposal would also be seen as being contrary to STP3, STP5 and EP42 and RDG'21.
6.8 Neighbouring Amenities
The level and scale the proposed dwelling at full two stories in height, would lend itself to a degree of overlooking towards those properties to the rear of this site. Given the intermediate distances approx. 20m between the rear elevations would not allow for any direct window to window overlooking but their rear amenity space would no longer be private and would be overlooked where there currently is none. This is judged to cause harm to the enjoyment of the occupants of the neighbouring amenity to those at the rear on Carrick Park.
6.9 When considering whether there would be any loss of light or overshadowing from the built form of the dwelling, given the design of the new dwellings (inc window positions) and the suns orientation (east to west) in relation to the proposed dwellings which are south/west of neighbouring dwellings; it is not considered there would be any significant impact to lead to a loss of natural light.
6.10 On balance, the level of overlooking and loss of privacy would be considered non- compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g).
6.11 Highway Safety The proposed access would need to accommodate the vehicle movements associated with the dwellinghouse, parking on site and takes into consideration visibility splays and highway safety for all users. In this instance it is noted Highway Services does not object. On balance, the support on this application from highways services and the level of information on drawings
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/01452/B Page 7 of 7
ensures the proposal would comply with STP10, TP4 & 7 and GP 2 (h&I) of the Strategic Plan and conditioned accordingly.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 On balance it is judged, the proposal is contrary to those aforementioned Policies of the Strategic Plan, as the design would be read at odds with the character of the surrounding streetscene and is considered over development for the site leading to an adverse visual harm with a perceived impact upon the neighbouring properties. It is therefore concluded that the planning application is recommended for 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 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 __
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 : 01.09.2021
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