Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
Ref: NETH/AP25/0002 PA 23/01066/B
Appeal against the non-determination for construction of two houses to replace existing single house, Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas , Isle of Man. IM2 6AQ
I understand that the appeal against non-determination of the application is to take into account the full application and comments previously submitted on it.
I would therefore request the Inspector refer so my previous statement listed as 12 Sep 2023 representation REP Comment 11 2 Glen View, South Cape which referred to The design of Leyton; The apparent ambiguity in the labelling of elevations in the proposal drawings; The density of the proposed development in relation to existing; The access arrangements; The lack of a tree survey; Impact of carbon release through demolition; Impact on mature landscape and nature conservation value; and Included a copy of a previous appeal decision with regard to the site (PA21/01504/B, AP22/0043)
With regard to the ambiguity in the plans, to clarify, on Drawing 23/103/PL02 both proposed Plots 1 and 2 face South east with their front elevations on the south-east. On Drawing 23/103/PL01 proposed plot 2 has what appears to be this front elevation labelled as side North elevation ie facing Plot 1. If the appeal is successful I would respectfully request that the elevations on Drawing l23/103/PL01 for Plot 2 are renamed in accordance with the alignment for both plots shown on Drawing 23/103/PL02.
Notwithstanding the above, the essence of my comments remains unaltered. I would draw attention to the fact that since these views were submitted they appear to be reinforced by
a) The Registration of Leyton , this Registration being confirmed following an appeal requesting its deregistration. Copies of the Registration notice and details RB339, deregistration appeal report and decision dated 11 December 2024 (PA24/90001/S1 are attached ; and b) The refusal of PA23/00942/B for 4 houses on the adjoining plot on Victoria Road the proposal for which included access arrangements across the front of Leyton. PA 23/00942/B was refused and no valid appeal request was submitted in time. A copy of the refusal notice is attached.
I also attach a copy of my comments on PA23/00942/B above. These also include a copy of the site access arrangements shown on an earlier application on this adjoining site PA21/01468/B (AP22/0040) which affect the access to the current appeal proposal, the Inspector’s report on appeal and the accompanying decision notice to refuse PA21/01468/B.
c) DEFA registration of trees on the roadside frontage of Leyton – their comments of 15 February 2020 refer.
==== PAGE 2 ====
I also note that the tree survey listed for the applicant on 14 September 2023, with the possible exception of the root survey for one tree, does not relate to the application site but to the above adjoining site covered by PA23/00942/B and PA21/01468/B.
2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey IM4 7HY
Redacted
==== PAGE 4 ====
Case Name: Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas Case Number: RB 339 Background The Planning & Building Control Directorate has received an application for de-registration of a building for Leyton (Registered Building 339) following the building’s inclusion into the Protected Buildings Register on 28th February 2024. Annex Name Category 1 Consultation Submissions Application for de-registration 2 Operational Policy Principles of Selection 3 Register Entry Summary Registration Visits Date Visit Type 11 April 2024 Internal and external In the first instance it is important to establish that this is an application for de-registration. The status quo is that the property is registered. The burden of proof is on the applicant to demonstrate that the building is not of special interest as measured against the Department’s Operational Policy on the Principles of Selection for the Registration of Buildings (Annex 2). Consultation An application for de-registration of a building was received for Leyton (RB 339) on 19th March 2024. The application was published on 28th March 2024, with a request that submissions in relation to the application be received by 26th April 2024. Full copies of the submitted comments can be found in Annex 1 at the rear of this report. A summary of the responses received is as follows: Property Owner – Submit their submission in objection to the initial proposal to register notice together with a marked up drawing listing non-historic features and elements that in their view would require replacement given their current condition. Isle of Man Victorian Society – Object to the application for de-registration and submit counter arguments to the reasons stated by the application for de-registration. Resident of 2 Glenview Cottages, Laxey – Object to the application for de-registration and submits previous planning decisions relating to the building that relate to the building’s architecture and history. Resident of La Paz, 14 Lucerne Park – Object to the application for de-registration as they believe the building warrants its registered status and adds to the locality. Residents of Holly Bank, Little Switzerland – Object to the application for de-registration as they feel that Leyton is an especially beautiful building with particular architectural and historic interest. Residents of West Hill, Victoria Road - Support the application as they are not convinced the property has any historic significance. Would prefer to see the site developed.
==== PAGE 5 ====
Discussion Reasons for Registration The Register Entry Summary states that Leyton is entered on to the Protected Buildings Register for the following reasons: ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST • Victorian dwelling designed in an Arts and Crafts style with a twin-gabled front elevation featuring oriel windows, Ballanard brick ground floor and half-timbered first floor. HISTORIC INTEREST • Constructed in 1896, the property illustrates the arts and crafts style of architecture that formed a key part of the island’s cultural history during the late Victorian era. Reasons stated for making the application for de-registration A verbatim, unedited, copy of the reasons stated on the application form is as follows:- "The building :-
==== PAGE 6 ====
As with reason 1, the extensions and their impact on the significance of the building were considered and assessed when the building was registered. An extract from the registration recommendation report is below:- The rear extension, the internal alterations and porch do harm the building’s architectural significance as it is not an intact example of its type. However, it is still relatively simple to understand and appreciate the building’s historic form and style, and significant amounts of historic fabric are still in evidence externally. Clearly the more that survives of a building’s historic fabric and/or plan form, the more significance it is likely to have. In this instance, it was judged that the surviving historic fabric, plan form and architectural language were of sufficient significance to provide special interest as an example of late Victorian Arts and Crafts architecture. 4. The building’s original architect is unknown and what remains of the building is not of sufficient quality to warrant registration. The persons associated with the building are not of sufficient warrant or importance. The building has not been registered on the basis that it was designed by a historically significant architect. Similarly, the reasons for registration do not include any close historical associations with nationally important people. The property has been judged to be of architectural interest as a ‘Victorian dwelling designed in an Arts and Crafts style with a twin-gabled front elevation featuring oriel windows, Ballanard brick ground floor and half- timbered first floor’, and of historic interest as a property ‘Constructed in 1896, the property illustrates the arts and crafts style of architecture that formed a key part of the island’s cultural history during the late Victorian era.’ 5. If retained as registered cannot be upgraded suitably to meet current building control and environmental targets which form part of the government’s strategic targets for carbon reduction. Thermal efficiency and carbon reduction targets are not factors that are considered within the Department’s Operational Policy (Annex 2). With the Operational Policy in mind, this matter is not considered relevant or material in considering the special interest of the building, and to have no bearing on registration. 6. Was registered without a full inspection internally - despite that being listed as requirement of the registration process. A full internal inspection of a property is not a requirement of the registration process. With the Operational Policy in mind, this matter is not considered relevant or material in considering the special interest of the building, and to have no bearing on registration. Notwithstanding the above, internal photographs were submitted by the owner following the issue of the Proposal to Register Notice. These images were reviewed and considered as part of the registration decision. 7. It is uneconomic to restore the building especially with the very onerous nature of being on the register increasing the costs exponentially. The Department’s Operational Policy (Annex 2) clearly states that the Department should register a building which has been assessed as meeting the statutory criteria, irrespective of its state of repair or other matters such as implications for future use or financial issues. With the Operational Policy in mind, this matter is not considered relevant or material in considering the special interest of the building, and to have no bearing on registration. 8. Marked-up drawing submitted by applicant’s agent
==== PAGE 7 ====
The applicant has submitted a drawing that notes the elements of the building that have been replaced by modern fabric. The drawing also includes notes indicating the existing elements that the applicant/owner believe need to be replaced. The elements of modern fabric were noted within the registration recommendation report. Although these modern elements do result in some harm to the building’s significance, the property was judged to be of ‘importance in its architectural design given that its twin-gabled form and entire first floor in half-timbering is not replicated in any of the other surviving Victorian examples in the surrounding area.’ The building’s form and the materials used in the design of the historic portion of the house are still obvious and prominent despite the modern interventions. In terms of the proposed replacement of historic fabric noted on the drawing, the necessity, suitability and acceptability of possible replacement materials is a matter for registered building consent. This application for de-registration is focussed on considering the special interest of the building, which is a separate matter. Site Visit 11th April 2024 The Department’s Director and Assistant Registered Buildings Officer visited the site with the site owner on 11.4.2024, viewing the building internally and externally. It was apparent that the building has been the victim of vandalism since the Building Preservation Notice was placed upon the property in November 2023. This has resulted in much of the glass in the windows on the side and rear elevations of the property being smashed. At the time of writing this report (2.5.2024), the owner is now making efforts to secure the building and the site against any further damage or unauthorised access. Although a detailed internal inspection of the building is useful to fully understand the current condition of the building, the general condition of the building was known at the time of registration. The property has been judged to be of architectural interest as a ‘Victorian dwelling designed in an Arts and Crafts style with a twin-gabled front elevation featuring oriel windows, Ballanard brick ground floor and half-timbered first floor’, and of historic interest as a property ‘Constructed in 1896, the property illustrates the arts and crafts style of architecture that formed a key part of the island’s cultural history during the late Victorian era.’ The internal condition of the building is not mentioned in the reasons for registration, and as a result it is not judged to be of sufficient significance to the building’s special interest to warrant de-registration of the building. Conclusion After examining the submitted information, I am of the view that insufficient information has been put forward within this application to demonstrate that the property is not of special interest and justify removal of the building from the protected buildings register. I therefore recommend that the application be refused. Tom Sinden, Assistant Registered Buildings Officer Recommendation for Interest Party Status The applicant/owner and their agent, Manx National Heritage and the Local Authority (Douglas Borough Council are granted the right to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application as per regulation 9(4) of the regulations. As a special interest group specifically focussed on the Victorian history of the Isle of Man, the Isle of Man Victorian Society are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter to be granted Interest Party Status. Although their submissions are noted, the residents of 2 Glenview Cottages, Laxey; La Paz, 14 Lucerne Park, Holly Bank, Little Switzerland and West Hill, Victoria Road are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter to be granted Interest Party Status.
==== PAGE 8 ====
Form RBAP1
The Town and Country Planning Act 1999 Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013
Application for De-Registration of a Building A Registered Building is a building of special architectural or historic interest which has been included in the Department’s Protected Buildings Register.
It is an offence to carry out any works (internally or externally) affecting the character of a Registered Building without the written consent of the Department.
An up to date list of the Register is available from the Department or its website.
An application for the de-registration of a building may be made under Regulation 7(1)(a) and “must state the reasons for making the application.”
FOUR copies of this form and any supporting information must be submitted.
Please note that applications to request de-registration of a building may only be made under (5(1) of the Regulations by the owner or occupier (a) within 21 days of the original registration; OR (b) NOT within 5 years of entry on the register. Please complete in BLOCK CAPITALS and in black ink. All relevant questions on this form must be answered. 2. Registered Building Number
(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
Have you consulted the Department prior to making this submission? Yes
No
Home Telephone number Work
Applicants email Leyton Victoria Road Douglas 339 The building :-
==== PAGE 9 ====
Form RBAP1 Planning and Building Control Directorate Department of Environment, food and Agriculture Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF Tel: +44 1624 685950 Fax: +44 1624 686443 Email: [email protected] 6. If using an Agent, please indicate if the Agent is to be issued with the acknowledgement letter, site notice, and undertake the responsibility for affixing the notice at the development site. Please Note: If this box is not completed all correspondence will be directed to the Agent. Agent Applicant 7. To be signed by the Applicant/Agent I hereby apply for the de– registration of the Building described by the address in section 1. Signed (*Applicant/*Agent) Date On behalf of *please delete as appropriate On receipt and validation of this form you (or your Agent) will be issued with a site notice to display at the site by fixing it firmly to a building, structure or post on the land and placed and displayed in such a way as to be easily visible by members of the public and for a period of not less than 21 days. Where the Department directs under the Registered Building Regulations 2013 7(3) that further particulars or other matters are furnished and the applicant fails to comply with that direction and within such time as is given (not being less than 21 days) this application may be treated as withdrawn. 5. Full Name of Agent Home Telephone number Work Agents email Address The Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture is a data controller for the purposes of the General Data Protection Legislation and requires the information on this form to comply with its legal obligations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1991 and subordinate Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013. Your personal information will be held by the DEFA for the purposes of processing this application and may be used to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Town & Country Planning Act and in particular Part 4 Enforcement of Control. Some of the information you provide, such as your name, address and contact detail will be shared at our public counter, with the Local Authority and as part of the application image via our online service, in order to give notice and publicise receipt of the application. We will only keep these details for as long as we require them, and in accordance with the General Data Protection Legislation. You may withdraw your details at any time if you no longer wish us to process your application. Full details of how and why DEFA processes your personal information are contained in our P&BC Privacy Notice The Data Protection Officer can be contacted on 686781 or by email at [email protected]. Redacted MP Associates Limited 12, Strathallan Crescent, Douglas, IM2 4NR 618672 [email protected] 18-03-2024 MP Associates Limited
==== PAGE 10 ====
From: To: Sinden, Thomas Cc: Chance, Jennifer Subject: Re: Application to de-register Date: 26 April 2024 16:37:25 Attachments: Leyton Registration.pdf Leyton Existing Layout.pdf Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or following any links. Hi Tom Please see attached photographs marked up for Leyton together with an existing layout drawing of the building with regard to the Application to de-register Leyton. Kind regards Director MP Associates Ltd 12, Strathallan Crescent, Douglas, Isle of Man - IM2 4NR T - 01624 618672 From: Sent: 25 March 2024 11:44 To: Sinden, Thomas [email protected] Cc: Subject: Re: Application to de-register Thanks Tom Kind regards On 25 Mar 2024, at 09:49, Sinden, Thomas [email protected] wrote: For information, notice of the application to de-register Leyton will be on this week’s publication list – 29.3.2024. I am aware that you are away for a period of Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Redacted Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 11 ====
time, and with the Easter weekend also occurring during the consultation period, we have asked for comments to be submitted by 26th April 2024.
The Department will post a copy of the notice on or near the site, as required by the regulations. Copies have also been sent to Douglas Borough Council and Manx National Heritage as per the regs.
As per our previous discussions, I appreciate that you intend to submit a more detailed submission in support of your application. Please let myself or Jennifer know in due course if you require longer than the initial consultation period for this purpose.
Regards
Tom
Tom Sinden Assistant Registered Buildings Officer Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture (DEFA) Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas Isle of Man IM1 2SF
e-mail: [email protected]
Please don't print this email unless you really need to - P Ny clou yn port-l shoh mannagh vel feme mooar ayd my sailliu -
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officer only and are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and any relevant secondary legislation. Please be aware that should the content of this email be materially relevant to a planning application, its content may be published as detail relevant to the formal assessment of the application. Publication will include availability via online services.
Isle of Man. Giving you freedom to flourish WARNING: This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. You must not copy or deliver it to any other person or use the contents in any unauthorised manner without the express permission of the sender. If you are not the intended addressee of this e-mail, please delete it and notify the sender as soon as possible. No employee or agent is authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of any of the Departments or Statutory Boards of the Isle of Man Government with any party by e-mail without express written confirmation by a Manager of the relevant Department or Statutory Board. RAAUE: S’preevaadjagh yn çhaghteraght post-l shoh chammah’s coadanyn erbee currit marish as ta shoh coadit ec y leigh. Cha nhegin diu coipal ny cur eh da peiagh erbee elley ny ymmydey yn chooid t’ayn er aght erbee dyn kied leayr veih’n choyrtagh. Mannagh nee shiu yn enmyssagh kiarit jeh’n phost-l shoh, doll-shiu magh eh, my sailliu, as cur-shiu fys da’n choyrtagh cha leah as oddys shiu. Cha nel kied currit da failleydagh ny jantagh erbee conaant y yannoo rish peiagh ny possan erbee lesh post-l er son Rheynn ny Boayrd Slattyssagh erbee jeh Reiltys Ellan Vannin dyn co-niartaghey scruit leayr veih Reireyder y Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 12 ====
Objection to the Proposal to Register the Building known as Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas IM2 6AQ
MP Associates Ltd 12 Strathallan Crescent Douglas Isle of Man IM2 4NR
Date: 26th April 2024 Redacted Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 13 ====
Description of property
The building was not originally constructed specifically for William Lay as it was already built by the time he purchased it in 1897. The covenant is in the name of Thomas Kneen and his heirs not William Lay.
The house is not associated in any way with Little Switzerland either in design or location.
The house has been extended over the years to the side entrance and rear as can be seen from the Existing Layout drawing 23/103/PL03 attached.
The fascia’s and barge boards are generally rotten and are in need of replacement. Some timber work has already been carried out and is therefore not original.
The roof requires felt is leaking in several areas and therefore needs to be replaced. I doubt whether much of the existing tiles could be salvaged and a match would be extremely difficult to achieve.
Many of the windows are Upvc as observed on site.
The timber windows are all single glazed and most are damaged beyond repair.
As the building has been extensively damaged to date the windows will need to be boarded up to prevent access for health and safety which may result in further damage to these windows to make the building secure.
There will be little left of the original building when the porch, windows, roof, fascia’s, barge boards, gutters are removed or replaced.
The brickwork is not in good condition and there are signs of water ingress.
The building does not look good from the front, rear, and sides, when viewed with the extensions that have been added over the years.
It is clearly not worthy of being retained.
Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 14 ====
Dormer to top of stairs
Dormer to Bedroom 3
Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 15 ====
Loft hatch to landing
Flat roof and Upvc bay window at first floor level to Bedroom 1
Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 16 ====
There has been Severe water ingress at high level to this area.
Valley boards to roof exposed in bedroom 2.
Toilet at First Floor Level Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 17 ====
Dormer to top of stairs at First Floor
Corner of Bedroom 2.
Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 18 ====
Dining room ceiling
Former Shower room to extension Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 19 ====
The garage and shed have been severely vandalised. Garage and shed to rear garden area.
Fascia boards need replacing due to being rotten
Water ingress at roof level. A new roof is required.
Upvc bay window at first floor.
New timber insert to first floor timbers
Part front elevation.
Front of house Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 20 ====
Fascias are beginning to fall of the house
Timber fallen from house in recent winds
Front of House
Windows at first floor are damaged and have been forced open by vandals
Front corner of house
Front and Side of house Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 21 ====
Timber fascia and barge boards need replacement
Side elevation to garden
Timber fascia and barge boards need replacement
Part Side elevation to garden
Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 22 ====
Window at ground floor to side facing garden
Dormer with flashings falling off and broken windows
Severe water ingress
Upvc French doors to dining room
Side elevation to Garden Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 23 ====
Upvc French Doors and sidelights
Side elevation to Garden
Existing felt roof has severe water ingress
Rear flat roofed extension
Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 24 ====
Red brick extension with felted flat roof.
Red brick does not match the original.
Rear and side extension to drive
Rear and side extension to drive Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 25 ====
Side window to drive
The porch is a relatively new addition and certainly not an original feature.
It is an awkward incongruous addition in white render and boarding.
Side entrance porch
Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 26 ====
First floor front and side corner to driveway side showing uvc bay window
First floor view of front elevation
Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 27 ====
Front elevation from Victoria Road
Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 29 ====
From: To: Sinden, Thomas Subject: RE: Application for de-registration of a building - RB339, Leyton, Douglas Date: 26 April 2024 03:48:16 Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or following any links. From : The Isle of Man Victorian Society. c/o Marjon House , Alberta Drive, Onchan, IM3 1LX Special Interest Group
We write to advise of our strongest objection to this application to de-register Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas. IM3 6AQ. Registered Building Number 339
The building has only just been Registered and whilst we note the reasons stated by the applicant for deregistration they fail to take into account the contents of ‘Operational Policy on the Principles of Selection for the Registration of Buildings into the Protected Buildings Register’ by which the building has been registered. The state of repair does not enter into consideration as was the case with the former Earystane Chapel (RB 207) and indeed the Leodest Chapel (RB 2) although this has been repaired since registration. The fact that the name of the architect is not known, again does not negate registration . A look at the list of all the buildings registered on the Island reveals that the name of the architect is not known in the case of the vast majority of registered buildings. The fact that the building has been unsympathetically extended does not affect the corpus of the original building which is more than obvious and subsequent applications to demolish the modern extensions is unlikely to be opposed. The building as it stands does not have to be upgraded to current building control standards. In its present state under the building regulations it is ‘deemed to satisfy’. There is no legal requirement for the Department to view the interior of a building when considering registration. The statement that it would be uneconomic to restore is not substantiated but in any event implications of ‘financial issues’ is also excluded by the Operational Policy. The quality of the design and construction together with its contribution to the group of arts and crafts buildings of Little Switzerland and Victoria Road we have stated before in requesting registration and in opposing a recent planning application on this site. As the body set up to promote the best of architecture , arts and crafts of the Victorian and Edwardian period on the Island we request Party Status in respect of this application related to a Victorian building. In the event of an appeal we will submit a more detailed and comprehensive objection.
Caseworker Isle of Man Victorian Society.
Ps We are concerned that windows are left open on this building permitting the entry of water. It is a Registered Building and the owner has a responsibility to keep it in a good state of repair. Redacted Redacted Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 30 ====
Equally the Department has a responsibility to ensure that this happens. A notice should be served on the owner to close the windows and prevent water ingress. The current application to deregister the building does not negate the owner’s responsibility whilst it is still registered.
From: Sinden, Thomas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28 March 2024 13:17 Cc: Chance, Jennifer [email protected] Subject: Application for de-registration of a building - RB339, Leyton, Douglas
Dear All
Please note that the Department has received an application for de-registration of a building relating to Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas. The notice and application form can be viewed here. No further information has been submitted at the time of writing.
Notice of this application will be included on this week’s planning application publication list.
Any comments or submissions in relation to this application are being requested by 26th April 2024. Submissions can be made via email to myself by reply to this email or via [email protected], or in paper form to the address below.
Best regards
Tom Sinden Assistant Registered Buildings Officer Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture (DEFA) Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas Isle of Man IM1 2SF
e-mail: [email protected]
Please don't print this email unless you really need to - P Ny clou yn port-l shoh mannagh vel feme mooar ayd my sailliu -
Any views expressed in this email are those of the officer only and are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and any relevant secondary legislation. Please be aware that should the content of this email be materially relevant to a planning application, its content may be published as detail relevant to the formal assessment of the application. Publication will include availability via online services.
Isle of Man. Giving you freedom to flourish WARNING: This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. You must not Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 31 ====
From: To: DEFA, Building Conservation; Sinden, Thomas Subject: Application to deregister Registered Building 339 Leyton Victoria Road, Douglas IM2 6AQ Date: 23 April 2024 11:09:52 Attachments: Douglas Leyton 3112 1895.png Douglas leyton Victoria road Deregisration application.doc Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or following any links. Leyton Victoria Road Extracts from appeal statement PA21/01504/B which was for erection of a dwelling within the grounds of Leyton The following statements were made on behalf of the owner JM Project management for an appeal whose decision was taken only in June 2023 ie less than a year ago “The existing house, Leyton, is currently undergoing refurbishment work and the bushes to the front of the garden were cleared prior to this being undertaken to give access to the work. The dwarf walls to the garden have also been removed and parts of the house are being demolished to sort out various problems of layout and water ingress together with dry and wet rot.” “To the north is Leyton a red brick and rendered house which is in need of refurbishment.” “The footprint of Leyton is 174 sq m with a total area of 348.2 sq m. ---- It is the applicant’s intention to undertake further work on Leyton which subject to planning consent will be remodelled to remove some of the unsightly extensions and increase the size of the property in order to improve its appearance.” The Inspector’s assessment on appeal against refusal of PA 21/01504/B “78. Leyton is of a particularly pleasant and of its time design. The Arts and Crafts movement was pivotal in the evolution of architecture style and finesse. Leyton includes a number of side and rear subordinate elements, some of which are detrimental to its character. However, it has a strong visual presence in the streetscene, more so since the front garden was cleared of shrubs and planting, opening up the front to view.” Extract from reasons for refusal - attached in copy of this statement All of the above indicate that until the past year the owner considered that Leyton was a Redacted Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 32 ====
dwelling respected for its architecture and setting. Moreover its refurbishment was planned. Photographs attached to the application show that the building was looked after and windows and doors kept closed. The fact that the upper windows and, it is understood, ground floor doors have been left open to the elements should not may be seen as constructive deterioration of the property by or on behalf of its owner. This is not a reason for granting deregistration of the property. In terms of its architecture, the main extensions are to the rear of the property and, as referred to above, are clearly not impacting on the principal design and appearance to the front and side of the property and are removable. While the porch is also an addition it has been designed in character with the original house. The changes to windows have crucially not altered the original shape of the window openings or pattern of fenestration.
Leyton is worthy of conservation and registration both in terms of its own architecture and its setting in Victoria Road. I object to its deregistration particularly as this seems to be designed to justify its demolition through the deliberate not maintenance of the property. A copy of my original submission with regard to its registration is below. South Cape, Laxey IM4 7HY Proposed Registration RBINV 1432 Leyton Victoria Road Douglas While I despair of the psyche of the Isle of Man that considers that it is almost an automatic right to demolish buildings that have not been properly maintained even if they are recognisably of a purpose built historic architectural design, I would support the registration of Leyton as it is clearly designed in the arts and crafts style to fit into its surrounding environment. It reflects the Baillie Scott houses and others of the same era In Victoria Road, Little Switzerland and Glencrutchery Road most of them already registered and / or in a Conservation Area. It therefore fits well into its treed surrounds and, as an individual building, with the general style of the area. The heritage of this locality beyond those which already have a degree of protection must be recognised. of the Isle of Man Victorian Society gives a full detailed history of Leyton in his response to Planning Application 23/01066/B which I would refer you to if he has not already resubmitted these in response to the current Proposed Registration. Redacted Redacted Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 33 ====
To Summarise
Leyton was built 1896-7 for William Lay (brother of James Lay the clothier). There is a date stone in the gable with William’s initials on it. He was a young advocate who became High Bailiff of Peel and Ramsey which was part time. Then he became High Bailiff of Douglas and Castletown . In 1933 he became the first full time High Bailiff for the who Island. He died in 1937. He had two sons who became advocates – one also became High Bailiff. When he bought the plot from Deemster Kneen (April 1897) when the house was already built. There was a covenant on the plot that only one dwelling was to be built on the plot. Covenants don’t count in planning . There have been extensions to the house but despite windows being left open and the back door left open the house is structurally sound and capable of renovation. It is a one off compared to the other houses in Little Switzerland having the first floor bay windows projecting over the ground floor. It has a strange mixture of sliding sash and casement windows. At the side it has flat roofed dormers and an interesting roof scape. It is contemporary with the Little Switzerland houses, The Red House and Oakleigh. It is does not appear to be the work of Baillie Scott or Armitage Rigby which makes it a one off example amongst the others. Attached also is part of a newspaper article of 31 st December 1895 giving some of the history of the surrounding area. 2 Glen View South Cape Laxey IM4 7HY Redacted Redacted Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 34 ====
Leyton Victoria Road Extracts from appeal statement PA21/01504/B which was for erection of a dwelling within the grounds of Leyton The following statements were made on behalf of the owner JM Project management for an appeal whose decision was only taken in June 2023 ie less than a year ago “The existing house, Leyton, is currently undergoing refurbishment work and the bushes to the front of the garden were cleared prior to this being undertaken to give access to the work. The dwarf walls to the garden have also been removed and parts of the house are being demolished to sort out various problems of layout and water ingress together with dry and wet rot.” “To the north is Leyton a red brick and rendered house which is in need of refurbishment.” “The footprint of Leyton is 174 sq m with a total area of 348.2 sq m. ---- It is the applicant’s intention to undertake further work on Leyton which subject to planning consent will be remodelled to remove some of the unsightly extensions and increase the size of the property in order to improve its appearance.” The Inspector’s assessment on appeal against refusal of PA 21/01504/B “78. Leyton is of a particularly pleasant and of its time design. The Arts and Crafts movement was pivotal in the evolution of architecture style and finesse. Leyton includes a number of side and rear subordinate elements, some of which are detrimental to its character. However, it has a strong visual presence in the streetscene, more so since the front garden was cleared of shrubs and planting, opening up the front to view.” Extract from reasons for refusal All of the above indicate that until the past year the owner considered that Leyton was a dwelling respected for its architecture and setting. Moreover its refurbishment was planned. Photographs attached to the application show that the building was looked after and windows and doors kept closed. The fact that the upper windows and, it is understood, ground floor doors have been left open to the elements should not may be seen as constructive deterioration of the property by or on behalf of its owner. This is not a reason for granting deregistration of the property. Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 36 ====
From: To: Sinden, Thomas Subject: RE: Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas Date: 11 April 2024 13:39:05 Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or following any links. Dear Tom, Apologies, the only addition I would add is that it must be recalled that next door (the old air raid shelter) a planning application by the same property company for 6 new properties was rejected and they have had to downsize this to 4 new properties (which is presently awaiting consideration). It seems to me that the desire to knock down Leyton and replace it with 2 new properties is therefore not motivated by a genuine belief in good faith that its registration was wrong on historical/architectural significant reasons, but instead by a purely financial desire to ensure that the property management company still is able to build 6 profitable properties (albeit over two parcels of land instead of one). I think the last point of the property not being in a reasonable state to renovate illustrates this – but I believe that there would be plenty of others willing to put the necessary funds in to renovate what is a very beautiful property if the property company wishes to sell. I appreciate that the above may not be particular relevant to the legal test as to whether or not it should be de-registered/demolished, but I do think it is a relevant point which the decision-makers should be aware of. Kind regards, From: Sent: 11 April 2024 13:29 To: Sinden, Thomas [email protected] Subject: RE: Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas Dear Tom, Thank you for your email below. I do wish to file a submission requesting that the property is not to be de-registered/demolished. The property developer owner of the property, in my own personal eyes, has intentionally left the property fall into disrepair and is now attempting to exploit that as a basis for de-registration. Buildings of this significant architectural and historical significance are protected for a reason and if anything there should be enforcement taking place by Douglas City Council to ensure that it is repaired urgently – as a property developer they should be interested in doing that if they have a genuine interest in interesting Manx buildings of significance to this Island. The building is one of the most beautiful properties on the road and I enjoy looking at/driving past it (and would much more so if it was properly repaired by its owner) and it adds a lot to the locality and the nature of the Little Switzerland area. It was registered for a reason, and nothing has changed save for a developer now wishes to tear it down and is trying to utilise what some might say are underhand tactics for the same by letting it fall into disrepair by not looking at all after it. The property illustrates the arts and crafts style of architecture that formed a key part of the island’s cultural history during the late Victorian era and my understanding is that it was registered for this very reason. The clear historical/architectural and public significance of the property is illustrated by an article in the news on its proposed demolition (https://gef.im/news/planning/house-proposed-for-demolition- gets-registered-46882/), and it is buildings like this we should be protecting for the benefit of our Redacted Redacted Redacted Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 37 ====
Manx children and our children’s children. Once these buildings go, they are gone forever. Best wishes, From: Sinden, Thomas [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 11 April 2024 13:18 Subject: Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas Good afternoon Following your comment submitted to the Department regarding planning application 23/01066/B relating to Leyton, Victoria Road, I am emailing to inform you of a directly related matter on the site. Following the decision to Register the building, please note that the Department has received an application for de-registration of a building relating to Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas. The notice and application form can be viewed here. No further information has been submitted at the time of writing. Any comments or submissions in relation to this application are being requested by 26th April 2024. Submissions can be made via email to myself by reply to this email or via [email protected], or in paper form to the address below. Best regards Tom Sinden Assistant Registered Buildings Officer Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture (DEFA) Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas Isle of Man IM1 2SF e-mail: [email protected] Please don't print this email unless you really need to - P Ny clou yn port-l shoh mannagh vel feme mooar ayd my sailliu - Any views expressed in this email are those of the officer only and are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and any relevant secondary legislation. Please be aware that should the content of this email be materially relevant to a planning application, its content may be published as detail relevant to the formal assessment of the application. Publication will include availability via online services. Isle of Man. Giving you freedom to flourish Redacted Redacted Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 38 ====
WARNING: This email message and any files transmitted with it are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. You must not copy or deliver it to any other person or use the contents in any unauthorised manner without the express permission of the sender. If you are not the intended addressee of this e-mail, please delete it and notify the sender as soon as possible. No employee or agent is authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of any of the Departments or Statutory Boards of the Isle of Man Government with any party by e-mail without express written confirmation by a Manager of the relevant Department or Statutory Board. RAAUE: S’preevaadjagh yn çhaghteraght post-l shoh chammah’s coadanyn erbee currit marish as ta shoh coadit ec y leigh. Cha nhegin diu coipal ny cur eh da peiagh erbee elley ny ymmydey yn chooid t’ayn er aght erbee dyn kied leayr veih’n choyrtagh. Mannagh nee shiu yn enmyssagh kiarit jeh’n phost-l shoh, doll-shiu magh eh, my sailliu, as cur-shiu fys da’n choyrtagh cha leah as oddys shiu. Cha nel kied currit da failleydagh ny jantagh erbee conaant y yannoo rish peiagh ny possan erbee lesh post-l er son Rheynn ny Boayrd Slattyssagh erbee jeh Reiltys Ellan Vannin dyn co-niartaghey scruit leayr veih Reireyder y Rheynn ny Boayrd Slattyssagh t’eh bentyn rish. This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient you must not disclose, copy, circulate or in any other way use this e-mail or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete it from your system. You should carry out your own virus check before opening this or any other e-mail messages. Details of our Privacy Policy are available here. DQ is the trading name of DQ Advocates Limited an incorporated legal practice in the Isle of Man with company number 119175C. Registered office: The Chambers, 5 Mount Pleasant, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2PU. A list of the Directors’ names is open to inspection at DQ’s registered office. Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 39 ====
From: To: Sinden, Thomas Cc: Chance, Jennifer Subject: Application for de-registration of a building - RB339, Leyton, Douglas Date: 06 April 2024 13:03:53 Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or following any links. Dear Mr Sinden We wish to object to the application to deregister Leyton from the Registered Building list. We own and reside at Holly Bank, Little Switzerland (a registered building) and have done so for over 43 years. The owners of Leyton have stated that there have been significant alterations internally and externally to the property. Holly Bank had alterations internally, prior to its registration, to upgrade the kitchen and bathrooms and general redecoration. We also had a conservatory built to the rear of the property and none of these alterations affected the structural attributes of the Baillie Scott design. Leyton has not been altered structurally externally but has had extensions added to the rear of the property. These do not detract from the front and side elevations of the building which appear to be original. If the building suffers from dry rot this can be treated and rectified by specialists. The architecture of Leyton is similar in design to that of Baillie Scott and Armitage Rigby properties and is of a similar vintage, circa 1897. The windows of Leyton have been left open to the elements for a considerable period showing little concern for the interior of the building. Also, rubbish skips have been in evidence outside suggesting the removal of internal fixtures and fittings. We suggest the building should be refurbished internally to repair the defects as soon as possible. It is an especially beautiful building with particular architectural and historic interest which should be protected as much as possible. It would appear that the owners wish to demolish the building and replace it with modern houses which we feel should not be permitted and that registration should be retained. Yours sincerely Holly Bank Little Switzerland Douglas IM2 6AG Tel: 473089 Redacted Redacted Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 40 ====
From: To: DEFA, Building Conservation Subject: RB 399 Notice of Application to De-Register a Building Date: 07 May 2024 09:56:45 Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or following any links. RB339 Good morning, Application 23/01066/B – Notice to De-Register a Building – Registered Building 339 – Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas IM2 6AQ My wife and I own West Hill, the house next door to Leyton. Apologies for the delayed response. We support the application to de-register Leyton as a registered building (and do not object to the previous application to demolish Leyton and build two houses on the site). We’re not convinced Leyton has any historic significance and registering the property only hinders regeneration of the area. Given the property’s state of disrepair, we also struggle to see how restoring it could be financially viable for the current or any future owner of the property. We would far rather live next door to two occupied, reasonably sized family homes than a derelict property that has attracted vandals and yobs to the area for several years. Kind regards Redacted Redacted Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
==== PAGE 44 ====
• after 18601, because of the greatly increased number of buildings erected and the much larger numbers that have survived, progressively selection is necessary; • particularly careful selection is required for buildings from the period after 1945; • buildings of less than 30 years old are normally registered only if they are of outstanding quality and under threat. Aesthetic merits. The appearance of a building – both its intrinsic architectural merit and any group value – is a key consideration in judging registration proposals, but the special interest of a building will not always be reflected in obvious external visual quality. Buildings that are important for reasons of technological innovation, or as illustrating particular aspects of social or economic history, may have little external visual quality. Selectivity. Where a building qualifies for registration primarily on the strength of its special architectural interest, the fact that there are other buildings of similar quality elsewhere is not likely to be a major consideration. However, a building may be registered primarily because it represents a particular historical type in order to ensure that examples of such a type are preserved. Registration in these circumstances is largely a comparative exercise and needs to be selective where a substantial number of buildings of a similar type and quality survive. In such cases, the Department’s policy is to register only the most representative or most significant examples of the type. National Context. The Isle of Man is a separate entity to the UK and the unique context of the Island’s historic development must be taken into consideration as part of the selection process. Special interest is likely to be conferred on buildings which may not be the case if they were in the UK, given the Island’s unique context. State of Repair. The Department should register a building which has been assessed as meeting the statutory criteria, irrespective of its state of repair or other factors such as implications for future use or financial issues. 6.0 IDENTIFICATION OF BUILDINGS FOR CONSIDERATION FOR REGISTRATION 6.1 Buildings may be identified for entry in to the register in several ways:- • The building may already appear in the provisional list drawn up by the Department for the purpose of recommending buildings for registration; • Buildings judged worthy of investigation with a view to registration may also have been identified in an area plan; • Buildings may also be added to the provisional list following proposals from Local Authorities, special interest groups or other bodies or individuals, that a particular building or buildings should be considered for registration, or protection by way of a building preservation order pending registration; and 1 *The year 1860 was selected because of the change which followed, in terms of the of the increase in building due to the boom of the island’s tourist industry which saw building on an unprecedent scale. Annex 2 - Principles of Selection
==== PAGE 47 ====
NOTE : Under The Town and Country Planning Act 1999; Schedule 2 The Protected Buildings Register Notifications of entries on register etc. 2 (1) As soon as may be (practical) after a building has been entered in the register, or the register has been amended by removal of a building from it, the Department shall serve a notice on the owner and the occupier of the building stating that it has been entered in or removed from the register. (2) The owner or the occupier of, and any other person having an interest in, a building which has been entered in the register may apply to the Department to remove the building from the register- (a) within the prescribed period after service on him of a notice under sub-paragraph (1); (b) after the expiration of the prescribed period after the decision of the Department on a previous request under subsection in relation to the building. Under the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013 5. Periods for purpose of Schedule 2 paragraph 2(2) (1) The period specified for the purposes of paragraph 2(2)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Act (period after notice of registration, within which owner or occupier may request de-registration) is 21 days. (2) The period specified for the purposes of paragraph 2(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Act (period after initial period, during which owner or occupier may not request a de-registration) is 5 years. Notices sent to: Property Owner Manx National Heritage Annex 3 - Registration Notice and Entry Summary
==== PAGE 48 ====
Register Entry Summary – Leyton, Victoria Road Details Name: Leyton Address: Victoria Road, Douglas, IM2 6AQ Register Entry Number: 339 Date of Registration: 28.2.2024 History The site now occupied by Leyton was historically part of the Glencrutchery landholding. The owner of the land, Thomas Kneen, had the property built in 1896-97. When Lay bought the plot from Kneen (April 1897), the house was already erected and complete. There was a covenant on the land that only one dwelling was to be built on the plot. There is a date stone in the gable with William Lay’s initials on it. Thomas Kneen was a significant figure on the Isle of Man during the latter part of the 19th century and the early 20th century. The owner of Glencrutchery House, Farm and Lands, Kneen served as Captain of the parish of Onchan from 1895-1916, an MHK in 1890-91, and was a notable lawyer which culminated in being made Head of the Isle of Man’s Judiciary as Clerk of the Rolls from 1905- 1916. William Lay was a young advocate who qualified for the Manx Bar in 1891 at the age of 23. He set up his own practice in 1896 and later he took into partnership R G Johnson. In time he became High Bailiff of Peel and Ramsey which was a part time appointment and at the same time he continued practicing as an advocate. Then he became High Bailiff of Douglas and Castletown, a similar part time but busier role. Lay subsequently became the first full time High Bailiff for the whole Island. He had two sons who became advocates – one also subsequently became High Bailiff. Leyton is contemporary with the houses in Little Switzerland, as well as The Red House and Oakleigh. The house is a one-off compared to the other houses in Little Switzerland, having the first floor bay windows projecting over the ground floor. It has a mixture of sliding sash and casement windows throughout. At the side it has flat roofed dormers as used by Baillie Scott and an unusual roof scape. Records suggest that the house is not the work of either Baillie Scott or Armitage Rigby. Form and Materials Designed in an Arts and Crafts style, Leyton differs from all the other contemporary houses in the Little Switzerland /Victoria Road/ Glencrutchery Road area by virtue of its double frontage and its door set on the side. The porch on the side is a modern addition and the original front door was within the two storey side projection without a vestibule as was the case with Baillie Scott’s Red House originally. The front door faced the main road. On the gable between the original front door and the front corner of the house a carved sandstone plaque was inserted as the house was being erected. It bears the date 1896 and the initials W L (William Lay) intertwined. Annex 3 - Registration Notice and Entry Summary
==== PAGE 49 ====
MATERIALS: Ballanard brickwork at ground floor level. Half-timbered first floor with render infill. Rosemary tiled roof. Painted timber framed windows. Painted timber fascias and barge boards. PLAN: Historic part of house has hallway on left hand side with stair to first floor and direct access to four rooms, two facing front and two facing rear. First floor landing gives access to WC, bathroom, and four bedrooms; two facing front and two facing rear. A modern flat roofed single storey extension at the rear contains a kitchen, sun room, rear lobby, shower room and WC. The porch at the front right corner of the house is not historic. EXTERIOR: Ground floor is finished in facing brickwork from Ballanard brickworks. First floor is black painted exposed timber with white painted render infill. Pitched roof is finished in rosemary tiles, dormer windows are flat roofed. Windows are a mixture of sliding sash and casement opening, all framed in white painted timber. Two first floor front facing oriel windows (one of which has been replaced in UPVC) sit above the ground floor bay windows. Fascias and barge boards are black painted timber. Reasons for Registration Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas, is entered into the Protected Buildings Register for the following reasons: ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST • Victorian dwelling designed in an Arts and Crafts style with a twin-gabled front elevation featuring oriel windows, Ballanard brick ground floor and half-timbered first floor. HISTORIC INTEREST • Constructed in 1896, the property illustrates the arts and crafts style of architecture that formed a key part of the island’s cultural history during the late Victorian era. Annex 3 - Registration Notice and Entry Summary
==== PAGE 51 ====
Photograph of property date stone Portraits of Thomas Kneen (left) and William Lay (right) Annex 3 - Registration Notice and Entry Summary
==== PAGE 52 ====
Photographs of property taken in November 2023 Annex 3 - Registration Notice and Entry Summary
==== PAGE 56 ====
Appeal Ref: AP24/0021 Application No: 24/90001/S1
Page 1 of 12
Report by Mrs Jennifer Vyse DipTP, MRTPI, DipPBM Following an Inquiry into a Planning Appeal Held on 24 September 2024 Site Inspection carried out on 23 September 2024
Appeal Ref: AP24/0021 Application Number: 24/90001/S1 Address: Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas IM2 6AQ
The appeal is made by J M Project Management Ltd against the Department’s refusal of an application for de-registration of the property by notice dated 10 June 2024.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
==== PAGE 57 ====
Appeal Ref: AP24/0021 Application No: 24/90001/S1
Page 2 of 12
1 23/01066/B 2 Section 14(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999
==== PAGE 58 ====
Appeal Ref: AP24/0021 Application No: 24/90001/S1
Page 3 of 12
Registration. It is only Registered now because it is the subject of a planning application to replace it with a new building. 11. The property has been considerably altered over the years. The Department acknowledges that the rear extension, the internal alterations and porch cause harm to the architectural significance of the building, as it is not an intact example of its type. The Department had not inspected the inside of the building when it decided to Register it. 12. The Department cites the twin-gabled Arts and Crafts style front elevation, with oriel windows and Ballanard brick and half timber and rendered first floor as a significant part of the building that has swayed the decision to Register it. However, one of the oriel windows has been replaced in upvc. 13. It is also suggested that significant amounts of historic fabric are still in evidence externally, but that is not the case. As is apparent from Drawing 23/103/PL04,3 more than 50% of the building is not, or would not be original if the building were in any way restored4: · The roof is need of replacement - there is no felt and the roof is leaking badly. Whilst some tiles may be salvageable, matching them will be extremely difficult if not impossible. The barge boards/fascias are rotten and need replacing. · Some of the timber to the front elevation has previously been replaced but not completed. · The white upvc windows at first floor detract from the building’s appearance on the southwest and northwest elevations. · The French doors to the southwest elevation are white upvc and detract from the building’s appearance. · The porch is a later addition and, whilst an attempt has been made to fit in with the building, it looks awkward and incongruous. · The large rear extension is badly designed and clearly does not fit the building style, affecting the overall appearance of the building. · The flat roof dormers are extremely shallow in construction, are incongruous and do not appear original. If they are original, they are undistinguished and do not fit the overall design, creating an uneasy awkward juxtaposition, especially where the dormer bisects the pitch roof on the northeast elevation and overlaps the window jambs. The dormer on the southwest elevation does not sit in proportion to or is centred on the French doors beneath, indicating that it was either an afterthought, or a later addition shoehorned into the roof after it was originally constructed. The layout indicates that neither dormer was original or designed to be part of the original style or character. Partitions internally clash with the dormers and overlap the window jambs. · There is no insulation. The dormers do not allow sufficient space for insulation and would need alteration to allow this to happen even for a limited amount of insulation.
3 Annotated Plan titled Existing House Layout with Modern Additions Removed (submitted with Statement of Case). 4 INSPECTOR’S NOTE: Plan No 23/103/PL03, titled Existing House Layout, is appended to the Authority’s Statement. That plan shows the existing layout including the additions/extensions.
==== PAGE 59 ====
Appeal Ref: AP24/0021 Application No: 24/90001/S1
Page 4 of 12
· There have been substantial alterations internally and the internal woodwork architraves, skirtings and doors do not appear to be original. · There are many examples of the use of Ballanard brick on the Island and the example here is not significant.
5 INSPECTOR’S NOTE: the published Notice of the entry on the Register is dated 4 March 2024.
==== PAGE 60 ====
Appeal Ref: AP24/0021 Application No: 24/90001/S1
Page 5 of 12
(1892-93), as well as the Armitage Rigby designed properties in Little Switzerland. Although the property shows elements that have clearly been influenced or even borrowed from the Ballie Scott houses, Leyton’s twin- gabled form and entire first floor in half-timbering is not replicated in any of the other surviving Victorian examples in the surrounding area. It is these elements of Leyton’s architectural design, not shared by any of the other surviving Victorian Arts and Crafts properties, which give the property importance in its architectural design and provide architectural special interest in line with the Operational Policy. 18. Whilst the property has been significantly altered both internally and externally, it is still relatively simple to understand and appreciate the building’s historic form and style, with significant amounts of historic fabric still in evidence externally. Clearly the more that survives of a building’s historic fabric and/or plan form, the more significance it is likely to have. In this instance, the use of local Ballanard brick, entire first floor in half- timbering, the simple whilst well-considered form, and the general lack of spurious ornamentation mean that Leyton clearly illustrates important aspects of the Arts and Crafts architectural movement. The surviving historic fabric, plan form and architectural language are considered to be of sufficient significance as to provide special interest as an example of late Victorian Arts and Crafts architecture. 19. With regard to the criticism that the property was not inspected internally prior to Registration, that is not a requirement of the Registration process and it is not relevant to consideration of the special interest, having no bearing on the stated reasons for Registration in this instance. In any event, internal photographs were submitted by the owner following issue of the Proposal to Register Notice. These images were reviewed and considered as part of the Registration decision. The internal condition of the building is not mentioned in the reasons for Registration, and is not judged to be of sufficient significance to the building’s special interest to warrant de- Registration, notwithstanding the vandalism that has taken place. 20. As to the current condition of the building and the appellant’s concerns in relation to the economics of refurbishment, the Department’s Operational Policy states that a building which has been assessed as meeting the statutory criteria should be Registered irrespective of its state of repair or other matters such as implications for future use or financial issues. The presence of rot in some areas is therefore not considered relevant or material in considering the special interest of the building, and has no bearing on Registration. Moreover, concerns about thermal efficiency and carbon reduction targets are not factors that are considered within the Operational Policy and have no bearing on Registration. 21. The appellant has submitted a drawing noting the elements of the building that have been replaced by modern fabric. It also indicates existing elements that are considered as needing replacement. The elements of modern fabric were noted at the time of Registration. Although they do result in some harm to the significance of the building, the architectural design, particularly its twin-gabled form and entire first floor in half- timbering, which is not replicated in any of the other surviving Victorian examples in the surrounding area, was still judged to be of sufficient importance as to merit Registration. The building’s form and the materials
==== PAGE 61 ====
Appeal Ref: AP24/0021 Application No: 24/90001/S1
Page 6 of 12
used in the design of the historic portion of the house are still obvious and prominent despite the modern interventions. The suitability of replacement of any historic fabric is a matter for registered building consent, a separate matter. 22. Whilst the Government Department responsible for maintaining the Protected Buildings Register has periodically undertaken research into the Island’s historic building stock, no comprehensive all-Island assessment has ever been undertaken. In the meantime, Section 7 of the Operational Policy states that priority will be given to the assessment of buildings that are at risk of demolition or significant alteration. Therefore, when planning application 23/01066/B was submitted proposing to demolish Leyton, the Department was asked to assess the building for entry on to the Protected Buildings Register. 23. No statement of heritage significance has been submitted, nor any similar document seeking to measure the building’s heritage significance. As would be the case in any of the other jurisdictions in the British Isles, it is usual for evidence from at least one heritage accredited professional to be submitted in support of an application seeking the removal of a building from the Protected Buildings Register. 24. The reasons for Registration are valid and in line with the Operational Policy, and insufficient relevant information has been submitted in support of this application for de-registration to warrant removal of the building from the Protected Buildings Register. THE CASE FOR THE VICTORIAN SOCIETY The material points are: 25. Contrary to the view of the appellant, the appeal property, like those in ‘Little Switzerland’, is built on land sold by Thomas Kneen from the Glencrutchery Farm. These sales included the sites of Oakleigh, The Red House and Ivydene, as well as the square of properties in a period between May 1890 and December 1898. All the properties (except that built for the Misses Jull) were built in the ‘Arts and Crafts’ style, which differs from property to property, yet they all fall within the same genre, including Leyton. There are in fact only two large houses within Little Switzerland, Ivydene and Highcliffe, all the rest of the Arts and Crafts houses are semi-detached villas, individually comparable in size to Leyton. 26. The appellant suggests that the brickwork is more systematic with the former prison than Little Switzerland. This is totally incorrect. Local Ballanard brick has been used in Little Switzerland properties (Myrtle Bank and Hollybank for instance) as at Leyton. The brickwork at the former prison was a shiny, smooth Ruabon brick, imported from North Wales and laid with narrow joints. 27. Whilst the architect is unknown, that is the case with the vast majority of properties on the Registered list and does not weaken the case for Registration. 28. Several alterations to the property over the years are listed by the appellant, including replacement of some windows in uPVC. Again the majority of
==== PAGE 62 ====
Appeal Ref: AP24/0021 Application No: 24/90001/S1
Page 7 of 12
buildings on the Registered List have been altered over the years. There are uPVC windows in Ivydene and more than one Baillie Scott designed Registered Building has a uPVC conservatory. The fact that the building has been unsympathetically extended does not affect the corpus of the original building, which is more than obvious. Subsequent applications to demolish the modern extensions are unlikely to be opposed. 29. Reference is made to the flat-roofed dormer at the top of the staircase with its continuous row of casement windows being divided and shared with bedroom 3. This was a feature used by Baillie Scott with Ivydene on the south side, where a continuous flat roofed dormer is divided internally between two dressing rooms (now en-suite bathrooms). Armitage Rigby in his design of the shop/house at the top of Royal Avenue, Onchan (now Royal Building) divided a window between a staircase and a bedroom which goes undetected from the exterior even to this day. This was not a mistake or bodge job, but a cleverly designed external feature that does not give away the interior layout. 30. The appellant refers to the state of repair of the property, including defects in the woodwork etc due to lack of maintenance, quoting them as reasons why the property should not be Registered. However, Section 5.1 of the Department’s Operational Policy states that the Department should register a building which has been assessed as meeting the statutory criteria, irrespective of it state of repair or other factors such as implications for future use or financial issues. Moreover, the building as it stands does not have to be upgraded to current building control standards - under the building regulations, it is ‘deemed to satisfy’. The suggestion that it would be uneconomic to restore is not substantiated but, in any event, implications of ‘financial issues’ are excluded by the Operational Policy. 31. The Society supports the Department in its decision not to de-Register Leyton, as no good cause has been given to overturn the Registration. OTHER REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 32. Glen View, South Cape, Laxey – Objects. Attention is drawn to an appeal decision in relation to a refused application for the erection of a dwelling within the grounds of Leyton.6 At paragraph 61 of the Inspector’s Report, the current appellant confirms that it is his intention to undertake further work on Leyton, including removal of some of the unsightly extensions. At paragraph 67, he also confirms that at the time (November 2022) refurbishment of the property was underway, including demolition of parts of the house to sort out problems with dry and wet rot. Paragraph 78 of the Inspector’s reasoning, confirms that Leyton is of a particularly pleasant and of its time design, noting that the Arts and Crafts movement was pivotal in the evolution of architectural style and finesse. He goes on to confirm that whilst there are a number of side and rear subordinate elements, some of which are detrimental to its character (including the large flat roof rear and side addition) Leyton has a strong visual presence in the streetscene. 33. All of the forgoing indicates that until the past year, the appellant considered that Leyton was respected for its architecture and setting, with planned
6 21/01504/B
==== PAGE 63 ====
Appeal Ref: AP24/0021 Application No: 24/90001/S1
Page 8 of 12
refurbishment. Since then, doors and windows have been left open which my have amounted to constructive deterioration of the property. The rear extensions do not impact on the principal appearance of the front and side of the property and are removable. Whilst the porch is also an addition, it is in character with the original house. The changes to windows have, crucially, not altered the shape of the original openings or pattern of fenestration. 34. La Paz, 14 Lucerne Park – Objects. The property has intentionally been left to fall into disrepair. The building illustrates the Arts and Crafts style that formed a key part of the Island’s cultural history during the late Victorian era and warrants its registered status, adding to the locality and nature of the Little Switzerland area. 35. Holly Bank, Little Switzerland – Objects. Holly Bank had alterations internally, prior to its Registration, plus a conservatory built to the rear, none of which affected the structural attributes of the Baillie Scott design of this property. Leyton has not been altered structurally externally. Whilst extensions have been added to the rear, these do not detract from the front and side elevations of the building, which appear to be original. If the building suffers from dry rot, this can be treated and rectified by specialists. The architecture of Leyton is similar in design to that of Baillie Scott and Armitage Rigby properties and is of a similar vintage, circa 1897. The windows of Leyton have been left open to the elements for a considerable period, showing little concern for the interior of the building. The building should be refurbished to repair the defects as soon as possible. It is an especially beautiful building with particular architectural and historic interest, which should be protected. 36. West Hill, Victoria Road - Supports the application for de-Registration. The property has no historic significance and only hinders regeneration of the area. Given its state of disrepair, it is hard to see how restoration could be financially viable. Would prefer to see the site redeveloped. 37. Douglas Borough Council – did not support Registration. The property is not sufficiently unique or a sufficiently prime example of this style of architecture. Its current condition does not make a positive contribution to the area, given its position relative to the road, and the number of trees that restrict views of the property. Continued Registration could mean the property remaining unused, leaving it to continue to deteriorate. It is unviable to for the current owner to undertake the works necessary to bring it back into use as an attractive building. INSPECTOR’S ASSESSMENT 38. As agreed at the Inquiry, the main issue in this case relates to whether there is sufficient evidence to justify continued inclusion of the appeal property on the Protected Buildings Register, based on the statutory criteria of special architectural and historic interest. Architectural Interest 39. Special architectural interest is about the design and construction of a building, the aspects that we can see and understand when we look at a building. As is clear from the stated reasons for Registration, the principal
==== PAGE 64 ====
Appeal Ref: AP24/0021 Application No: 24/90001/S1
Page 9 of 12
interest of this 1896/7 dwelling derives from its distinctive twin-gabled front elevation, which reflects the Arts and Crafts style of the time. 40. The ground floor of the front elevation, which includes two bay windows, is of local Ballanard brick and appears to be largely unaltered and intact. The first floor, which includes an oriel window within each gable, above the ground floor bays, is of black-painted exposed timber with white-painted render infill. Whilst one of the oriel windows has been replaced with white upvc, the opening appears to be unaltered. The timber frame for the other oriel window also needs replacing. Sections of the exposed timber have been replaced in the past, not always sympathetically and segments of the timber bargeboards and fascias also need attention. However, there is no detailed specialist assessment of the full extent of the damage referred to nor, importantly, any evidence as to how much could be sympathetically retained. 41. Although the roof has clearly leaked in places, no detailed survey information was before me to confirm that the entirety of the original roof timbers require replacement as implied by the appellant. It is often the case, for instance, that new timber can be spliced into old timbers, replacing rotten sections but retaining the majority of the original roof timbers. Moreover, whilst the existing roof tiles would need to be removed to allow for felting/insulation, there is no reason why they could not be salvaged and re-used on the building. I am also mindful that there is no suggestion that the tall chimneys, which are distinguishing features and appear to be original, are in any need of urgent repair. 42. Whilst it is the front (southeastern) elevation that merits particular attention in the Registration report, other elements of the building are also of interest, including the flat roof dormers on the southwest and northeast side elevations. In my view, whether or not they are original (a contested point) and even recognising the slightly awkward arrangement where one of the dormers wraps round the bottom corner of the gable on the northeast elevation (which arrangement may, or may not, have been required to facilitate possible re-formatting of the staircase at some stage), they do form part of the architectural interest of the building, being reminiscent of the prevalent Arts and Crafts architecture of other nearby buildings of the same period referred to by the Planning Authority and the Victorian Society. 43. Whilst the appellant considers that the internal subdivision of the flat-roofed dormer (northeast elevation) at the top of the staircase, between the stairwell and bedroom 3, is not an original feature, Mr Kelly for the Victorian Society confirmed that arrangements such as this were employed by other Arts and Crafts architects of the time, including on Ivydene7 and the shop/house at the top of Royal Avenue, Onchan (now Royal Building) with the internal divisions going undetected from the exterior even to this day. On that basis, whether the subdivision is original or not, I am content that it does not materially detract from the architectural interest of Leyton. If original, it may even make a positive contribution. 44. The house is slightly unusual in that the entrance is to the side (northeast elevation) as opposed to the front. As an apparently original feature, that
7 A nearby property that is contemporary with Leyton. It is in Little Switzerland.
==== PAGE 65 ====
Appeal Ref: AP24/0021 Application No: 24/90001/S1
Page 10 of 12
individual arrangement increases, rather than diminishes the interest of the building in my view. Whilst the adjacent porch is not original, it is not wholly unsympathetic and certainly does not detract to any material degree from the special architectural interest of the building. Moreover, even if the staircase was re-formatted in the past, as was suggested by the appellant, the original plan form of the property is still clearly discernible. 45. There can be no doubt that the large flat roofed extensions to the rear are completely at odds with the finessed design of the original property. However, they are not seen in any shared views with the front elevation and do not detract from any appreciation thereof. 46. That the architect of Leyton is unknown is neither here nor there. It is clearly contemporary with nearby Baillie Scott and Armitage Rigby designed properties. Although its twin-gabled form and first floor in half-timbering is not replicated on any of the other surviving Victorian examples in the surrounding area, it is precisely that individuality within the Arts and Crafts genre that gives the property importance in its architectural design. 47. Overall, even in its run-down state, and recognising that a fair amount of repair work is required, the front elevation remains as an impressive example of the Arts and Crafts genre, with sufficient of the original fabric and design remaining to make the building of special architectural interest. That interest is enhanced by, among other things, the Ballanard brickwork on other elevations on the ground floor, the ‘readability’ of the original plan form internally and, contrary to the view of the appellant, the flat topped dormers, as well as the pattern of fenestration. Historic Interest 48. As set out at the start, potential historic associations with Thomas Kneen and William Lay were not relied on in the stated reasons for Registration of the building. Rather, its historic interest is stated as deriving from the Arts and Crafts style of architecture, which formed a key part of the Island’s cultural history in the late Victorian era. 49. The Arts and Crafts style was popular on the Island from the early 1890s through to the 1920s, most widely employed in the Victorian and Edwardian expansion of Douglas. As such, the movement is a significant element not only of the Island’s built, but also cultural heritage. Accordingly, the building is also of historic interest, providing a material record of an important part of the Island’s history. Condition of the Building 50. The appellant maintained that the Operational Policy is wrong to disregard the condition of the building when considering Registration. His case, simply put, is that as it stands, the building is unsellable and that if the building is not viable, then nothing will be done. It was maintained that the property could not be brought up to modern day standards, even acknowledging dispensations from the Building Regulations. I was advised in this regard, that a lot of money had already been spent on the building, with no money for reports on condition and costings etc.
==== PAGE 66 ====
Appeal Ref: AP24/0021 Application No: 24/90001/S1
Page 11 of 12
==== PAGE 67 ====
Appeal Ref: AP24/0021 Application No: 24/90001/S1
Page 12 of 12
ANNEX A
Present at the Inquiry FOR THE APPELLANT (J M Project Management Limited): Mark Pearce M P Associates Limited
FOR THE PLANNING AUTHORITY: Tom Sinden Planning Officer with the Authority
FOR THE VICTORIAN SOCIETY: Peter Kelly MBE, CP, RBV Caseworker
==== PAGE 68 ====
From: To: DEFA, Planning Subject: PA23/00942/B Land South [South-west] of Leyton, Former Air Raid Shelter Site, Victoria Road, Douglas IM2 6AQ Date: 31 October 2023 13:24:03 Attachments: Douglas Leyton site sto SW 2101468B APP Inspectors Report (1).pdf Douglas Leyton SW of site 2000293A APL A1 Proposed Site Plan (6).pdf Douglas adj to Leyton Victoria Road 2101468B APP Appeal Decision Letter and Notice.pdf Caution: This email is from an external sender. Please take care before opening any attachments or following any links. PA23/00942/B Land South [South-west] of Leyton, Former Air Raid Shelter Site, Victoria Road, Douglas IM2 6AQ With regard to the above application I would make the following comments The design of the development ie 4 houses close to one another and set much further back on site does not match the street design as exists of single detached houses in mature gardens. There does not appear to be any clear reason why the existing dynamic in the locality cannot be followed more closely with a reduced number of dwellings proposed and reduced impact on remaining trees and biodiversity of the locality. Little Switzerland Conservation Area is in part on the opposite side of Victoria Road from the application site. Little Switzerland Conservation Area Character Appraisal Para 3.35 states The site is well established and well sought after. It is a self- contained area which should be acknowledged in public terms. The maturity of the tree screening and vistas from the site should be carefully preserved and improved. It is hoped that any improvement to the road bounding “The Square” would be minimised so as not to detract from the qualities of the surrounding properties. The road on the north-west side of The Square is Victoria Road and therefore this policy is relevant to the maintenance of the trees on the south-east roadside of the application site. Their importance is recognised in the above policy and the latter should therefore be considered material in the consideration of this application. Originally PA20/00293/A gave approval in principle for residential development (number of houses was unspecified) on the site including the access now shown on the current application. PA20/00293/A was not followed up timeously by a reserved matters application or an application for a time extending of the approval. This was the case when a subsequent application PA21/01468/B for 6 houses on the site was made. Therefore there should be no reliance on access plans approved under PA20/00293/A as there is no consideration that an alternative satisfactory access proposal could not be achieved without the loss of so many trees. PA21/01468/B for 6 houses (refused) was all on site of the approved PA20/00293/A but extended beyond the developable area identified in that application (see attached plan). The former included a house on either side of the access and was refused (see attached notice). Redacted
==== PAGE 69 ====
The layout design shown in the current application retains the 4 houses shown in PA21/01468/B but excludes any indication as to what is to happen to the land that was previously proposed for houses on either side of the access and also any indication as to what is to happen to land on the north west side of Plot 3. Moreover construction on Plot 3 requires the felling of yet more trees on the site. Thus the design layout is prejudicial to the proper consideration of the whole area contrary to Isle of Man Strategic Plan General Policy 2 (k). The resulting development now proposed would leave a bare open site for many years until tree growth re-established particularly since the conditions regarding tree replanting attached to the felling licence issued for trees on site in April 2021 for planting in the winter immediately following tree felling appear not to have been fulfilled. The current application is relying on a tree survey undertaken in June 2021 and submitted as part of PA21/01468/B. It is not clear if all the trees remain on site ie if this reflects accurately the up-to-date situation. Overall therefore the current application is relying on a false impression of what is the developable area and what is required under felling licence. Reference is also made in the cover letter to an application PA21/00273/A. No such application exists at all let alone for the site. The Inspector’s conclusions on the appeal for PA21/01468/B included interalia 7. Therefore, I consider that the appeal proposal by reason of a lack of clarity regarding appropriate mitigation for loss of trees and the resultant impact on biodiversity would diminish the quality of the wider locality and would adversely affect the character of the surrounding townscape as well as the nature conservation value of the site in the wider context. The above comment is equally applicable to the current application which should accordingly be refused. South Cape Laxey Redacted
==== PAGE 74 ====
1
Appeal No: AP22/0040 Application No: 21/01468/B
Report on Inquiry into Planning Appeal
Inquiry held on: 29 November 2022 Site Inspection held on: 28 November 2022
Appeal by: Mr Tim Luft Appeal against the refusal for the erection of 6 detached houses and associated parking on land south of Leyton Victoria Road Douglas.
Present: Mark Pearce for the Appellant
Paul Visigah for the Planning Authority
Abigail Morgan for the Planning Authority
Introduction
==== PAGE 75 ====
2
property at Ballawana has a close locational relationship with Sunnyside Cottage. Both properties share a rear boundary with the appeal site. 6. To the west, behind the appeal site is St Georges AFC which includes banks of mature trees along its southern boundary which links through to the trees on the old air raid shelter site and are of some visual prominence and importance in the streetscene. The proposed development 7. The appeal proposes the building of six detached dwellings, some with integral garages but all with associated parking on land previously occupied by an old World War II air raid shelter to the south of Leyton, accessed off Victoria Road Douglas. Background 8. In June 2020 planning approval in principle 20/00293/A was granted for residential development including means of access on the appeal site. This approval was subject to a number of conditions including that 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 approved. The date of the approval was 29 June 2020. No reserved matters were submitted. This development site has been partially cleared and the air raid shelter demolished1. However, the in principle approval has lapsed but is a material consideration to be weighed into the balance of this appeal. That approval did include the removal of trees on the frontage of this development site (Lime Trees) and their replacement with Field Maple/Hornbeam trees. It did not specify the number of units to be built on the site nor the layout. However, the developable area was identified2 being the northern section of the site adjoining the boundary with Leyton. It did not include the land immediately adjacent to nor to the rear of Sunnyside Cottage and was not as extensive as the developable area now proposed. 9. The appeal proposal now to be considered is for a scheme in detail, including layout, access and dwelling designs. 10. 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 forming a congruent unit with the trees within the registered tree area. 11. A Tree licence was granted for the felling of a number of trees on the appeal site (old air raid shelter site) (Licence No 183/21 – subject to the planting of specified trees once demolition works have been completed – 20 April 2021). In addition, in March 2021 a direction was issued for the demolition and removal of the existing air raid shelters3. At my site visit I saw that much of the works of demolition has been undertaken but some of the resultant debris still remained piled up on-site.
1 Although the demolition spoil remained on site as at the site visit – Direction in respect of demolition dated 11 March 2021. 2 Dwg no TP-16119. 3 Notice Dem 21/00003/BCD.
==== PAGE 76 ====
3
On the adjoining land to the north, on the side garden of the existing house, Leyton, planning approval was refused for a single detached dwelling with shared access with Leyton which is now the subject of an appeal4. There is an overlap of site areas from the scheme for a single dwelling to the appeal proposal as the frontage part of the old air raid shelter site would provide a visibility splay and drainage connection for the adjacent site were approval to be granted. 13. The appeal site lies close to but outside of the Little Switzerland Conservation Area. No case was proffered that the appeal proposal had an adverse impact on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. 14. The site is considered to have low likelihood of surface water flood risks. Relevant policy5 15.The application site is within a predominantly residential area as identified by the Area Plan for the East 2020. The planning policies most relevant to the appeal are contained within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP).
16.General Policy 2 (GP2) sets out the considerations required for development to be permitted and includes, that proposals should not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality and provide satisfactory amenity standards including convenient access for all highway users, parking and manoeuvring space. Policy compliant development should respect the size and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and should incorporate where possible landscape features, particularly trees. Protected wildlife or locally important habitats should not be adversely affected.
18.Strategic Policy 1 (SP1) requires development to make the best use of resources by optimising the use of previously developed land (PDL), redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials. Further being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services is also a policy requirement.
19.Strategic Policy 2 (SP2) and Housing Policy 4 (HP4) set out that new development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions.
20.Strategic Policy 3 (SP3) identifies that proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by amongst other things having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character.
4 AP22/0043 21/01504/B. 5 Policies of most relevance.
==== PAGE 77 ====
4
21.Strategic Policy 4 (SP4) states, amongst other things, that proposals for development must protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban areas.
22.Strategic Policy 5 (SP5) also requires new development to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island.
23.Environment Policy 36 (EP36) sets out that where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area.
24.Environment Policy 42 (EP42) states that 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.
25.Strategic Policy 10 (SP10) identifies new development should not adversely affect highway safety for all users.
27.Transport Policy 6 (TP6) sets out that 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.
28.Transport Policy 7 (TP7) requires that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standard6.
29.Energy Policy 5 (ENP5) requires proposals for more than 5 dwellings or 100 square metres of other development to be accompanied by an Energy Impact Assessment.
6 2 spaces per unit. 7 Not adopted planning policy. 8 IMSP paragraph 4.3.8.
==== PAGE 78 ====
5
31.Previously developed land (PDL) is defined9 as that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. The definition includes defence buildings, but excludes:
o Land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings. o Land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures. o Land in built-up areas such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments, which, although it may feature paths, pavilions and other buildings, has not been previously developed. o Land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings). There is no presumption that land that is previously developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed
(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." 33. 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
9
==== PAGE 79 ====
6
recommendations on how the impact to existing trees and woodland of merit can be minimised (eg by the use of conditions). Case for the Planning Authority10 Character and appearance 34. The appellant argues that the scheme is not an overdevelopment of the brownfield site as the density is less than the surrounding area and the space separation is greater than other developments of a similar nature. He suggests that the character of the area is maintained by the careful use of materials and appearance of the development which is similar in many respects to other houses in the vicinity.
10 Source Planning Statement of the Planning Authority, its accompanying documents and the Planning Officer’s report.
==== PAGE 80 ====
7
the application site lie within large plots, Leyton (1527.4sqm), West Hill (1643.4sqm), Red House (1672.9sqm), with Victoria Manor, the smallest of the properties north of the application site measuring 1070sqm. Likewise, Sunnyside situated south of the application site and which contributes little to the character of the area in terms of design and appearance measures 381sqm, while Ballawana measures 779.5sqm. From reviewing these details, it is clear that only plot 2 is larger than the least of the plots on this side of Victoria Road. 40.It is also important to note that the properties within Lucerne Court are also large comparative to the proposed. This is well illustrated in the plot sizes of the properties that are directly situated east of Victoria Road. ‘La Paz’ has a plot size measuring 1,054sqm; Plot 15 Lucerne Court measures 864.4sqm, while 2 Lucerne Court measures 1,056sqm. 41.The disparity with the plots within the proposed scheme is clear as Plot 1 measures 360sqm, Plot 2 - 538sqm, Plot 3 – 321sqm, Plot 4 – 324sqm, Plot 5 – 318sqm, and plot 6 – 349sqm; plots sizes which are well below that obtainable for the area and could at best be described as small. The plots within the core of Little Switzerland which are semi-detached properties are still considerably larger than the plot areas proposed within the current scheme with an average plot size of 562.9 sq metres. Trees 42.With regard to impact on trees the appellant argues that the replacement trees were specified by an Arboriculturist and are adequate in the locations proposed. The appellant also notes that the provision of a footpath to the frontage of the site to Victoria Road is a significant improvement to the area and greatly increases the safety for road users and pedestrians as this was not proposed on the previous scheme (PA 20/00293/A). He further notes that this would not be possible without the replacement or removal of these trees. 43.The Appellant relies on the premise that approval has already been granted for the removal of trees along the site frontage11. However, the tree removal within the current scheme, particularly as it relates to removal of trees along the site frontage cannot rely on the approval in principle as that application has now lapsed. The current scheme is completely different and having significantly varied impacts due to the scale and nature of development. 44. The removal of the trees along the site frontage was considered acceptable on the grounds that the accepted mitigation including meeting the terms of conditions 4, 5 and 9 of PA 20/00293/A would have to be met. As the current scheme would not achieve the requirements of the stipulated tree protection conditions given the quantum of built development proposed within the current scheme, it cannot rely on tree removals within that scheme to enable the development of the current scheme for the site. 45.Given the above, the trees along the site frontage (T2056, T2057, T2058, T2059, T2060, T 2063, and T2064) are still considered retained trees. As such, the removal of these Category B trees still weighs against the
11 Through the in principle approval 20/00293/A.
==== PAGE 81 ====
8
development as appropriate mitigation has not been provided within the current scheme. Biodiversity
46.In terms of impacts on ecology, the appellant argues that there is no vegetation being removed as part of the proposals as the site is already completely cleared. He states that there is, therefore, no net loss of biodiversity and this reason for refusal is a nonsense. 47.Whilst the comments above are noted, it is clear from the submitted documents provided in support of the application that there would be impacts on the ecology of the site as more trees within the site which serve as habitats for unknown populations of biota are to be removed without clear survey results to show that the impacts would be minimal or providing adequate mitigation for any loss anticipated. It should be noted that the trees on site form an extension of a registered tree area with mature trees and vegetation with potential to serve as habitat for biota on-site and along the site boundary which would be impacted by the proposed scheme for the site. 48.A further concern borders on the fact that the provided Report on Japanese Knotweed eradication is viewed by the Ecosystem Policy Team who provide advice on ecological matters as being inadequate in providing the required control for Japanese Knotweed. Living conditions
49.The appellant has stated that he disagrees with the concern in relation to the amenities of Sunnyside Cottage as a result of the siting of Plot 2. He states that the owners of the Cottage are in agreement with the proposal and, therefore, there is no loss of privacy. He further notes that they have agreed measures with them to undertake further planting and improve the setting of their house12. Whether a neighbour supports an application or gives consent does not justify bad design or unneighbourly development which could have long term impacts on nearby properties and future occupiers. Hence, it is considered that the impacts on the amenities of the residents of Sunnyside Cottage in terms of privacy both for current and future occupants would be contrary to the requirements of General Policy 2 (g) and the Residential Design Guide. 50.During the site visit, it was clear that there are ground floor and first floor windows on the elevation of Sunnyside Cottage to be overlooked from ground floor and first floor windows of the dwelling proposed for plot 2 and within 6.5m to this neighbour. It was also observed that the wall to the rear garden (which is the only outdoor area available to Sunnyside Cottage) is only about 2 metres high at the highest point and as such would offer little in way of preventing overlooking of parts of the rear garden which have no tree screen from the rear first floor window serving bedrooms, considering this window would only be about 6.5 metres away and positioned 4 metres above the ground level.
12 Details of this additional screen planting does not form part of the appeal proposal.
==== PAGE 82 ====
9
51.The introduction of any planting close to Sunnyside Cottage would also serve to limit levels of day light within the north facing rooms of Sunnyside Cottage, resulting in overshadowing. Highway safety 52.Whilst the proposed footpath would offer some respite for the occupants of the dwellings on the site, should approval be granted, there is no need to provide an isolated length of footway along the appeal site frontage, as there is already a continuous footway along the eastern side of Victoria Road. Besides, the footpath may create safety concerns for those who may use them and only realise upon reaching the northern end that they have to cross over to the other side of the highway at a position where visibility is considerably limited by the existing continuous Manx stone boundary walls and vegetation on this side of the highway. Thus, it is not considered that the proposed footpath would be to the benefit of pedestrians that use the highway Conclusion 53.The redevelopment of this site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle. However, whether it would be appropriate to build 6 houses on this brownfield site is dependant on other factors which have proved wanting when measured against the circumstances of this case. These are the impacts on the living conditions of neighbouring residents, the impacts on the character and appearance of the site and locality and impacts on biodiversity including trees. All of the conclusions on these matters indicate that the proposal is an inappropriate development which would fail to comply with the policies that have been highlighted. Accordingly, it is requested that the appeal be dismissed. Case for the Appellant13 54.The application site comprises a former World War II air raid shelter site that has recently undergone demolition and clearance14. The demolition process is an application made to the Building Regulations Department of DEFA and as part of the application various Departments and Local Government including the general public are consulted. There were no objections to the proposal. The site was subsequently cleared but the work is not yet complete with spoil and debris still to be removed from site. The site is bounded by an existing house called Leyton to the North and Braddan Football club to the west. To the south is a 1970’s style bungalow and a cottage built on the back edge of a very small verge. Victoria Road bounds the site to the east. Existing sightlines to the access are inadequate with the existing trees blocking the required clear view in both directions. There is no footpath on this side of the road. There is an existing stone wall to the Victoria Street boundary. The Little Switzerland conservation area is to the south-east across Victoria Road and no part of the site touches the conservation area. 55.The application site was approved for residential development under PA 20/00293/A dated 29th June 2020, which the Planning Department considers to have lapsed. As part of this approval the existing trees to the frontage of
13 Source the Statement of Case of the Appellant and documents and plans accompanying the planning application. 14 Notice DEM 21/00003/BCD.
==== PAGE 83 ====
10
Victoria Road were to be removed and new ones planted further back to give sightlines to the entrance to the application site and to the existing house, Leyton. 56.As part of the demolition application a number of trees were granted approval to be removed and approved by DEFA Forestry Department15. DEFA Forestry stipulated a number of trees should be planted as part of the reinstatement work to the site which have been shown on the application. The type and location of replacement trees were advised by Manx Roots our Arboricultural consultants. Flooding/Drainage 57.To the southern boundary of the World War II air raid shelter site there is a water ditch and culvert which is between 70 to 80m away from the site. This has not been identified as being a concern for flooding. Manx Utilities Drainage Department have confirmed that the surface water connection is suitable for the development and, therefore, there are no surface water flood risks. The previous in principle approval 20/00293/A was not refused on flooding grounds. There is an existing combined sewer running to the south through the neighbouring site and to the west through the football club site. There is also a foul and surface water sewer to the south-east on Victoria Road which is proposed will be the connection point for the proposed new houses. Character and appearance 58.The character and identity of the area in terms of buildings and landscape character on this part of Victoria Road was defined by the previous World War II air raid shelter which was in a severe state of disrepair and extremely dangerous. Many of the trees were growing out of the top of the structure of the air raid shelter and as such were a risk to health and safety especially with the recreation and sports fields at St Georges AFC to the west of the site from which children accessed the site. The garages, small cottage and bungalow to the boundary of the site defines the southern boundary. The recreation and sports fields to the west are separated by a high hedge and trees which are not affected by the proposals. To the north is Leyton a red brick and rendered house which is in need of refurbishment. Next to Leyton is West Hill which is a large house set in a generous garden. Sea Court next to West Hill is currently three apartments and is dilapidated in need of refurbishment. This property is substantial in size and covers much of the site. Sea Court is the subject of a current planning application for 6 houses with access directly onto Victoria Road. Highways have not objected to this application. All these properties have limited visibility accessing Victoria Road and have walled frontages. To the south-east across the road from the site is Little Switzerland Conservation Area and is primarily made up of semi- detached properties set back from the pavement approximately 6m and to the rear of the Conservation Area are some larger properties set in generous gardens. These do not relate to the application site. There are two larger detached properties with their rear elevations facing Victoria Road directly to the east of the proposed site across Victoria Road. These two detached houses face inwards into Lucerne Court and do not influence the proposed site. The houses of Little Switzerland are at a density of 7.5 houses to the
15 Licence no TPA/183-21.
==== PAGE 84 ====
11
acre. The application site houses are at a density of 7 houses to the acre which is less than the Little Switzerland Conservation Area. The air raid shelter structure covered most of the site and had a footprint area of 963 sq metres. Whereas the footprint area of the 6 proposed houses is 625 sq metres. This is less than the previous site coverage. 59.The appeal proposal is not an overdevelopment of this brownfield site as the density is less than the surrounding area and the space separation is greater than other developments of a similar nature. The character of the area is maintained by the careful use of materials and appearance of the development which is similar in many respects to other houses in the vicinity. The area is not defined by large plots with mature landscaping. The site is a brownfield site and the footprint of the now demolished World War II air raid shelter was 963 sq metres compared to the proposed footprint of the dwellings of approximately 720 sq metres. The density is 7 houses to the acre which is not excessive compared to the Eastern Plan requirement of a minimum of 8 houses to the acre. This is an urban site and could sustain more houses than what is proposed and is therefore not overdeveloped. Trees 60.The trees earmarked for replacement are mostly previously approved for removal under the previous application PA 20/00293/B or have already been removed as part of the demolition application. The replacement trees are specified by an Arboriculturist (Manx Roots) and are adequate in the locations proposed. A full tree survey was provided with the application. The provision of a footpath to the frontage of the site to Victoria Road is a significant improvement to the area and greatly increases the safety for road users and pedestrians. This was not proposed on the previous scheme and the proposals here are a significant improvement in all respects than previously proposed. This would not be possible without the replacement or removal of these trees. The trees shown for removal are causing damage to the existing wall and prevent safe egress from the neighbouring site as they block sightlines due to their location. On safety grounds they should in any case be removed. As part of the demolition application there are replacement trees planned which have been incorporated into the proposed scheme. This is a brownfield, PDL site and should be treated as such. It is unreasonable to expect to have to replace trees that were previously self- seeded and growing through existing structures. Notwithstanding the above comment there are replacement trees indicated for all the trees to be removed. Ecology 61.The site was cleared by approval under the demolition order on safety grounds and the Ecology Department did not object to these proposals. There is no vegetation being removed as part of the proposals as the site is already completely cleared. There is therefore no net loss of biodiversity and this reason for refusal is a nonsense. The Officers comments referred to the previously approved scheme, however, every application should be judged upon its own merits and cannot rely on another approval. The proposed site will be landscaped as shown and will bring much needed housing to Douglas.
==== PAGE 85 ====
12
Conclusion 62.IMSP SP1, is paramount in this case. This site is zoned for residential development and it is located within Douglas. The designs follow the character of the area and make a positive contribution to the area bringing a redundant site back into use. Other Parties16 63.The representations received at the application stage are as follows: · DOI Highway Services raised no objection to the proposal subject to all access arrangements, including vehicular and pedestrian visibility splays, being in accord with dwg No.21/3074/05D. · DOI Flood Risk Management Division have indicated that they do not oppose subject to conditions related to the provision of flood risk assessment for the site. · DOI Highways Drainage have indicated that they oppose the application on the grounds that the proposed site plan does not indicate how surface water runoff from the proposed estate road will be drained and where it would drain to. · Manx Utilities Drainage have indicated that they have no objection to the scheme · DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team have made the following comments regarding the application: o They object to these proposals due to the tree loss and lack of ecological consideration. o They recommend that the application is refused on the basis that the proposals present an overdevelopment of the area which is contrary to condition 4 of the site's approval in principle (20/00293/A). o They recommend that the original development boundary is retained and the treed area re-instated and protected. o They state that they would not object to development proposals contained within the originally approved development footprint with additional re- planting. o They state that development outside of the defined development boundary would result in a net loss for biodiversity and be contrary to IoM Strategic Plan Strategic Policy 4 (b), Strategic Objective 3.3 Environment (b), and habitat loss action 21 of the IoM Government Biodiversity Strategy. o They state that the planting of sparsely populated and small neighbourhood trees is not mitigation for the loss of at least 24 trees outside of the defined development boundary. o They acknowledge that many of these trees were removed to facilitate the demolition of the air raid shelter, but that the tree removal is intrinsically linked to this application because the demolition and thus the tree removal would not have taken place if not to use the site for housing. They state that
16 In full at Planning Officer’s report section 6.0.
==== PAGE 86 ====
13
there is no reason that the area of felled trees cannot be replanted and retained. o They state that should Planning be minded to approve this application, despite their objections, updated planting plans and details of ecological mitigation measures to be integrated on site are provided prior to determination of the application. · DEFA Forestry have made the following comments regarding the application (10 January 2022):
o They note that PA 20/00293/A was supported on the grounds that the removal of trees on the site would be dependent on - the quality of the replanting proposals - the retention and adequate protection of trees elsewhere on the site, particularly the block of woodland at the southern end of the site and - the likelihood that the development will create a harmonious relationship between the trees (existing and newly planted) and the proposed structures.
o They note their concern for using Freeman maple as proposed mitigation for removal of the lime trees as the mature height of Freeman maple is 15m and the mature canopy spread is likely to be at least 8-10m, given that the proximity of the adjacent houses and footpaths reduces the likelihood that this planting will make any meaningful contribution to the local landscape or mitigate the removal of the lime trees.
o They state that the positions of other new trees, some of which are required to be planted as a condition of the tree removal licence 183/21 (cherry, hornbeam, birch), are also too close to the properties, making successful establishment and long term retention unlikely prospects.
o They state that the large number of broadleaf trees which the applicant claimed was necessary to facilitate the demolition of an unsafe structure, and which were removed under licence in 2021 were not presenting any significant risk to the public.
o They state that the replanting condition applied to the tree licence issued in 2021 was intended to supplement the natural regeneration that would occur if the existing land use (i.e. no use) continued. As such, a short term loss of canopy cover was deemed acceptable to facilitate the removal of an unsafe structure, and it was envisaged that canopy cover would be restored once the demolition was complete.
o They state that the long-term loss of tree canopy cover, which is what will likely happen if this application is approved, shouldn't be deemed acceptable, regardless of zoning in the Area Plan for the East.
o They argue that by not allowing the tree canopy cover here to be naturally restored (and augmented with planting) following the demolition, the proposed scheme will have a detrimental impact on the locality. o They note that the application is not supported by a tree protection plan showing how retained trees on the boundaries of the site would be protected during the construction process.
==== PAGE 87 ====
14
o 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.
· Manx National Heritage
o There have been a great number of trees removed together with the woodland understory in an area which is outside the original development footprint (see PA/20/00293/A). o The work which has already been undertaken will have led to a net loss for biodiversity and could therefore be contrary to the IOM Strategic Plan, Policy 4, proposals for development must protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation of urban and rural areas.
o They would support the development outlined in PA/20/00293/A with the land outside the development boundary being reinstated using native tree and shrub planting.
· Douglas Borough Council do not object to the application.
· Local residents of Lucerne Court, Douglas, object to the application on the following grounds:
o The proposal adversely and negatively affects the character and amenity of the locality.
o The development, and in the particular the new three-story property (Plot 2) will substantially overlook property in Lucerne Court.
o The development would impact on traffic flow on Victoria Road.
o The description of the site as brownfield is incorrect.
o The presence of rubble/soil mound on site.
Assessment by the Inspector 64. The principle of development on the appeal site was agreed by the parties17. This would be in accordance with the identification of the locality as being residential as set out in the Area Plan for the East 2020. There is also a presumption in favour of residential development on the site as it is considered to be PDL where the preference for development is placed in planning policy over greenfield sites18. The Planning Authority also confirmed that the principle of utilising this brownfield site for residential development would be more complimentary to the dominant residential
17 Planning Officer’s report paragraph 7.2.1. 18 IMSP SP1.
==== PAGE 88 ====
15
character of the locality19. It would also be in compliance with IMSP SP2 and HP4. 65. The design of the individual new houses, which echo the Arts and Crafts origins of Leyton along with the drainage arrangements and access, parking and turning provisions were also identified as being acceptable20. Therefore, I do not propose to examine these elements any further. 66. It was also agreed that the approval in principle (20/00293/A) for residential development granted in June 2020 has now lapsed. However, this is a relatively recent decision. Whilst I note that the Area Plan for the East has been adopted, approved and brought into operation in the intervening period, it was not suggested that there had been any changes in the direction of travel or detail of policy which represent a change in circumstances which might have affected consideration of the now lapsed proposal to result in a different decision. Therefore, I consider the essence of the lapsed decision to be a material consideration in this instance and will refer to it accordingly21. This is in the context of a reduced developable area relevant to the lapsed decision. 67. Therefore, from my understanding of the evidence the main issues are22: · The effect of the quantum of development proposed upon the character and appearance of the immediate locality of Victoria Road, including any tree clearance; · Impact on biodiversity/trees; and · The impact on the living conditions of the residents of Sunnyside Cottage in respect of privacy and outlook resulting from the construction of the proposed house on Plot 2.
Character and appearance23 68. It has been established that there is no objection to the proposal in respect of the design of the proffered house types. In the main, they mirror and interpret the design features of Leyton itself as a particularly pleasant Arts and Crafts influenced character and appearance. The Arts and Crafts movement was pivotal in the evolution of architecture style and finesse. 69. The issue comes down to the layout of the development, particularly relating to Plots 1 & 2, along with the extent of the site coverage. The layout takes advantage of the depth of the appeal site by being designed to accommodate four dwellings backing onto the football ground to the west with two frontage plots onto Victoria Road. The two houses on Plots 1 and 2 would both side onto Victoria Road. Plot 1 would have a completely blank side wall facing onto Victoria Road and Plot 2 would include ground and top floor windows,
19 Planning Officer’s report paragraph 7.2.2. 20 Agreed in discussions at the Inquiry. 21 Bearing in mind this is an approval in principle with reserve matters still to be agreed. In addition, the principle of residential development on the appeal site is not contested. It is the amount of development which is appropriate which is in question. 22 Agreed with the main parties at the Inquiry. 23 The appeal site does not lie within the Little Switzerland Conservation Area and there is no suggestion that there would be any impact upon it caused by this proposal.
==== PAGE 89 ====
16
but in both cases the houses would present a large uninspiring expanse of brickwork as the main roadside elevations. 70. The western side of Victoria Road in the vicinity of the appeal site, along with the Victoria Road frontage of the Little Switzerland Conservation Area are characterised by forward facing houses which directly address Victoria Road. This creates a strong sense of domestic living along the road defined by roadside homes of varying designs. As already indicated above, Lucerne Court is an example of a development which turns its back onto Victoria Road making little contribution to the streetscene. 71. The appeal proposal layout pays little regard to the character of Victoria Road in this location. It would present rather stark and visually uninteresting elevations to the road, the design emphasis being internalised into the creation of a contained cul-de-sac rather than a development which acknowledges and enhances the character and appearance of the wider streetscene, making a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. In this way the proposed design layout would not respect the site, character and surroundings of the townscape24. 72. In considering the density of the proposed development I am conscious that an assessment of the density of an area is not just a numerical exercise. It requires an assessment of the character and appearance of the wider locality. Victoria Road does include a number of dwellings on ample plots. However, this does not characterise the whole length of Victoria Road. Development off to the south, including Sunnyside Cottage and Ballawana present a more tightly knit form of development. The appeal proposal similarly presents more modest homes on more limited plots. I do not consider this is a reason to reject the proposal, taking into account the terms of IMSP SP1 which requires development to make the best use of resources by optimising the use of PDL. However, this is not a reason to accept a quantum of development with a resultant layout which pays little regard to the character of the wider steetscene as already described above. Trees/Biodiversity 73. I am also conscious that the defined developable area set out by condition in the approval in principle 20/00293/A, was an area smaller than the appeal site. Tree licence 183/21, which sanctioned the removal of a number of trees in the area of the old air raid shelter, was conditional on the implementation of a mitigating scheme for the loss of the trees, replanting in a defined area on the License plan dated 20 April 2021. This area appears to include land which is now proposed to accommodate Plot 2, 3 and 4. 74. The proposed scheme still includes the mature trees in the southern corner of the appeal site (G1) which link through to the registered tree area just north of the western boundary with the Braddan AFC Clubhouse grounds. In considering the License details along with the site plan which identifies the trees permitted to be removed, it seems to me that in the demolition of the air raid shelter25 the permitted tree works of removal have been undertaken. The proposed scheme does include some additional tree planting, but much of this is towards the front of the site and is in mitigation for the loss of the
24 Would compromise the terms of IMSP GP2 (b) (c) SP3, SP5, EP42 and RDC. 25 Notice Dem 21/00003/BCD.
==== PAGE 90 ====
17
frontage elm trees to facilitate the provision of the pedestrian footway. The planting of the odd cherry tree in each of the rear plots does not compensate for the removal of a significant number of mainly native trees which, along with the trees in G1, would have contributed to the verdant nature of this part of Victoria Road26. The planting of the trees required by condition on the tree removal License would, in the main, be concentrated in the corner of the garden of Plot 227. Plot 2 also includes many of the new frontage Field Maple trees. It is likely that overtime residents of this property may experience issues around loss of light, overshadowing and autumn leaf fall which may result in pressure to cut back or remove some of the trees. No clear planting strategy has been provided to explain the location and spread of the mitigating trees across the site. The linkage through from the registered trees on the adjacent football ground, through G1 to the mitigating trees on the appeal site and, in particular, in the green shaded License area, should, in combination, make a significant contribution to the verdant character of Victoria Road. I am not convinced that this is the case, the design and layout of the appeal scheme being the predominant factor in where trees are to be accommodated.
The suggestion that the positive benefit of the provision of a footpath across the frontage of the appeal site would outweigh the loss of the trees on the site may have some merit in respect of the frontage trees themselves28. The removal of these trees and their replacement with Field Maples was sanctioned by the approval in principle 20/00293/A. Whilst this approval has now lapsed, as a material consideration, I do consider that in respect of this tree removal and replacement alone there is a justification to provide a safe pedestrian refuge for residents wishing to cross the road to the continuous footpath opposite on Victoria Road. However, it does not justify non- compliance with the terms of the License in establishing an area of mitigating planting as detailed in the License, which would be of value to re- establish a visually prominent and continuous tree canopy extending out from G1 and the registered trees beyond, in character with the verdant nature of this part of Victoria Road.
Having established that the trees already removed as a result of the License no 183/21 and the Demolition License were appropriately sanctioned, I do not consider it necessary to include them in any assessment of impact on biodiversity. However, it is necessary to consider the mitigation for the loss of those trees, along side that of the loss of the frontage trees, which, I agree, are likely to provide a refuge for local wildlife particularly birds and bats. This equally applies to the trees in G1 which lie within the appeal site. This is doubly important when considering the relationship of the mitigating tree planting required by the License for tree removal, its linkage with G1 and the registered trees on land to the west, and the way the proposed frontage trees might feed into this. That linkage would provide a green corridor for wildlife and needs to be properly assessed. The Appellant should
26 I have considered this point in the context that some of the trees identified for removal were growing out of the old air raid shelter and so were lost to the demolition works. Nonetheless, mitigating replanting was considered necessary and I do not doubt that the removed trees did contribute to the character of the streetscene. 27 Although the siting of the trees appears to be outside of the shaded green area on the License plan. 28 Elm trees.
==== PAGE 91 ====
18
be encouraged through a required landscaping scheme to include native species of planting which would encourage the biodiversity of the appeal site and should include facilities to encourage and support wildlife in the vicinity. This should also be detailed in the assessment of biodiversity of the appeal site and the mitigating measures required.
Therefore, I consider that the appeal proposal by reason of a lack of clarity regarding appropriate mitigation for loss of trees and the resultant impact on biodiversity would diminish the quality of the wider locality and would adversely affect the character of the surrounding townscape as well as the nature conservation value of the site in the wider context29.
Living conditions
The impact on living conditions of the appeal proposal has been identified as the potential for overlooking and loss of privacy to the residents of Sunnyside Cottage from the proposed house on Plot 230.
The Appellant has indicated that through discussions with the residents of Sunnyside Cottage they do not object to the appeal proposal. This may be so, but the decision-maker must consider the impact of any proposal on the amenities of the dwelling for present and future residents.
In this case the design of the rear elevation of Plot 2 includes large bi-folding doors on the ground floor and two bathroom/ensuite windows and a bedroom window at first floor level. The bathrooms would be obscure glazed31.
The northerly side elevation of Sunnyside Cottage stands on the common boundary with the appeal site. There are a number of small windows in this elevation. It is unclear which rooms these windows serve. Nonetheless, the two ground floor windows have clear glazing and internal blinds. As the scheme is proposed both the ground floor doors and first floor bedroom window of Plot 2 would have views over the side of the Cottage and into the private external area behind. The proposed house would only be some 6.5 metres from the common boundary with Sunnyside Cottage and at that distance the proposed house would appear overbearing when viewed from within the Cottage as well as from the rear garden. 82.Therefore, the proposed house on Plot 2 would adversely affect the amenities of the residents of Sunnyside Cottage contrary to the terms of IMSP GP2(g). 83.The Appellant indicated that through the introduction of planting or screening along the common boundary, views from Plot 2 could be limited. However, there is no suggestion of conveying any land to Sunnyside Cottage to allow a reasonable distance of side isolation to accommodate appropriate screening or planting. Therefore, any screen or planting would be hard up against the
29 Contrary to IMSP GP2, EP3 & SP4. 30 Concern was expressed by residents in Lucerne Court regarding overlooking to the back of their houses. However, Lucerne Court is at a distance to the appeal site across Victoria Road. There are intervening mature trees on the roadside edge immediately behind Lucerne Court and proposed Plot 1 has no side windows facing Lucerne Court whilst Plot 2 has a small secondary bedroom window. Any views across Lucerne Court would be limited and distant. This would not amount to an adverse effect on the living conditions of neighbouring residents in Lucerne Court (IMSP GP2) sufficient to warrant withholding planning approval. 31 Secured by condition.
==== PAGE 92 ====
19
side wall of the Cottage with the effect of reducing light levels into the Cottage from the side windows. I, therefore, give the proffered remedy little weight as this is not a solution as it has its own implications for the living conditions of the residents of Sunnyside Cottage. Conclusion 84.Overall, the proposed quantum of development would result in a combined substantial weight of policy conflict32, centred on unacceptable harm resulting from a lack of respect for the character of the surroundings of the appeal site, in conjunction with the harm to the biodiversity of the site and its surroundings, along with the identified adverse harm to the amenities of local residents. This is sufficient to tip the balance of this case against the appeal proposal, even when weighed against the contribution that the proposed six dwellings would have to the provision of new homes on the Island. Recommendation 85. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal be dismissed. If accepted, this recommendation will have the effect of upholding the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application. 86. In the event that the Minister should agree with the Appellant’s case and decide to grant planning permission, recommended conditions are attached at Annex A below. They are based on the conditions suggested by the Planning Authority as part of their Statement of Case and those requested by consultees. They were discussed in detail at the Inquiry. Following those discussions some amendments were made to the wording of the conditions along with some additions. The reasons for each condition are set out within the schedule. Reasons 87. The reasons for recommending to confirm the decision of the Planning Authority, in the main, follows the wording of reasons for refusal 2, 3 & 4. Reason for refusal 1 is also relevant although the reference to the density of development is not considered appropriate for the reasons set out at paragraph 72 of this report. 88. In summary the Inspector’s reason for the recommendation is as follows: The proposed quantum of development, extending across much of the appeal site, in such a way as the proposed design would lack a measured response to the character of the surroundings. The proposed design approach, through the layout, would adversely harm the character and appearance of the streetscene. The scheme also lacks clarity on the impact of the proposal on the biodiversity of the appeal site and its linkages with adjacent treed areas. Further, the proposed relationship between the house on Plot 2 and Sunnyside Cottage would unacceptably impact on the living conditions of existing and future neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking and loss of
32 IMSP policies GP2, EP3, EP42, SP3, SP4, SP5 & RDG – the main policies of relevance which are compromised.
==== PAGE 93 ====
20
privacy. In this way the terms of IMSP Policies GP2, EP3, EP42, SP3, SP4, SP5 and the RDG would be unacceptably compromised.
Frances Mahoney MRTPI IHBC 23rd May 2023 Independent Inspector
==== PAGE 94 ====
21
Annex A Schedule of Conditions In the event that the Minister is minded to approve this development proposal it is recommended that the following conditions be applied: 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun 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.
No development shall commence until an ecological survey of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The ecological survey shall identify matters of ecological interest within the site and measures to mitigate ecological impacts where appropriate, including a timetable for their implementation. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site.
Prior to works commencing, details should be submitted to Planning for
written approval of a Japanese Knotweed eradication plan and construction exclusion zone to ensure that Knotweed is eradicated and not spread by the construction works. The development shall not take place other than in accordance with that Plan.
Reason: To ensure that Japanese Knotweed is not spread via course during the construction phase of the approved development.
Bat Brick 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 each of the new dwellings. Bricks should be installed at least 3m above the ground but not directly above or next to windows, doors or balconies. Bricks should be placed on a variety of elevations to provide for the different seasonal requirements of bats, but at least two should be provided on a southerly elevation. All bricks should be positioned away from artificial light. The agreed details shall be implemented before the house to which they relate is first occupied. Reason: In the interest of biodiversity within the site. 5. Prior to works commencing, plans should be submitted to Planning for written approval containing details of at least one integrated bird brick suitable for either house sparrow, starling or swifts to be installed on each of the new dwellings. Bricks should be installed at least 3m above the ground (swift bricks should be installed at least 5m above ground level) on northerly elevations, away from artificial light. The
==== PAGE 95 ====
22
agreed details shall be implemented before the house to which they relate is first occupied.
Reason: In the interest of biodiversity within the site. 6. No external lighting shall be installed other than in accordance with a detailed external low level lighting scheme which is in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8 Bats and Artificial Lighting (12th September 2018), has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Department. The scheme shall be implemented before the first house hereby approved is occupied.
Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site.
Prior to the removal of any tree on site a Preliminary roost assessment by a suitably qualified ecologist shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Trees should be checked for any potential roost features (PRFs) for bats, including rot holes, cracks, flaking bark (any feature which bat could get inside of) and if present then soft felling methodologies must be put in place, details of which should be included within the Roost assessment along with a timetable for implementation. The recommendations of the assessment shall be implemented in full in accordance with an agreed timetable of works. Vegetation removal should take place outside of nesting bird season. If this is not possible then thorough checks for nesting birds should be made first and if present then works must stop and can only recommence once the birds have finished breeding.
Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site.
No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the protection of the trees (a tree protection plan) and replacement which shall be prepared in accordance with the recommendations of British Standard BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Such a scheme shall include details of all trees and other planting which are to be retained; a planting specification to include numbers, species and positions of all new trees and shrubs which should be predominantly of native species; and a programme of implementation and replanting. The scheme of tree protection shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed programme before works commence on site and the agreed measures shall remain in place and maintained as such for the duration of the development. The new planting shall be undertaken before the first house is occupied. Any retained tree or replacement 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
==== PAGE 96 ====
23
accordance with a programme of replacement to be agreed in writing with the Department. Reason: To safeguard the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site. 9. Prior to the commencement of the development, a plan which shows measures that would be implemented to ensure that the amenities of the occupants of ‘Sunnyside’ are protected from overlooking and overshadowing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not take place other than in accordance with that plan. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers from overshadowing, overlooking and loss of privacy. 10. The two bathroom windows on the first floor rear elevation of Plot 2 shall be obscure glazed and retained as such in perpetuity. Details of the grade of glazing obscurity shall be submitted to and approved by the Department prior to works commencing. The agreed details shall be fully implemented before the house on Plot 2 is first occupied. Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers from overlooking and loss of privacy 11. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until all access arrangements, including visibility splays, vehicular and pedestrian areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Within the specified visibility splays there shall be no obstruction to view above 1.05 metres in height. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than for purposes associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times. Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking in the interests of highway safety. 12. No development in connection with the development hereby approved shall be occupied/brought into use unless the proposed foul sewage and surface water drainage system have been provided in accordance with the drainage scheme prepared by BB Consulting and dated 30 March 2022, which will feed into the existing sewer along Victoria Road and the surface water drainage system within Little Switzerland. The foul and surface water drainage systems shall be permanently retained thereafter in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In order to ensure that adequate drainage facilities are provided, and retained, in the interests of the amenity of the area. 13. Except for excavation, demolition and piling work, you must carry out any building work, which can be heard at the boundary of the site only: o between 08.00 and 18.00 Monday to Friday; o between 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturday; and o not at all on Sundays, bank holidays and public holidays.
==== PAGE 97 ====
24
The above hours of operation equally apply to the times when deliveries in association with the construction works can be accepted on site. You must carry out excavation, demolition and piling work only: o between 08.00 and 18.00 Monday to Friday; and o not at all on Saturdays, Sundays, bank holidays and public holidays.
Reason: to protect the local environment and amenities of local residents.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development shall be undertaken under the following classes of Schedule 1 of the Order at any time: o Class 14 - Extension of dwellinghouse o Class 15 - Garden sheds and summer-houses o Class 16 - Fences, walls and gates o Class 17 - Private garages and car ports
Reason: To control future development on the site.
15: All external facing materials shall be in strict accordance with the plans and specifications within the list of external finishes on the submitted Drawing Nos. 16/2576/02, 16/2576/03, 16/2576/04 date stamped as having been received 7 December April 2021. No new types of materials shall be added to the external elevations of the development, hereby approved unless otherwise approved in writing by the Department.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site
and surrounding area.
16: All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping (Drawing No. 21/3074/05D) must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwellings, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
Reason: the landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme
and must be implemented as approved.
Prior to works commencing details of the materials to be used on any
hardsurfaced areas in the public realm, within the front garden areas of the individual houses, details of any proposed walls and fences (particularly that on the common boundary with Sunnyside Cottage) hereby approved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed details prior to the first dwelling being occupied.
==== PAGE 98 ====
25
Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the site
and amenities of the surrounding area.
End of Schedule
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal