Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/01504/B Page 1 of 16
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 21/01504/B Applicant : JM Project Management Ltd Proposal : Erection of a dwelling with associated parking Site Address : Leyton Victoria Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 6AQ
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 11.01.2022 Site Visit : 11.01.2022 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.09.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. Due to the overall height, width and form of the proposed dwelling, together with its proximity to the existing dwelling at 'Leyton', which is a departure from the established development density and form of development on this part of Victoria Road, the proposal would disrupt the general rhythm of the overall group of buildings, and result in an obtrusive built development within an area comprising mainly large houses within generous gardens associated with the dwellings. Given the layout and overall density, removal of large areas of mature landscaping, coupled with the quantum of development on the application site, the role of Leyton in contributing to the character of the locality would be diminished, resulting in detrimental impacts on the character and appearance, and the context of this part of Victoria Road, contrary to Strategic Policy 4(b), Environment Policy 42, and General Policy 2 (b, c and g), and the latter part of Strategic Policy 3(b) of the Strategic Plan.
R 2. The proposed siting, layout, scale, and arrangement of the new building on the site, would fail to relate positively and appropriately to the site character as it does not take into account a proper analysis of site context in terms of siting, layout, scale, landscape features, and spaces between buildings, and would have a deleterious impact on the application site, by resulting in a particularly intrusive infill development within the site when viewed from the surrounding area. In fact, the new dwelling which seeks to mimic the main dwelling 'Leyton' would be larger, wider and taller than the existing dwelling, and dominate the site area, thus diminishing the role of the main dwelling within its site. The proposal, therefore, conflicts with General Policy 2(b and f) and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 3. The proposed first floor balcony, by virtue of its proximity and height, would result in unacceptable levels of actual and perceived overlooking from the proposal site into 'Leyton',
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/01504/B Page 2 of 16
and the proposed development at Plot 1 under PA 21/01468/B, to the detriment of the residential amenity. In this respect, the proposed building is considered unacceptable when assessed against General Policy 2 (g) and the relevant sections of the Residential Design Guide.
R 4. The proposed new dwelling would, by virtue of its proximity, height and overall mass, have an adverse impact upon the outlook of 'Leyton' resulting in an overbearing impact and significant loss of light to the windows on the south elevation which includes principle rooms, which would be to the detriment of the residential amenities of the occupants of Leyton, contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 5. The potential for the loss of biodiversity on site would adversely affect the site character, and would detrimentally affect the amenity value of mature landscaping within the established garden as the proposals do not enhance or protect the landscape quality and nature conservation value to this site. The proposal also has the potential to adversely impact on a variety of biodiversity such as feeding, sheltering and breeding birds, feeding and commuting bats, and invertebrates due to the loss of the mature garden habitat linked to an established registered tree area, and hence the proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 (d and f) Strategic Policy 4(b) of the Strategic Plan (2016), and the IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025.
R 6. There is insufficient information available to understand the flood impacts of the development on the area or the resulting flood impacts on the proposed dwelling contrary to Environment Policy 10 and General Policy 2(l).
R 7. The access arrangements as proposed would create an adverse impact on the existing highway or upon those users approaching from the north, as the visibility in this direction which is below the acceptable standards would be further impeded by existing trees along the site frontage and the proposed 1.6m high fence and gate along the northern boundary of the proposed site, and make it difficult for vehicles to exit the site in a safe and appropriate manner, contrary to the principles of General Policy 2(h and I) and Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
R 8. The removal of a Category B Tree Tulip Tree (T2055) on the southern boundary of Leyton, which was surveyed (Drw. No. TS 16119) and marked for retention (Drw. No. TR 16119) on the tree survey documents submitted under PA 20/00293/A, without any new supporting information to justify its removal within the current scheme would be averse to the requirements of Environment Policy 3 and General Policy 2 (f), noting this tree contributes to the amenity value of the site and area.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division; Manx Utilities
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following property should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not 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 4(2):
11 Summerhill, Douglas,
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/01504/B Page 3 of 16
as they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas, a two storey detached dwellinghouse, set back from the highway within in its own large curtilage of mature gardens. The dwelling is set closer to the northern boundary which most of its garden area situated south of the dwelling, forming a large side garden, similar to the properties on this part of Victoria Road. The property backs unto the Braddan AFC Clubhouse grounds which has significant tree clusters along its entire boundary.
1.2 From the elevation of the property facing towards the highway of Victoria Road, the dwelling is characterised by projecting bay windows at two stories either side of this elevation, with prominent chimney stacks situated on either gable. The single storey projection on the northeast elevation has hipped roof over. The external walls are finished in red facing brick with the upper sections and side projection having render with Black Tudor Boarding finish. The dwelling also features Arts and Craft detailing on the roof, and parts of the elevations.
1.3 From the highway the property is bounded with a Manx stone wall and mature planting above with bushes and trees effectively screening the property from the public highway. Access is from an existing gated driveway with pillars to each side and set back from the edge of the carriageway.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a dwelling with associated parking on the south-western part of the site and adjacent the existing dwelling on site, with the new curtilage taking up about 50 percent of the existing (1,527.3 sqm) curtilage associated with the dwelling 'Leyton'.
2.2 This new dwelling which would take up the entire side garden associated with Leyton would have a footprint measuring about 116.78sqm, be 8.5m high to the roof ridge and 5m high to the eaves. The total floor area created would be 300sqm.
2.3 The external finish of the dwellings would incorporate natural slate roof, UPVC windows white or anthracite grey, red facing brick, aluminium bi fold doors in white or anthracite grey to rear elevation, and render with black Tudor Boarding. Three roof lights would be installed on the rear roof plane. A first floor balcony would be created over parts of the living room on the front elevation with metal balustrades.
2.4 The new site layout would provide for three parking spaces on site, one within the integral garage and two on the hardstanding area in front of the garage. A number of trees on site would also be removed to enable the development, with more trees removed along the site frontage of the broader site area to create a new access to the existing dwelling at Leyton (the number of trees to be removed have not been stipulated on the submitted documents).
2.5 The following documents have been submitted as supporting information:
2.5.1 A tree survey and its accompanying Tree Survey Map: This survey, however, does not cover any of the trees within the application site but the adjacent site which is the subject of another application.
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/01504/B Page 4 of 16
2.5.2 Correspondence between the agent and Manx Utilities Authority Drainage Department which refers to an amended drainage scheme shown on the revised site plan Drw. No. 21/100/PL01 rev C.
2.5.3 A Covering Letter dated 12 December 2021 which states the following: o A previous approval on the neighbouring site indicated the removal of existing lime trees to the boundary of Victoria Road and a replacement planting schedule was approved under planning approval 20/00293/A. o The proposed scheme shows new Freeman Maple Trees in replacement for the Lime Trees being removed in accordance with the previous approval to allow sight lines to the site access. o The front wall to Leyton immediately adjacent Victoria Road is also shown as being reduced in height to allow for sightlines to the south. o This letter also refers to relevant policies, the character of the area including the large houses within generous gardens associated with the dwellings, limited visibility for the existing dwellings here, and the character of the Little Switzerland Conservation Area which the applicant concludes do not relate to the application site, as well as the dwellings within Lucerne Court with are adjacent to the application site. o The applicant also states that the new development would improve sightlines to the existing dwelling at Leyton. o The applicant also states that forestry had previously stipulated the number of trees that were required to be replaced and this requirement has been complied with.
2.5.4 No Ecological information has been provided with the scheme.
2.5.5 No Flood Risk Assessment or flood information has also been provided to support the application.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of "Predominantly Residential Use" under the Area Plan for the East (Map 4), and the site is adjacent the former air raid shelter site on Victoria Road. A large part of the site area proposed for the new dwelling is considered to have High likelihood of surface water flood risks. There are no registered trees on site and the site is not within a registered tree area, although it shares a boundary with the Glencrutchery Road Sports Field Registered tree area, with the trees within the site forming a congruent unit with the trees within the registered tree area.
3.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
3.3 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: (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; (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;
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/01504/B Page 5 of 16
(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; (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.
3.4 Environment Policy 3: Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value.
3.5 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(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."
3.6 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..."
3.7 Strategic Policy 3: "Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by: (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character".
3.8 Strategic Policy 4: "Proposals for development must: (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations";
3.9 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."
3.10 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. 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."
3.11 Transport Policy 1: New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes.
3.12 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.
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/01504/B Page 6 of 16
3.13 Transport Policy 6: "In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users".
3.14 Transport Policy 7: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
3.14.1 Typical Residential - 2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling.
3.15 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
3.16 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant in the assessment of the proposal are; Infrastructure Policy 5, Community Policy 11, Community Policy 7 and Community Policy 10.
3.17 "Infill development" (in the sense of filling a small gap in an otherwise built-up frontage) may be acceptable in built up areas, but the value of spaces between buildings should not be underestimated, even in small settlements.
3.18 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.
3.18.1 Paragraph 7.12.3 (In part): "Flood Risk Assessments must accompany any planning application for development where there is a potential risk of flooding. These assessments may be of a relatively minor nature, evaluating a small development on a low risk site with minimal secondary effects or may comprise major basin-wide studies for significant infrastructural development. Risk assessment reports should, as a minimum, include the requirements set out in Appendix 4. The following requirements should be the starting point in the preparation of any risk assessment and should be read in association with Appendix 4:"
3.18.2 Section 11.8 Drainage (In part): "11.8.1 All new development must be capable of being drained of foul and surface water in a safe, convenient, and environmentally acceptable manner."
3.19 Environment Policy 13: Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Whilst not adopted planning policy, DEFA's Residential Design Guide (2021) is a material consideration in the assessment of this application as, "It is intended to apply to any residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions...". Sections 2.0 on Sustainable Construction, 3.3 on Transport Issues, 3.1 on Local Distinctiveness, and 7.0 Impact on Neighbouring Properties, are considered relevant to the current scheme.
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/01504/B Page 7 of 16
4.2 DEFA Agriculture and Lands Directorate Forestry, Amenity and Lands - TREE PROTECTION POLICY - Department Policy Relating to the Protection of Trees - Version 2.0, December 2021
4.2.1 "25. The Directorate will normally object to planning applications if any of the following is true: (a) The proposed development includes the removal of any tree(s) worthy of a category A or category B classification, as defined by BS5837:2012. (b) The proposed development includes the removal of more than 50 percent of existing tree canopy cover from the site. (c) The proposed development includes the removal of any tree(s) worthy of a category C classification, as defined by BS5837:2012, without sufficient mitigation. (d) The application includes insufficient information to properly judge the arboricultural impact of the proposed development (e) The application does not show how the proposed development could be implemented without having a detrimental impact on the health and longevity of adjacent retained trees, and does not show how this impact will be mitigated. (f) The proposed development is likely to lead to significant future pressure to remove or prune trees, either by an application made under the Tree Preservation Act 1993 and/or by complaints made under the Trees and High Hedges Act 2005. (g) The proposed development includes the removal of a tree, group of trees or woodland which is registered under Section 2 of the Tree Preservation Act 1993."
4.2.2 "29. The Directorate recognises that in terms of the relevant planning policies available at the time the application is determined, a proposed development may be acceptable despite its potential impact on existing trees and woodlands of merit. If the Directorate submits an objection to a planning application, it will consider the possibility that the application may be approved and make recommendations to the PBCD on how the impact to existing trees and woodland of merit can be minimised (e.g. by the use of conditions)."
4.3 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025 4.3.1 The strategic aims (In part): o Managing biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats. o Maintaining, restoring and enhancing native biodiversity, where necessary. 4.3.2 Habitat loss actions "21. DEFA will continue to promote a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for."
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The application site has been the subject of a previous planning application which is not considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. Approval was granted under PA 04/01940/B for the erection of a garden shed to replace existing greenhouse/shed in rear garden of Leyton. This was approved on the grounds that there were no adverse implications for neighbouring properties nor any detrimental impact on visual amenity.
5.2 PA 20/00293/A was approved for the broader site area, with the site frontage of Leyton just east of the existing trees along this site frontage marked as being within the proposed site boundary.
5.2.1 None of the trees along the site frontage of Leyton which includes T2052, T2053, and T2054 were marked for removal. The tree along the southern boundary of Leyton, T2055 was also marked for retention, with T2085 along this boundary marked for removal. No other tree within the current curtilage of Leyton was marked for removal under PA 20/00293/A.
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/01504/B Page 8 of 16
5.2.2 The scheme included tree replacements along the site frontage, and indicated that none of the trees south of the suggested development area would be removed.
5.2.3 Two conditions were included specifically to protect trees within the broader site area. They include:
C 4. All built development forming the dwellinghouse, excluding the access and driveway, should be kept within the "minimum development area" (shaded in green) as shown on drawing TR-16119. Note: The applicant is strongly recommended to discuss any Reserved Matters application with the Planning Directorate prior to submission.
Reason: In order for the dwelling to fit comfortably and unobtrusively into the landscape.
C 5. The existing trees marked for retention shall be retained in accordance with the approved details. Any retained tree which within five years of the approved development being occupied or completed (whichever is the later) dies, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced by a similar species, of a size to be first approved in writing by the Department, during the next planting season or in accordance with a programme of replacement to be agreed in writing with the Department.
Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.
5.2.5 As the Reserved Matters application was not submitted within the stipulated time period which expired in June this years (30th June 2022), that approval has now lapsed and as such a new full application or another approval in principle would need to be submitted for the site or any works related to the previous scheme under PA 20/00293/A. See condition 2 which stipulates the time limit: "C2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Department before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.
Reason: To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals."
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they 'Do not oppose' in a letter dated 6 January 2022/11 January 2022/22 April 2022.
6.2 DOI Flood Risk Management have stated that they do not oppose subject to condition(s) in a letter dated 31 December 2022, the condition being that a Flood Risk Assessments must accompany the planning application as there is a potential risk of flooding to comply with the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 section 7.12.3.
6.3 DEFA Forestry have made the following comments regarding the application (11 January 2022: o The proposed replanting of Freeman maple (Acer x freemanii) as replacement trees would conflict with the development proposed under this application. o The tree survey presented with this application does not cover the main part of the site, where the house is to be constructed. o Although a full tree survey and arboricultural impact assessment would have been helpful, these would not be requested in this instance, as the additional information would not provide much benefit.
==== PAGE 9 ====
21/01504/B Page 9 of 16
o This application is not supported by a tree protection plan showing how this tree would be protected during the construction process. o They object to the application on the following grounds: a. The proposed development includes the removal of 4 lime trees worthy of a category B classification, as defined by BS5837:2012. It is the Directorate's view that these trees should be considered a material constraint to development. b. There is a high risk of damage occurring to the Category A monkey puzzle tree and the application does not show how this tree would be protected. 6.3.1 The applicant has now provided a tree protection area within the revised plan Drw. No. 21/100/PL01 rev C.
6.4 DEFA Biodiversity has made the following comments regarding the application (12 January 2022): o The tree survey and tree data table provided with this application but refer to trees within the adjacent site and not trees within the site boundary of PA 21/01504/B. o The applicants should be requested to provide an accurate tree survey and data table prior to determination of this application. o It can be seen from the proposed site plan and aerial photographs that a significant amount of existing vegetation, including trees and hedging will be removed from the plot in order to place the dwelling and no replacement planting is proposed apart from one rowan tree. o It is also unclear from the documentation provided whether the treed boundary along the west of the plot is to be retained. This garden vegetation will be providing a refuge for wildlife in this semi-urban environment and be supporting a variety of biodiversity such as feeding, sheltering and breeding birds, feeding and commuting bats, and invertebrates. o They note that the scheme would result in a net loss for biodiversity and suggest that ecological mitigation measures need to be integrated on site to address this. o The following conditions have been recommended: a. Prior to works commencing, accurate landscaping plans should be submitted to Planning for written approval which clearly show the vegetation that is to be retained and which contain details of proportionate replanting with native or other well-established species.
b. Prior to works commencing, plans should be submitted to Planning for written approval containing details of at least one integrated bat brick to be installed on the new dwelling. The brick bricks should be installed at least 3m above the ground on the southern elevation but not directly above or next to windows, doors or balconies.
c. Prior to works commencing, plans should be submitted to Planning for written approval containing details of at least two integrated bird bricks suitable for either house sparrow, starling or swifts to be installed on the new dwelling. The brick bricks should be installed at least 3m above the ground (swift bricks should be installed at least 5m above ground level) on a northerly elevation, away from artificial light. o They also recommend that vegetation removal to facilitate the dwelling is undertaken outside of bird nesting season, and note that if this is not possible then thorough checks for breeding birds should be made first.
6.5 Manx Utilities Drainage have stated that they have no objection to the application (17 may 2022).
6.6 Douglas Borough Council have no objection to the application (7 January 2022/22 April 2022).
6.7 The owners/occupiers of 11 Summerhill, Douglas, have made the following comments regarding the application (2 January 2022):
==== PAGE 10 ====
21/01504/B Page 10 of 16
o The tree data table and tree survey only apply to the adjoining site, as do the comments regarding trees in MP Associates' covering letter, and not to Leyton.
o The garden of Leyton includes some attractive trees (including a mature monkey puzzle, a tulip tree, and an oak) and numerous large shrubs. It appears to me that many of these would be lost if this development is permitted, although the application does not address this (it does appear to propose the planting of one rowan tree).
o The development would also involve the loss of a substantial portion of the existing stone boundary wall, which is an attractive feature of the road.
o As it stands, Leyton is an attractive Arts and Crafts style house in a well-established garden appropriate to its size. This development would, in my opinion, completely spoil this by introducing a poor pastiche in very close proximity.
o The site might originally have been suitable for a pair of semi-detached houses, similar to most of Little Switzerland, but not for two detached houses.
o A notice for this application was displayed on the adjoining site but at a little distance from the boundary with Leyton.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of the application are: a. Whether the development adversely affects the character and appearance of the area; b. Whether the dwelling has adequate amenities in itself; c. The possible impacts on neighbouring amenity; d. Highway Safety Impacts; e. The potential impacts on trees and biodiversity; f. Flood Risks associated with the development g. Drainage Matters
7.2 IMPACT ON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE SITE AND AREA (GP 2, SP 4, SP 5, and EP 42) 7.2.1 In terms of any impact on the area, the decision to erect a dwelling on the site is considered to be unobjectionable. However, there are concerns about the site size and layout, and the massing of the proposed development, as set out below.
7.2.2 In assessing the proposed scheme relative to the character of the locality dominated by large dwellings within generous plots with significant landscaped gardens lined by trees, it is considered that the proposed scheme would be averse to the character of the site and locality.
7.2.3 As has been stated earlier, the properties here lie within large plots, Leyton (1527.4sqm), West Hill (1643.4sqm), Sea Court (1634.7sqm), Red House (1672.9sqm), with Victoria Manor, the smallest of the properties on this part of Victoria Road on a plot area measuring 1070sqm. This creates an average plot area of about 1,509.68sqm. It is also important to note that the properties within Lucerne Court which is directly adjacent to the application site and on the other side of Victoria Road lie within large plots, with the average plot size being 1656sqm.
7.2.4 The current scheme as proposed would create two plot areas that are well below the average plot sizes here, with the new Leyton curtilage measuring 946.4sqm, while the plot area allocated to the new dwelling would measure about 581sqm (which is well below the standard plot size here). This would also result in an unacceptable fragmentation of an existing curtilage which contributes significantly to the character of the area in terms of landscaping, and site layout, together with the buildings prominence within its generous ground.
==== PAGE 11 ====
21/01504/B Page 11 of 16
7.2.5 Furthermore, the proposal would result in the decline of the general character of the landscape and wider environment, as the overall scale of built development when assessed together with the existing dwelling at Leyton would increase considerably. This impact is further exacerbated by the fact that an entire mature garden area, which contributes to the character of the area would be removed to create a built footprint of about 308.58 sqm (a significant quantum of development relative to the site area). It should also be noted here that the context of this part of Victoria Road, in terms of buildings and landscape character is defined by large buildings laid out within large plots with mature landscaping. Thus, this could also be considered to represent over development of the site.
7.2.6 Additionally, due to its mass, height, and considerably small separating distance between the new dwelling and Leyton, the new building would stand out and be particularly noticeable when viewed from the existing streetscape, mainly as a large section of trees along the site frontage of Leyton and adjacent air raid shelter site are proposed to be removed. Whilst the new dwelling seeks to mirror the design of the existing dwelling at Leyton, its height and massing would make it more dominants than the dwelling at Leyton. The new dwelling would be 1.07m wider than the front elevation of Leyton as it would be 9.91m wide, while Leyton is 8.84m wide. The new dwelling would also have a ridge height measuring 8.7m setting it higher than Leyton at 8.27m (430mm higher). This would create a significantly dominant infill development set up within a small site area; resulting in a conspicuous feature in the local scene which would diminish the importance of 'Leyton', an attractive Arts and Crafts style house set in a well-established garden appropriate to its size; a factor that has also been noted by the owners/occupiers of 11 Summerhill, Douglas.
7.2.7 The reduction in the size of the Manx stone boundary wall, although would result in the alteration of the boundary wall on the site frontage which would considerably alter the character of this part of Victoria is, however, considered unobjectionable as it would serve to create improved sightlines from the amended access to the site.
7.2.8 For these reasons it is considered that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the site and this part of Victoria Road, and would be contrary to General Policy 2 (b, c and f), Strategic Policies 4(b), Strategic Policy 5, and Environment Policy 42.
7.3 THE AMENITIES OF THOSE IN THE PROPOSED DWELLING (GP 2) 7.3.1 With regard to the provisions for the amenities of future occupants of the proposed dwelling, it is noted that the garden space provision would be considerably low, comparative to the general standards obtainable within the locality, although the size of the new rear garden would not be inappropriate for an independent residential use. It should be noted, however, that the use of this new garden area would constrained by overlooking views from the first floor bedroom window of Plot 6 on the adjacent proposed development due to the orientation of this neighbouring proposed development which would enable views over any proposed boundary treatment. This garden which is the only outdoor amenity provision would also be overlooked by the occupants of 'Leyton' who will have unhindered first floor views of this garden area, resulting in the rear garden having almost no actual or perceived privacy since the garden space would be less than 20m from these dwellings; a situation that is rarely obtainable within this part of Victoria Road given the level of mature landscaping on the boundaries of the properties here.
7.3.2 It is also noted that the parking provisions, as well as turning areas for vehicular movements would be adequate. It is considered the internal accommodation would be an acceptable size, and all primary rooms would have adequate level of outlook and light.
7.3.3 Based on the foregoing, it is not considered that this element of the proposal would warrant refusal of the scheme given that it would make provisions that would be over the
==== PAGE 12 ====
21/01504/B Page 12 of 16
minimum amenity requirements for a detached five bedroom dwelling, even though the provisions would be well below the standards attainable within the locality.
7.4 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING DWELLINGS (GP 2 and RDG 2021) 7.4.1 With regard to neighbouring residential amenity, it is considered that the property most likely to be impacted by the development would be 'Leyton' situated north of the new building; given that its new side garden would only be about 1.6m away from the first floor balcony on the new dwelling. When assessing the possible impacts on this neighbouring dwelling, it is considered that at 2.7m above ground level and within a distance of 1.6m from the boundary treatment which rises to only 1.6m, the new balcony would afford views into the side garden of 'Leyton', as well as views into living spaces within Leyton; sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme (given that the separating distance is considerably within the range whereby overlooking would occur). Whilst it is noted that the boundary treatment situated on the boundary would provide some screening for part of the side garden and parking areas in front of this neighbouring property, the balcony would still enable views into large sections of this property; a situation that would be in conflict with GP2 (g and k).
7.4.2 In terms of possible impacts on the new development proposed at the southern section of the site proposed under PA 21/01468/B (should approval be granted), it is considered that the new balcony would also result in significant levels of overlooking of the new garden area proposed for Plot 1 on the aforementioned scheme. In fact, the new balcony would also enable views into primary rooms within the dwelling proposed for Plot 1 under PA 21/01468/B. This is hinged on the fact that the separating distance of 14.4m between the first floor balcony and the large areas of glazing on the ground floor of this new dwelling would significantly impact on the privacy of the occupants of the dwelling proposed here. The separating distance would also afford views into the rear bedroom of this proposed neighbouring dwelling; particularly at night times when lights are used within the bedroom. Whilst it is noted that a palm tree sits on this boundary, this would do little in providing appropriate privacy screening or diminish the overlooking concerns that have been noted.
7.4.3 When considering whether there would be any loss of light or overshadowing from the built form of the extension, given the two story nature (at height of 8.7m), the separating distance of 4.6m, and the position of the new dwelling south of the existing property at 'Leyton', it is considered that the new dwelling would result is significant loss of light/overshadowing for the ground floor areas on 'Leyton'; particularly as the new dwelling would be situated south of Leyton, where the impact of overshadowing is expected to increase as the sun's orientation is east to west.
7.4.4 With regard overbearing impacts, it is considered that the new development would have an overbearing effect on 'Leyton' given the intervening distances between the application dwelling and Leyton which is only 4.6m. It should be noted here that this relationship is uncommon in this part of Victoria Road where the separating distance is wider, with the trees and mature landscaping serving to soften the impact. There are also no mature landscaping on this boundary to soften the impacts in this regard. It is further noted that the proposed dwelling would not be ancillary to the dwelling at Leyton, and as such these impacts would exacerbated when both properties fully operate as independent dwelling units.
7.4.5 On balance, the level and scale of development proposed here are judged to cause harm to the enjoyment of the main dwellinghouse at Leyton and the proposed dwelling at Plot 1 under PA 21/01468/B, and would harm the neighbouring amenity of these dwellings in terms of overshadowing, overbearing impacts, and overlooking leading to a loss of privacy, specifically for those at 'Leyton' contrary to General Policy 2 (g) and the principles advocated by the Residential Design Guide 2021.
7.5 ACCESS, PARKING AND HIGHWAY SAFETY (GP2, TP1, TP4, TP7)
==== PAGE 13 ====
21/01504/B Page 13 of 16
7.5.1 The proposal makes provision for the parking of a vehicle within the attached garage, and two vehicle on the hardstanding area on site, with sufficient provision for the turning of vehicles, such that vehicles can leave the site in forward gear. As such, it is considered that this element of the scheme would be acceptable and compliant with Transport Policy 7. The site is also located along a public transport corridor and as such broadly complies with Transport Policy 1.
7.5.2 With regard to the visibility when exiting the site onto Victoria Road, it is considered that this is partly constrained by the existing trees and vegetation along the site frontage of Leyton and west Hill, as well as the vegetation and trees on the boundary with West Hill. Whilst the agent refers to approval granted for tree removal along the boundary with Victoria Road, it would be vital to note that the approval granted under PA 20/00293/A did not involve any of the trees along the current curtilage of Leyton. Trees with ref. 2052, 2053, 2054 (along the site frontage), and tree ref. 2055 along the southern boundary of Leyton where surveyed within the scheme, but none of these were marked for removal and as such would still be retained along the boundary (See Drawing No. TS-16119 Trees Constraint Map and Drawing No. TR- 16119 Draft Development Area) submitted for PA 20/00293/A for guidance regarding these trees. Besides, the approval granted under PA 20/00293/A has now lapsed as the Reserved Matters application was not submitted within the required two year time limit stipulated as part of that approval.
7.5.3 The comments from DOI Highways which indicate support for the scheme also assume that the trees north of the access to Leyton would be removed together with the collection of dense vegetation and lowering of stone wall. This has been indicated in the third paragraph of their consultation dated 6 January 2022. However, it would be vital to reiterate that this is a clear misunderstanding of the current scheme as no tree is to be removed along the site frontage as part of the current scheme. Also no approval was granted for tree removal along the frontage of Leyton under PA 20/00293/A which the current application seeks to rely on as no approval was granted for the removal of trees along the frontage of Leyton, but the adjacent air raid shelter site. Furthermore, as has already been stated, that approval has now lapsed and as such cannot be relied on.
7.5.4 Similarly, the current scheme does not propose tree removal as it only seeks to reinstate the previous approval to reduce height of existing wall to 1m and ensure no vegetation is 1.05m in height to the north sightline. As such, these trees would still remain along this boundary and further restrict visibility towards the north (which is currently below acceptable standards for visibility splays along a 30mph highway).
7.5.5 Granting the removal of vegetation (not trees) and the lowering of the Manx stone boundary wall along the site frontage would go some way in improving visibility, the trees that would still be retained along the site frontage, the fence and gate proposed for the boundary with Leyton, which would be 1.6m high (2m high on the side of Leyton set about 400mm higher than the site level for the new dwelling) although having a gap of 1.7m from the edge of the highway, and the mature landscaping along the southern boundary and frontage of the neighbouring property at West Hill, would serve to impede views from the access at Leyton. It would be important to note here that the application site does not include the curtilage of 'West Hill' and no change is currently proposed for the boundaries of this property.
7.5.5 The increased intensity of use would also serve to further exacerbate the chances for harm associated with this access to increase, particularly as it relates to the visibility towards the north. It should be noted here that the current scheme proposes a five bedroom detached dwelling with provision for three parking spaces, which together with the existing use of Leyton which has provision for more than six vehicles within the new curtilage would considerably intensity the use of this access which is still unsafe and increase the possibility for incidents to occur. It was observed during the site visit that vehicles approaching from the north barely noticed vehicles exiting from the properties on the western side of Victoria Road due to the
==== PAGE 14 ====
21/01504/B Page 14 of 16
presence of the trees and mature landscaping along the boundary, and the proximity of the stone walls and accesses to the edge of the highway; a condition that would not be helped by the intensified use from the unchanged access.
7.5.6 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the lowering of the wall and piers would improve the sightlines above the current situation, although it should be noted that the other factors earlier noted (the retention of the trees along the site frontage, the 2m high 1.6m high fence which rises to 2m along the new boundary with Leyton, together with the retention of the vegetation along the southern boundary and frontage of West Hill) would result in an unsafe access from this site and weigh against the scheme, as it would fail to provide an appropriate safe access for all highways users contrary to General Policy 2 (h) and Transport Policy 4.
7.6 THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON TREES AND BIODIVERSITY (EP 3, SP 4, GP 2 and IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025) 7.6.1 In terms of impacts on trees, it is considered that the current scheme seeks to remove a Category B - Tullip Tree (T2055) which was marked for retention without a previous tree survey under PA 20/00293/A, whilst retaining a Category U -Sycamore tree (T2085) which was marked for removal, without providing any reasons or supporting survey to justify this deviation from the previous tree survey. This would conflict with the survey submitted under PA 20/00293/A which assessed the trees and considered the trees marked for retention worthy of retention, and in turn General Policy 2(f). This scheme also seeks to remove one of the un- surveyed trees just west of the driveway, with potential to facilitate the removal of the other un-surveyed tree through impacts on its root area which would be under the proposed turning area for the new dwelling.
7.6.2 It would be vital to note here that the tree survey information provided under PA 20/00293/A surveyed the trees along the site frontage and southern boundary, and identified two other (smaller) trees just west of the driveway into Leyton, but no information was provided for the two smaller trees even though they were marked as existing on the site. No other tree along the western and northern boundaries of Leyton were assessed. Thus, there was no comprehensive survey for the trees on the current Leyton site.
7.6.3 Whilst the agent has stated that the tree survey prepared by Manx Roots for the PA 20/00293/A also covers the current site, it should be noted that that survey only assessed the trees along the southern boundary and frontage of Leyton and not the entire (Leyton site) and as such it would be misleading to conclude that the survey covered that site (as it only covered part of that site). As has been noted earlier, the two smaller trees just west of the current driveway into Leyton and directly east of the garden area south of the main dwelling at Leyton which would be affected by the current scheme were shown on the site plan and survey maps, but none of these were assessed as part of the tree survey as no assessment numbers where given to these trees. Drawing Nos. TS-16119, TR-16119, and WL/20/1484/1 provides clarity on these matters.
7.6.4 DEFA's Arboricultural Officer has, however, indicated that although a full tree survey and arboricultural impact assessment would have been helpful, there provision as additional information would not provide much benefit in this case. As such, it is not considered that any impact on these small trees just west of the driveway would be sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme.
7.6.5 The other matters related to providing the appropriate tree replacement as required by DEFA Forestry are not matters for consideration within the current scheme as there are a lot of tree issues overlapping with PA 20/00293/A (now lapsed) which would be better assessed under PA 21/01468/B given that the majority of the development proposed under that scheme conflicts with the tree replacement and retention plans approved under PA 20/00293/A.
==== PAGE 15 ====
21/01504/B Page 15 of 16
7.6.6 In terms of impacts on biodiversity, it is considered that the scheme would result in the removal of mature landscaping (including shrubs and hedging) within the side garden without an assessment of the ecology within this part of the site or carrying out appropriate measures to ensure their replacement within the site(ecological mitigation measures). This would be contrary to the requirements of General Policy 2 (d and f), which seeks to ensure that developments protect locally important habitats on site, in addition to incorporating existing landscape features.
7.6.8 The scheme as proposed also fails to comply with Strategic Policy 4 and the IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025, as it has the potential to dislodge and result in net loss of locally important biota (fauna and flora) that may inhabit the mature garden area to be removed, given that this garden is well established and forms a congruent unit with the adjacent registered tree area (designated nature conservation area) just north of the western boundary with the Braddan AFC Clubhouse grounds. It should be noted here that the migration of biota are not restricted by defined curtilage boundaries with this scheme making no effort to evaluate ecology currently on site, those to be impacted by the development, and how they could be re-established within the broader site area. This concern is also echoed in the Biodiversity team consultation comments which note that "This garden vegetation will be providing a refuge for wildlife in this semi-urban environment and be supporting a variety of biodiversity such as feeding, sheltering and breeding birds, feeding and commuting bats, and invertebrates."
7.7 FLOOD RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT (EP 10, EP 13 and GP2) 7.7.1 In assessing potential flood concerns, it is noted that the site of the proposed new dwelling is within an area considered to have High likelihood of surface water flood risks on the Isle of Man indicative flood maps. This concern has also been highlighted by the DOI Flood Risk management Team who state that a flood risk assessment must accompany any planning application for development where there is potential risk of flooding such as the application site, yet no flood risk assessment has been provided.
7.7.2 By the same token, no measures to mitigate against flood impacts or minimize flood impacts on the site and new dwelling has been indicated on any of the plans or supporting information. As such, it is considered that the scheme would fail to comply with the requirements of Environment Policy 10 and General Policy 2 (l).
7.8 DRAINAGE MATTERS (PARAGRAPH 11.8.1) 7.8.1 With regard to drainage for the site, it is considered that the proposal includes a drainage management scheme for the broader site area which has been assessed by MUA Drainage, who have stated that they do not oppose proposal. Thus, it is considered this element of the scheme is acceptable and complies with the relevant sections of the Strategic Plan.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Overall, although the principle, design of building, drainage, and parking and turning provisions are acceptable, the impacts on neighbours, the impacts on the character and appearance of the site and locality, the unsafe access, flood risk potential, together with the impacts on biodiversity, indicate that the proposal is an inappropriate development which would fail to comply with the policies that have been highlighted. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 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;
==== PAGE 16 ====
21/01504/B Page 16 of 16
(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.
9.2 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 in Article 4(2) who should be given Interested Person Status.
9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner 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: 29.09.2022
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
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