Inspector's Report

Report by Mrs Jennifer Vyse DipTP, MRTPI, DipPBM Following an Inquiry into a Third Party Planning Appeal Site Inspection carried out on 23 September 2024 Inquiry held on 24 September 2024 _________________________________________________________

Appeal Ref: AP24/0016 Planning Application: 24/00029/B

The appeal is made by Timothy Swift against the decision of the Planning Authority to grant planning approval for the erection of a new detached garage with garden wall/gate at Old House/Reef House, College Green/Douglas Street, Castletown IM9 1BE.

Background And Procedural Matters

• 1. In 2022, an application was submitted for alterations and extensions to the appeal property, including a garage similar to that now proposed. Following receipt of comments, and prior to its determination, the scheme was amended to exclude the garage, with a view to expediting an approval for the rest of the development. Subsequently, a separate application was submitted for the garage to an amended design, allowing it to be considered on its own merits. That application was approved and is the subject of this appeal.
• 2. The grounds of appeal raised concerns about an anomaly in the annotated ground levels shown on the submitted plans. At the Inquiry, the applicant’s architect accepted the anomaly, confirming that the ground level for the garage was in fact some 0.28m lower than as shown. As a consequence, whilst the overall dimensions shown for the garage were correct, it would actually sit 0.28m lower on the site in relation to the house, and the surrounding area, than is shown on the plans. I am satisfied that the implications of the anomaly are minimal. More importantly perhaps, it does not have the effect of exacerbating the impact of the development. In fact the opposite is true, in that the building would not sit as high as indicated. The overall design, siting and dimensions of the garage remain unaltered. I am content therefore, that no-one’s interests are prejudiced by proceeding to a recommendation and ultimately determination, based on the plans as submitted, with that minor correction in mind.

DESCRIPTION

• 3. Old House/Reef House is a substantial, detached dwelling, dating from the early 1800s, set within large grounds. It occupies a prominent position on the southern side of College Green, Castletown, at its junction with Bowling Green Road/Douglas Street. The existing house comprises two storeys with accommodation within the roof. It sits gable end on to the road junction, facing west/southwest, towards the town. The grounds extend mainly to the south and southwest, between Douglas Street and the seawall. Vehicular access is taken from Douglas Street, through a high Manx stone boundary wall that runs along the back of the footway.
• 4. The planning permission referred to above approved the erection of what is described as a sun room extension to the side of the house, demolition of outriggers, renovation of a barn/garage into family accommodation, and

• renovation of the main house (PA 22/01463/B). The sunroom is shown with a castellated parapet across its frontage, reflecting the treatment of an existing wall to the side of the house. Those works were underway at the time of my site visit.
• 5. It is proposed to erect a triple garage, close to the corner of, and sitting perpendicular to, the approved sun room extension, to the southwest of the main house, facing towards Douglas Street. The front wall would align with the end of the sun room, connected to it by a short stretch of wall.
• 6. The garage building would have a footprint of some 6.8 x 10 metres, with a height to eaves of around 3.2 metres and an overall height above ground level to ridge of 5.4 metres. The roof, of natural slate tiles, would be hipped at each end and the walls would be finished in smooth render to match the existing house. The linking wall between the garage and the sunroom would have a castellated parapet, linking in with that approved for the sunroom, and would contain a pedestrian gate.
• 7. The plans on which my recommendation is based are Drawing Nos 1868 03 EX-01 Rev A and P-01 Rev A (with the provisio that the garage would actually sit some 0.28m lower on the site than is shown).

PLANNING POLICY AND GUIDANCE Area Plan for the South (2013)

• 8. The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential. The property is not Registered1 and lies outwith the Castletown Conservation Area, the closest part of which is some 100metres or so further down Douglas Street, to the west. The southern boundary of the site runs alongside the sea wall, on the other side of which is the Langness Bay Marine Nature Reserve.
• 9. For sites that adjoin the approach routes to Castletown, Landscape Proposal 4 requires that development should employ styles and materials that are sympathetic to those of the historic centre, and that siting safeguards views of the Castle and the old town from those routes.
• 10. Map 2, Landscape Assessment Areas, shows the appeal site as lying within the urban area, adjacent to the Rugged Coast landscape type.

Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016

• 11. Strategic Policy 3b) requires that regard be had to the use of local materials and character. General Policy 2 is permissive of new development provided, among other things, that it 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; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality and l) is not on land subject to unreasonable risk of flooding.

• 1 Whilst the Area Plan Written Statement suggests that the appeal property is worthy of registration, it was confirmed at the Inquiry that the property is currently not registered.

• 12. Environment Policy 10 requires that where, in the opinion of the Department there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment is required, together with details of mitigation measures.
• 13. Environment Policy 11 is only permissive of coastal development where, among other things, it would not increase or transfer the risk of flooding, with Environment Policy 13 resisting development that would be at unacceptable risk from either on or off-site flooding.
• 14. Environment Policy 36 is only permissive of development outwith but close to a Conservation Area where it would not detrimentally affect important views into or out of the Conservation Area.
• 15. Environment Policy 42 requires that new development be designed to take account of the particular character and identity of the immediate locality.

Residential Design Guide 2021

• 16. The Guide confirms that the design of new residential development, including its scale (including height), form, layout/orientation, and detailed design (including the materials used) should be informed by, and respects, both the nature of the development site and the character of the neighbouring buildings and surrounding area. Development should fit in with the street scene. In relation to impacts on the occupiers of neighbouring properties, regard is to be had to overbearing impact and outlook among other things.

Castletown Conservation Area Study (1998)

• 17. The Study identifies important buildings and characteristics within the Conservation Area, noting the use of blue/black slate roofing as the predominant roof material. It also refers to carefully replicating gutters, flashings, fascias and barges of original or adjacent buildings. It suggests that rendered wall surfaces should be painted in muted light greys or white.

The Role of Landscape Character in Development - Draft Planning Policy Statement PPS 2/09 (2009)

• 18. The Draft PPS seeks to assist in conserving, enhancing and, where appropriate, restoring the various landscape character areas. In relation to the Rugged Coast Area it sets out, among other things, that care should be taken to protect open, expansive, panoramic seascape views from visual intrusion through inappropriately sited and designed development.

Development and Flood Risk Guidance for the Isle of Man - Draft Policy Statement PPS 1/09

• 19. The Draft PPS confirms, among other things, that consideration of flood risk will form an integral part in the determination of planning applications. Low lying land near to the sea is vulnerable to coastal flooding from high tides and storm surges. Climate change is likely to have major implications for coastal flooding on the Island. With the precautionary principle in mind, the Draft PPS counsels against development where there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage from flooding. It also recognises that the extent of areas at risk from flooding cannot be defined precisely.

The Case For The Appellant

• 20. What follows is a summary of the main points raised in the grounds of appeal. The full submission can be viewed on the Department’s website, together the associated appendices, including photographs, and the documentation, plans and photographs filed with the planning application.
• 21. Whilst we welcome the renovation of Reef House, the triple garage proposed is unnecessary, having regard to its scale, mass, visual impact and orientation. The siting and scale of the building would adversely affect the character of the surrounding townscape. Historically, the property has formed a major backdrop to this area of Castletown and its coastline. Although outside the Conservation Area, the vista will be impaired by the proposed building. The forward nature of the garage building and the sweep of the coastline mean that the garage building would have a negative effect upon the appearance of the Reef House façade, with the ridge height exacerbating the massing. It would also adversely affect public views of the sea. The building would have a detrimental impact upon the locality and would have adverse impacts upon public/neighbouring amenity, the highway and neighbouring properties, contrary to material planning considerations, policies, guidance and statutes.
• 22. Notwithstanding the opinion of the applicant and the Planning Department, the property is subject to flooding as a result of wave overtopping and floods on a regular basis. The proposed garage would not only decrease the level of absorption of flood waters on the site, but would cause displacement of flood waters, increasing flood risk to the highway and neighbouring properties, again contravening material planning considerations, policies, guidance and statutes.

THE CASE FOR THE APPLICANT

• 23. What follows is a summary of the main points raised in the written statement in response to the appeal. The full submission, together with the supporting material that accompanied the planning application, can be viewed on the Department’s website.
• 24. The garage has the same pitch of roof as the main house, incorporating the strong projecting cornice line supported by corbels and a string course, following the same details on the eaves of the main house. A flat roofed garage was mooted in pre-application discussions, but the planning officer advised against. The size of the garage accords with Manual for Manx Roads guidance for the storage of three cars.
• 25. The building would sit comfortably on its site in views out from the Conservation Area and from the public perspectives alongside. Most of the Douglas Street frontage comprises a relatively high wall which prevents any view over it, either of the site or the Bay beyond. A fleeting view into the site is available when passing the vehicular entrance, but that does not currently include views of the sea due to the sea wall. There would be no loss of a public view of the sea.
• 26. Under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012, the applicant has the opportunity to erect a 6m by 6m (double) garage with

• an eaves height of up to 2.9m and a roof pitched to match the existing house including, potentially, a gable ended roof. This could have a much greater impact not only on the public view of, and across, the site, but also on those properties near to it.
• 27. The loss of a currently grassed area, which represents 8% of the site, does not represent a material change in the ability of the site to absorb flood water which may enter the site. The site is not identified as being within a flood risk area and the Government authority with responsibility for flood risk raises no objection.
• 28. The proposed development accords with all relevant planning policies and material considerations and would contribute positively to the area, including the nearby Conservation Area. It would not adversely affect the character, quality or distinctiveness of the coastal area, with its rich ecological habitats and open and expansive panoramic views, and would conserve the coastal setting of Castletown, as required by the Landscape Character Assessment, which acknowledges the various buildings forming the edge of the Bay.

THE CASE FOR THE PLANNING AUTHORITY

• 29. What follows is a summary of the main points raised in the Authority’s Statement of Case. The full submission, together with the officer’s report to the Planning Committee, can be viewed on the Department’s website.
• 30. The development would largely be in keeping with the character and appearance of the main dwelling, its scale, form and overall bulk being subordinate to the house. The design reflects features of the main dwelling and it would not detract from the general appearance of the site in its current context.
• 31. The boundary walling along the back of the footway, which sits above the eye line, and the mature planting behind, would together screen views of the proposed building. Whilst some of the roof would be seen from the street, over the walls, with glimpsed views achievable via the gates, the garage would be in keeping with the general character of the area. From the street, no views of the sea can be achieved through the site in its current form, given the boundary walling and planting.
• 32. The site lies outwith any flood prone area as identified on the Indicative Flood Maps, and thus is not considered to be in an area at high flood risk. The development does not involve changes to existing site levels and the building is for garaging purposes, not additional living accommodation.
• 33. The displacement of any overtopping water on the site would not be impeded by the development, given its scale (the building would have a footprint of some 73sqm) relative to the scale of the undeveloped part of the site (which would still extend to around 2,115sqm). Moreover, the site access slopes away from the adjoining highway, minimising any opportunity for surface water from the site to flow onto the highway.
• 34. Although the potential for wave overtopping exists here, as with any other residential properties that directly abut the coastline in the area, the Flood Maps clearly indicate that the site is not within a flood risk zone. The DOI Flood Risk Management Team raise no objections to the proposal and neither

did they request submission of a Flood Risk Assessment. The development would not result in ‘unacceptable risk’ (the test in Environment Policy 13) given its scale and the nature of its use.

OTHER PARTIES

• 35. DoI Highway Services (Development Control): No objection.
• 36. DoI Flood Risk Management: consulted but no comments received.
• 37. Castletown Commissioners: consulted but no comments received.
• 38. Local Residents – as set out in the officer’s report to the planning committee, the occupiers of a number of nearby properties submitted written objections to the planning application. Concerns raised reflect the appellant’s case as set out above.2

ASSESSMENT BY THE INSPECTOR

• 39. As agreed at the Inquiry, the main issues in this appeal relate to:

•  the effect of the development proposed on the character and appearance of the area, including the nearby Castletown Conservation Area; and
•  the risk to the proposed development of coastal flooding, and the potential for the development to increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

Character and Appearance

• 40. The proposed garage would sit adjacent to a very large house, which itself sits in extensive grounds. The design reflects the architectural detailing on the main house, using the same material finishes and the same pitch of roof, also incorporating a strong projecting cornice supported by corbels and a string course. It has a hipped roof, which reduces the visual presence of the roof, the ridge of which would sit very roughly at the same height as the glazed balustrading above the sun room as approved in the previous application.3 Although it is a large building, its scale and massing are such that it would be seen as subordinate to the main house and there would be no harm in this regard.
• 41. The garage would be set well back into the site, behind a high stone boundary wall along the back of the footway. At present, the site is well screened by both the wall and taller vegetation behind. Even were the vegetation to be removed, the height of the wall is such that if it seen at all, views would be mainly of the roof. In any event, and allowing for views into the site at the vehicular entrance off Douglas Street, I have found its design and scale to be appropriate in its setting. I find no harm therefore, to the character and appearance of the immediate locality.
• 42. I recognise that there would be wider views of the garage building from the southwest on the approach along Douglas Street, including from within the

• 2 Some raised concerns about private views and property values. Whilst important to those affected, it is well established that the planning system does not exist to protect private interests such these.
• 3 When account is taken of the proposed garage being some 0.28m lower than is shown on the plans.

Conservation Area. In some closer views on that approach, the garage building would be seen off-set to the side of the main house. From further south, along the sea front, the garage would be seen in front of the main house. Again, however, I have found its design and scale to be appropriate to its setting. I note, in this regard, that all of the images in the Conservation Area Study show pitched roofed buildings.

• 43. In those long-range views (and noting that the Conservation Area Study does not identify any key views into or out of the Area) the garage would, if discernible at all, be seen against a backdrop of existing buildings, including Reef House itself. There would be no harm in this regard, to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, the focus of which is Castle Rushen, the adjacent harbour and the narrow streets that radiate out from there.
• 44. The proposed garage would be contained within the curtilage to a building that sits within the existing urban area. I am content, in this regard, that there would be no harm either to the Rugged Coast Landscape Character Area, particularly since the Landscape Character Assessment specifically acknowledges the presence of built form around the edge of the Bay.
• 45. Concern is expressed about the garage interrupting public views of the sea. I note, in this regard, that in relation to the Rugged Coast Area, the Draft PPS 2/09 sets out, among other things, that care should be taken to protect open, expansive, panoramic seascape views from visual intrusion through inappropriately sited and designed development. However, as I saw during my site visit, there are no meaningful public views of the sea itself across the site from the footways along this part of Douglas Street, largely as a consequence of the existing street boundary wall. Views into the site are available at the main site entrance, but even those do not encompass the sea, given the presence of the sea wall along the rear of the site. Even if there were, the loss would be so minor that it would not be material in this particular setting. In my view, the proposed building is not inappropriately sited and its design is acceptable in its context. Again, I find no harm in this regard.
• 46. It is also worth noting the ‘fallback’ position available to the applicant under residential permitted development rights, whereby a 6m x 6m (double) garage with an eaves height of up to 2.9m and a roof pitched to match the existing house including, potentially, gable ends, could be erected without the need for planning permission. Depending on its siting, whilst smaller than that proposed it could, as confirmed at the Inquiry, have a much greater impact not only on public views across the site, but also on the outlook for those properties near to it (see below). It was confirmed for the applicant that, were the appeal to succeed, he would seek to erect a garage under those rights. Given the absence of any other garaging facility on the site, I have no reason to doubt his intentions in this regard, a course of action that could have an adverse impact in terms of the character and appearance of the area.
• 47. To conclude on this issue, I find no harm to the character or appearance of the area, including the nearby Conservation Area. There would be no conflict therefore, with Landscape Proposal 4 of the Area Plan, with Strategic Policy 3b), General Policy 2b), c), d), and e) and Environment Policies 36

and 42 of the Strategic Plan, with the Residential Design Guide, or with the advice in Draft PPS 2/09, which together and among other things seek to protect such interests

Flood Risk

• 48. Whilst the appellant contends that there would be conflict with Environment Policy 10, the Department has not requested that the application be accompanied by a flood risk assessment. Accordingly, the absence of such does not bring the scheme into conflict with that policy.
• 49. Notwithstanding that the appeal site is not identified as being in an area at risk of flooding on the current Flood Hub Map, waves do clearly overtop the sea wall on occasion, as demonstrated by photographs submitted by the appellant, with the effect of climate change likely to increase/exacerbate those occasions. In coming to a view on this, I note that the building does not include any element of residential accommodation, it is simply for the garaging of cars/cycles etc. As such, and with the precautionary principle in mind, even if it were to flood, there would be no risk to human life. Moreover, whilst the presence of the building might displace over topping water within the site, it would not increase the quantum of water, water which, as advised by the appellant, runs freely out of the site through the entrance gate onto Douglas Street (notwithstanding the apparently lower ground levels within the site compared with the adjacent road). The volume of any waters, including water escaping the site, would remain the same, with or without the appeal building.
• 50. Whilst the garage would remove an area of grass (some 72.6sqm), that represents only 8% of the overall grassed area within the site. I am also advised that an additional 25sqm between the wall and the driveway that is currently bare ground/hard surface, is to be finished with permeable material. I am content, in this regard, that the net loss of permeable ground in the context of this extensive site4 would not have a material adverse impact in terms of the ability of the site to absorb water at times of overtopping, with no consequential increase in flood risk elsewhere.
• 51. I am also mindful that the fallback position available to the applicant, as set out above, would not be dissimilar, in terms of any flood related effects, to that of the building proposed.
• 52. The appellant also took issue with the condition of the seawall along the seaward boundary of the appeal property, suggesting that it requires renovation, upgrading and repair. Whether or not that is the case, the development proposed would have no impact on the wall. Any works that may be required to the wall would not be required as a consequence of the development proposed.
• 53. To conclude on this issue I find, for the reasons set out above, that the risk to the proposed development of coastal flooding, and the potential for the development to increase the risk of flooding elsewhere would not be unacceptable. There would be no conflict, in this regard, with General

• 4 The planning officer’s report states that the existing undeveloped site area extends to some 2188sqm.

Policy 2(l), Environment Policies 10, 11, and 13 of the Strategic Plan, or with the advice in Draft PPS 1/09.

Other Matters

• 54. The appellant is concerned that the original garaging has now been converted to residential accommodation, resulting in the need now for the additional garaging proposed. However, those works have the benefit of planning permission.5 It is not for this application to re-evaluate the acceptability of the principle of that development. The garage building the subject of this appeal stands, or falls, on its own merits.
• 55. The doors to that earlier garaging were located directly at the back of the footway, significantly impacting on visibility for drivers, with added implications for highway safety given the proximity of that garaging to the junction of College Green with Douglas Street. The development currently proposed allows for manoeuvring within the site, whereby vehicles can enter and leave in a forward gear, via a footpath crossing at an existing vehicular entrance, which would be improved pursuant to the earlier permission, with good visibility in both directions along the road. That represents an improvement in terms of highway safety.
• 56. I have also had regard to the effect of the development proposed on the living conditions of those living opposite to the proposed garage, including the appellant, having particular regard to outlook (a separate matter from views). The garage would be well set back from the road frontage, some 15m from the front boundary wall of the appeal site at its closest. The houses opposite lie across the street, behind front gardens. The garage is single storey. Even taking into account the pitched roof, the distance separation is such that the building would not be seen as overbearing. As such the effect on outlook, in terms of living conditions for occupiers, would be acceptable. There would be no conflict, in this regard, with General Policy 2g) of the Strategic Plan, or the Residential Design Guide.
• 57. From the first-floor of the properties opposite, particularly No 6, the proposed garage building would obscure to some extent, views of the sea and the promontory of Langness beyond. I fully appreciate the concerns held by the appellant, and others, in this regard. However, as confirmed at the outset, it is not the purpose of the planning system to protect private views.

OVERALL CONCLUSION AND RECOMMEDATION

• 58. In light of the forgoing, I conclude that the siting, size, design and massing of the proposed garage building would be acceptable in its context and there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, which would be preserved. Moreover, whilst the site may well be subject to wave overtopping at times, I have found that the garage would not be at unacceptable risk from flooding and neither would it materially increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

• 5 PA 22/01463/B

• 59. For the reasons set out above therefore, and having regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed and that the Planning Authority’s decision to approve the application be upheld.

Reason: The siting, size, design and massing of the proposed garage building would be acceptable in its site-specific context and there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the character and appearance of the nearby Conservation Area which would be preserved. Moreover, whilst the site may well be subject to wave overtopping at times, the garage would not be at unacceptable risk from flooding and neither would it materially increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. In all the above matters, there would be no conflict with any of the relevant development plan policies or related guidance. There would be no conflict therefore, with Landscape Proposal 4 of the Area Plan, with Strategic Policy 3b), General Policy 2b), c), d), e) g) and l) and Environment Policies 10, 11, 13, 36 and 42 of the Strategic Plan, with the Residential Design Guide, or with the advice in Draft PPS 1/09 and 2/09.

• 60. Should the Minister agree, recommended conditions are set out at Annex B below. Only the standard commencement of development condition was suggested by the Authority. At the Inquiry, the possibility of a condition removing permitted development rights relating to the erection of other buildings within the curtilage was discussed, but that was agreed as being unnecessary given that permission would be required in any event. Similarly, it was agreed that a condition requiring details of measures to maximise flood resilience of the building was not justified, given the intended purpose of the building.
• 61. The appellant mooted a condition requiring the installation of a flood gate at the site entrance off Douglas Street. However, new development is generally only required to mitigate its own impacts. I have found, in this regard, that the scheme would not exacerbate the risk of flooding. The suggested condition would therefore not be reasonable.
• 62. The appellant also sought a condition requiring a flat roof instead of the pitched roof proposed. However, as I explained at the time, a condition cannot be used to secure a material amendment to a scheme. To do so could mean that others with a view on the matter would not have chance to provide their comments and their interests could be unfairly prejudiced. In any event, I am mindful that the planning officer had previously rejected that option in terms of visual aesthetics. The appeal scheme has to stand or fall on its own merits.

Jennifer A Vyse

Independent Inspector

28 October 2024

• ANNEX A Present at the Inquiry

FOR THE APPELLANT:

T J Swift S J Swift

FOR THE APPLICANT: Gary Lamb Applicant Sarah Corlett Director, Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy Niall McGarrigle McGarrigle Architects Ltd

FOR THE PLANNING AUTHORITY: Paul Visigah Planning Officer with the Authority

OTHERS PRESENT: D Awkal Local resident

• ANNEX B Schedule of recommended conditions
• C1. The development hereby approved shall begin before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

------------------------------------End of Schedule----------------------------------