Loading document...
Application No.: 22/01113/B Applicant: Mr John Barton Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and redevelopment of the site and adjacent land with an apartment block accommodation seven apartments with associated drainage, access, basement parking and landscaping Site Address: Gloccamora Douglas Head Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5BW Planning Officer: Mr Toby Cowell Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 27.11.2023 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. The application site partially falls within land not zoned for any form of development in the Area Plan for the East. The principle of a high density residential development is therefore contrary to the Island's spatial strategy, and does not meet one of the defined exceptions to the presumption against new development in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan (2016). The development is therefore further contrary to Spatial Policies 1 and 5. - R 2. The design, scale, form and massing of the proposed development is considered to be out of character with the largely open and undeveloped nature of Douglas Head, to the detriment of its character, appearance and visual amenity. By reason of its substantial scale, massing and architectural vernacular, the proposals are further considered to be unduly prominent in the context of key long distance public vistas within Douglas Bay and offshore, to the detriment of the wider landscape, townscape and seascape setting. The proposals are therefore considered further contrary to Strategic Policies 3 and 5, General Policy 2 (b) and (c), and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan (2016). - R 3. The application site falls within the inner consultation zone of a major hazardous installation, with the nature and high density of the proposed development deemed to be inappropriate in this location due to the potential health and safety risk to members of the public, contrary to Environment Policy 29 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
Department of Infrastructure Highways Services
It is recommended that the following should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings:
Manx Radio Ltd, Broadcasting House, Douglas Head, Douglas
as they have explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.
It is further recommended that the following should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society, 95 Malew Street, Castletown Manx Wildlife Trust, 7-8 Market Place, Peel 11 Marine Gardens, Ramsey 9 Fort William, Head Road, Douglas Ballaqueeney Lodge, Ballaquayle Road, Douglas
as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy,
THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE ADVICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site relates to Gloccamora, a two-storey flat roofed detached dwellinghouse and its associated curtilage to the front and rear, together with a larger irregular portion of land to the immediate west which falls under the applicant's ownership. The adjoining land in question has recently been largely cleared of vegetation and rises sharply north to south away from the streetscene. The land immediately adjoining the residential property and associated curtilage to the south is also on noticeably higher ground and occupied by the Manx Radio building, - 1.2 The site is located on the southern side of Fort Anne Road on Douglas Head, whilst benefitting from long distance views northward to Douglas Harbour, The Promenade and the entirety of Douglas Bay. A formal area of communal amenity land (The Remembrance Garden) is located immediately opposite the site to the north on the opposite side of the road. The property is located immediately in front of the three-storey Manx Radio building and associated telecommunications mast, with the ornate Douglas Head apartment block located further south.
1.3 A small brownfield site is located immediately adjacent to the site to the east, and which was previously occupied by a residential property known as Stanley House. The redevelopment of the site to provide a 6 unit apartment block was granted in 2004. The expiration date of this permission was subsequently extended to July 2010, however it does not appear that this permission was lawfully implemented and therefore has expired with the site remaining vacant.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling and redevelopment of the entire site to provide a four-storey 7-unit apartment block with associated landscaping and basement car parking for 10 vehicles. - 2.2 The apartment block would incorporate a flat roof with the top floor staggered from back to front to accommodate a penthouse apartment and associated private front terrace. The design and form of the proposals demonstrates a strong vertical emphasis utilising a significant degree of glazing in the principal elevation, together with a combination of white, light and dark grey coloured blocked rendering, cedar and aluminium cladding for the exterior. The proposals would include a Manx stone base/plinth to the building to be built up from ground level in response to the site's varied topography, whilst further providing vehicular access to the basement car parking and bin stores. - 2.3 The development further makes use of Oriel windows on the western elevation of the building as an added feature, together with a total of 59 solar panels mounted on the sedum green roof. Additional landscaping in the form of a communal grassed garden area is further proposed, reinforced with new native tree and shrub planting. Further planting is proposed to the front and side of the building. A gabion retaining wall is further proposed at the rear if the communal garden, terraced area at the point where the site steeply rises, with the plans further indicated that the existing scrub land at the very rear of the site would remain undisturbed.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site benefits from a fairly extensive planning history, which is listed as follows:
4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The application site is identified in the Area Plan for the East partially land zoned for 'predominantly residential' purposes within the settlement boundary of Douglas, whilst partially
5 Design and visual impact Spatial Policy
Transport Policy
4.3 Area Plan for the East (2020) This document confirms the planning land use zoning of the site (i.e. mixed residential and land that is not zoned for development). The Island Spatial Strategy promotes a 'Sustainable Vision' for the Island, part of which forms a framework describing where new development should be located. In terms of the East, this means that development should be concentrated,
at an appropriate scale, in Douglas (Main Centre), Onchan (Service Centre), Union Mills and Laxey (Service Villages) and the five Villages of Crosby, Glen Vine, Baldrine, Strang and Newtown.
4.4 Residential Design Guide (2021) This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction. - 4.5 UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) land use planning methodology (2021) This document provides advice for planning applications and development which could be affected by major hazard establishments in the UK. Local planning authorities are required to consult the HSE on certain planning applications within the vicinity of major hazard establishments. The methodology contained within this document was adopted by the Isle of Man's Health and Safety at Work (HSWI) in 2004 and is therefore a strong material consideration in the determination of planning applications within consultation zones associated with major hazard establishments across the Island.
5.1 Douglas Borough Council - Following consideration of the above planning application at a meeting of the Council's Environmental Services Committee held on the 17/10/22 I can advise that the Committee has resolved to object to the application.
The Committee was of the opinion that the application failed to comply with IOM Strategic Plan 2016 GP 2 (c) and (g).
Having considered the application it was believed that the application would adversely affect the character of the landscape and that it would adversely affect the amenity of the local residents and the locality.
It was also believed that the application was contrary to TAPE landscape Proposal 6 (Douglas Head) as the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the development can be suitably integrated into the surrounding landscape particularly with regards to the scale of the proposed development in comparison to the existing dwelling on the site.
The Council also noted the comments made by the Head of Health and Safety regarding the site's location being within the Inner Zone of the Princess Alexandra Pier licenced dangerous goods site and how the H&S at Work Directorate would advise against this development due to the risks associated with the development site's location.
Should there be any changes to the design or a reduction in its mass or other amendments that may mitigate against the affects the development may have on the landscape/townscape and the amenity of local residents then we would be happy to review the application. (18.10.22)
The above planning application was considered by Douglas Borough Council's Environmental Services Committee at a meeting held on the 13/03/23 when it was resolved to withdraw the Council's previous objection based upon the amended application and the additional information provided.
Having now had the opportunity to review the application the Council no longer objects to the proposed development. (13.03.23)
5.2 Highway Services - Previous Highways response dated 21/09/2022 opposed the proposal due to the access height to the basement garage, vehicular access to spaces No.8 and No.14 appearing to require numerous and awkward movements, and various accessible mobility insufficiencies to the ground floor level. The amendments now altered the plans to address these concerns.
The proposal has now reduced the number of bedrooms to be created, therefore also dropping the vehicular parking requirement. The previous plans resulted in a parking requirement of fourteen vehicles. The alterations now mean a total number of ten bedrooms are provided, four one-bed apartments and three two-bed apartments, giving a total parking requirement of ten spaces. The alterations to the basement parking area reflect this with ten parking spaces provided. The parking places are well spaced away from the entrance and the walls meaning movement in and out of the spaces can easily be achieved. The reduction in parking requirement and spacious arrangement means the swept path analysis is no longer required.
No alterations have been proposed to the access arrangements or visibility achievable from the access and will therefore remain acceptable to Highways. Electric vehicle spaces have been retained at a rate greater than 10% which is welcomed by Highways.
The applicant is again advised that a Section 109(A) Highway Agreement is required for the alteration to the highway post planning consent.
The reduction in bedrooms has also resulted in a reduction in the number of bicycle parking spaces required. At a rate of one per bedroom, the bicycle parking requirement now stands at ten spaces and has been fulfilled in the new proposal. Bicycle storage is provide through semivertical bicycle racks which are an acceptable storage method. The new location for the bicycle parking is on the ground floor, to the rear of the building. Access can be gained through a door to the rear outside of the building to a designated bicycle storage room. The new location of the bicycle storage means no alteration is required to the garage access height. Arguably, bicycle storage in the garage is a more sensible and more convenient location, especially at times of inclement weather. However, the full requirement has been provided, is easily accessible from the rear and garage storage may require extensive structural redesign to allow for the headroom clearance. The location and capacity of the bicycle storage is acceptable to Highways.
Improvements have been made to the exterior of the building in order to facilitate pedestrian and mobility impaired access. Handrails have been added to all ramped sections of pedestrian areas in order to support pedestrian access. In addition, the access ramps have been altered so that the maximum gradient of 1:15 only has a 'going' of the maximum 5m. In between ramps of this gradient, flat landing sections have been added to support wheelchair users when accessing the building. Pedestrian access to the entrance to the front of the building has been increased to the minimum requirement of 1.5m. Mobility around the exterior of the building along the block paving has been improved through widening. The majority of the area around the building exceeds the desirable 2m width requirement. Instances where the design of the building means outcrops protrude, width of the minimum acceptable 1.5m are still achieved. From scaled measurements, there appears to be only one section where a width of 1.2m is given. This is to the north-western side of the development, past the main entrance where a stepped look appears. The 1.2m width at this point is instantaneous and of a section where pedestrian conflict is unlikely to occur. The mobility improvements to the exterior of the building now meet the minimum requirements and are acceptable to Highways.
As stated in the previous response, the gradient of the garage means there is a chance surface water from the highway will drain into the basement garage. Additionally, surface water could be discharged onto the highway from the pedestrian access. The suitability of surface water drainage proposals should be reviewed and accepted by Highway Services Drainage Team.
The proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services Development Control raises no objection to the proposal subject to all access arrangements accordingly to drawing Nos. P-10-04 and P-10-06. The Applicant is advised that a S109(A) Highway Agreement is needed after the grant of planning consent. (15.03.23)
5.3 DEFA Biodiversity - Although we are not supportive of development of this type within Wildlife Sites, having been to view the site, we acknowledge the following:
A member of the Ecosystem Policy Team met with the applicants on site to talk through the plans and potential mitigation, and we are pleased to see that all of the mitigation has been incorporated. However, it has since come to light that the development site is not zoned for development and we therefore believe that this application should be refused on this basis. The Ecosystem Policy Team will therefore be retaining our objection, and our preference would be
that this site is not developed and is instead restored, protected and managed for its ecological interest going forward, but should Planning be minded to approve this application, we recommend that conditions are secured to ensure that any ecological impacts are minimised. (03.04.23)
5.4 Health and Safety at Work Inspectorate (summary of latest comments) - This assessment is a revised version of the assessment provided to your Planning Office in September 2022. The assessment was carried out in line with the HSE's Land Use Planning Methodology and a decision was made in accordance with the 'Decision Matrix' which can be found on the HSE's website. This methodology was adopted by the Isle of Man's Health and Safety at Work Inspectorate in around 2004.
1) Assessment to identify the site location in relation to the hazardous installation:
4 sensitivity levels:
Conclusion This assessment has determined that the development has a sensitivity level of '2' and is situated within the Inner Zone of a hazardous installation.
The HSWI, on behalf of DEFA therefore advises against this development.
The aim of health and safety advice relating to land use planning is to mitigate the effects of a major accident on the population in the vicinity of hazardous installations, by following a consistent and systematic approach to provide advice on applications for planning permission around such sites. (08.03.23)
5.5 Manx Utilities Authority - no response received at the time of writing. - 5.6 Manx Wildlife Trust - Manx Wildlife Trust wish to highlight that this planning application falls within the 'Douglas Head and Marine Drive Wildlife Site' which was formally designated on 18th April 2012 by the multi-agency Wildlife Sites Selection Panel formed of representatives from DEFA Biodiversity, DEFA Planning, the DOI, Manx National Heritage, Manx Wildlife Trust and the Mammal Society. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 defines Wildlife Sites as follows (at p. 120):
'Wildlife Sites Places which are of high wildlife value but are not statutorily designated or recognised by law, but they are protected through the planning system (as they are designated as Sites of Ecological Interest in Local and Area Plans). They are the most important places for wildlife outside legally protected land, such as Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs).'
Environment Policy 4 states, 'Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect… species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites.' Of note, at present there are only 67 Wildlife Sites on the Island, covering just 2.15% of the terrestrial area. If, contrary to Environment Policy 4, this application is approved, Manx Wildlife Trust will require notification in relation to the ongoing management of the network of Manx Wildlife Sites. (06.03.23)
5.7 Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society - Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society has as its object "shall have for its objects the advancement of the knowledge, promotion and conservation of, Natural History and Human History and Cultural Development, especially in the Isle of Man and countries related thereto."
The Society is aware that the Douglas Head Locality has been suggested for designation as a Conservation Area and that suggestion is still on the 'books'.
Conservation Areas are designated on the basis of being "an Area of Special architectural or historic interest, the character of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance". Their designation takes into account the character of existing buildings but also of the spaces between them. The Society recognises that Gloccamara and its neighbour Stanley House are / have not been buildings of architectural interest in themselves; however the scale of the buildings as they exist at present is of relevance in the context of the current application.
The Society would therefore draw attention to the recent appeal decision on PA 21/00918/B Fort William within the same suggested Conservation Area. In his report the Independent Inspector considered that even though such a Conservation Area has not been designated, it is important to consider any proposals in the context of any such future designation - paras 27 and 44 of the attached report refer.
Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society would, therefore consider that, regardless of previous consents, the current proposal which would dominate its location above Douglas Head
Road is, by virtue of its scale and design, inappropriate within the locality. The Society objects to the application. (26.11.22)
Further to our previous comments, IOMNHAS would like to forward the attached images which show the scale of development previously existing on Douglas Head.
Most of the current application site appears to fall outside of the settlement boundary for Douglas as defined in the Area Plan for the East.
The Isle of Man Strategic Plan emphasises the importance of Douglas Harbour as a Strategic entry point to the Island. It is therefore one from which residents, visitors and potential investors need to gain a favourable impression of how the Island treats both its natural and built environment particularly in terms of its Biosphere status.
The Society does not believe that the proposed development by virtue of its scale and design would either maintain or enhance the appearance of the Douglas Head locality. (18.12.22)
5.8 Manx Radio (summary of comments) - Objection
Objection maintained on the basis of amendments to the scheme, which considers that the issue of the development's impact upon the Manx Radio building has not been suitably addressed, with previous points raised deemed to remain valid. (29.03.23)
5.9 A total of 4 further letters of representation have been received in relation to the application. Whilst full details of comments can be viewed in the online planning file, the following provides a general summary of the comments received:
6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are as follows:
"The application site currently houses a residential property which has an extant approval under PA 11/00407/B, for the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement with a large single dwelling. Within that extant approval, the residential curtilage of the property was defined by a red line.
This application follows exactly the same residential curtilage as that defined and approved under PA 11/00407/B.
We note that in Map 4 of the Area Plan for the East, the delineation of the extent of the settlement boundary and shading of residential use of the application site has not been correctly defined to accord with the extant approval of PA 11/00407/B. Nevertheless, we would contend that the residential curtilage of the application site should be considered as that identified and approved under the extant PA 11/00407/B."
"The development is not entirely compatible with the land use zoning of the area, as part of the application site extends into open space, which is to the west of the existing dwellinghouse. This would be contrary to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, as it would result in the loss of open space. However, this issue has been carefully considered at appeal for back in March 2007 for an approval in principle for the erection of a replacement dwelling (06/01205).
The independent inspector states that "The parties are agreed that it would be appropriate for the dwelling on this land to be replaced; that a complementary development to that approved on adjacent land would be desirable; and the consequence of this is likely to be that the residential curtilage would extend in some degree onto the open land, to be replaced fully or in part by open space between the two buildings."
"There is thus no objection to an approval in principle. However, the Planning Authority is correct to express concern that this should not be seen as a licence to develop anywhere on the open land. It seems to me that this concern would be adequately safeguarded if an approval in principle were subject to reservation of the siting and design of the proposed dwelling. The same planning considerations regarding protection of open space would apply to any more detailed plan, and an inappropriately sited proposal may be refused planning permission.
Furthermore, the parties to this appeal have made it clear that the constraints on development encroaching unreasonably for onto the open land are understood, and recorded. Thus any third party seeking to benefit from the permission would be aware of the constraints."
"HSWI advise on individual planning applications and as far as assessment conclusions are concerned, it cannot change the advisory outcome of a particular assessment because a previous, similar application has been accepted or rejected. HSWI's advice forms a singular aspect of the planning authority's decision making process and it is for them to consider whether it accepts or rejects a planning application."
"In considering development proposals within Consultation Zones as designated on the Area Plans or published Consultation Zone Maps, the Department will consult with the Health and Safety at Work Inspectorate to determine the appropriateness of the development. In all cases, the health and safety of the public will be the overriding consideration. Developments which would conflict with the requirements of health and safety will not be permitted."
"The assessment however does not 'advise against' a hostel, hotel, or guest house providing accommodation for up to 10 beds, (with beds being defined as provision for number of resident's / visitor's sleeping accommodation). This interpretation is, as we understand, after detailed consultation with … (the Head of Health and Safety) the current position taken by the HSWI.
However, on examination of planning precedent, we note that in the case of a previous application, as located on the immediately adjacent site, (which also sits within the same 'inner zone'), i.e. Stanley House (PA01/00032/B) for a block of six apartments the HSWI, under … (the) former Chief Health and Safety Inspector, applied a different interpretation. His interpretation was based on 10 bedrooms as the limiting acceptable factor, rather than 10 sleeping spaces. The application on this adjacent site was subsequently approved, (at Planning Appeal stage), with the development of six apartments totalling 10 bedrooms."
Consequently, the proposals are considered to be acceptable from a parking and highway safety standpoint, in compliance with Transport Policies 4 and 7.
7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 The proposals would result in a high density residential development outside of land formally designated for any form of development, contrary to the Island's spatial strategy, with insufficient information having been provided justifying the development in this context. Likewise, the proposals would represent an over dominant and bulky form of development which would be at odds with the established character of the immediate locality. The proposals would further represent an unduly prominent form of development which would be clearly visible within key public vistas around the entirety of Douglas Bay and offshore, to the detriment of the wider landscape, townscape and seascape character of the locality. The development is therefore contrary to Spatial Policies 1 and 5, Strategic Policies 3 and 5, General Policy 2 (b) and (c) and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan. - 7.2 In addition to the above, the proposals have the potential to represent a significant health and safety risk to future occupants of the development by reason of the site falling within the inner zone of a hazardous installation consultation zone. The development is therefore considered to be unacceptable in the context of the UK's Health and Safety Executive (HSE)'s guidance on development within proximity to hazardous installations and is therefore further contrary to Environment Policy 29. - 7.3 In light of the above, it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the proposed development.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture (DEFA) is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 04.12.2023
Signed : T COWELL Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown