**Document:** Owner of 2 Glen View South Cape Laxey Appeal Comments
**Application:** AP25/0002 — Appeal against the non determination for construction of two new houses to replace existing single house
**Decision:** Appeal dismissed - PA REFUSED
**Decision Date:** 2025-07-04
**Parish:** Braddan
**Document Type:** consultation / local_authority_response
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/88404-braddan-leyton-replacement-dwelling/documents/1142080
---
# Owner of 2 Glen View South Cape Laxey Appeal Comments
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.
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.
Redacted
2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey IM4 7HY
JM Project Management Ltd
Marown Court
Main Road
Crosby
IM4 4BQ
Isle of Man
## Town and Country Planning Act 1999
## Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013
In pursuance of powers granted under the above Act and Regulations the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture determined to REFUSE an application by JM Project Management Ltd, to remove Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas from the Protected Buildings Register (Registered Building No.339) for the following reason(s):
1. Insufficient information has been submitted in respect of the reasons for registration (as included within the registry entry summary) that would justify the removal of the building from the Protected Buildings Register.
Date of Issue: 10th June 2024
## Redacted
## Director of Planning and Building Control
## Guidance Note
Regulation 9(6) – Determination of application
(6) The determination of the application does not have effect —
(a) if an appeal is made under regulation 11, until the appeal is determined or withdrawn;
(b) if no such appeal is made, until the time within which an appeal may be made has expired.
Regulation 11 - Appeal from decisions of the Department;
(1) An appeal from a decision of the Department may be made by the applicant or the applicant’s agent and any interested person in writing to the Department within 21 days of the date of the notice under regulation 10(1), signed by that person and must include —
(a) the reasons for making the appeal;
(b) Payment of a planning appeal fee as prescribed in an order made by the Department under section 1(1) of the Fees and Duties Act 1989; and
(c) an election to have the appeal determined by means of an inquiry (if that is required) together with the fee payable in respect of such an inquiry as prescribed by the Department in an order made under section 81 of the Interpretation Act 2015.
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 twingabled front elevation featuring oriel windows, Ballanard brick ground floor and halftimbered 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 deregistration A verbatim, unedited, copy of the reasons stated on the application form is as follows"The building 1) Has been significantly altered both internally and externally from its original form 2) The building suffers from severe wrot in several areas. 3) Has been extensively extended unsympathetcially. 4) The buildings original Architect is unknown and what remains of the building is not of sufficient quality to warrant registration. The persons associated with the buildng are no of sufficent warrant or importance. 5) If retained as registered can not be upgraded suitably to meet current building control and environmental targets which form part of the governments strategic targets for carbon reduction. 6) Was registered without a full inspection internally despite that being listed as requirement of the registration process. 7) It is uneconomic to restore the building especially with the very onerous nature of being on the register increasing the costs exponentially." Assessment of reasons for deregistration 1. The building has been significantly altered both internally and externally from its original form. The alterations and 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. Of the 300+ buildings included on the Protected Buildings Register, very few have had absolutely no alterations or extensions. 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. 2. The building suffers from severe rot in several areas. The Department’s Operational Policy (attached as Annex 2) states that the Department should register a building which has been assessed as meeting the statutory criteria, irrespective of its state of repair. 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. 3. The building has been extensively extended unsympathetically.
|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 halftimbered 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
|
|---|
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 twingabled form and entire first floor in halftimbering 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 deregistration 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 twingabled front elevation featuring oriel windows, Ballanard brick ground floor and halftimbered 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 deregistration 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.
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
|Leyton Victoria Road Douglas|Leyton Victoria Road Douglas|
|---|---|
| |339|
- 3. Reasons for making the application to de-register the building
1. Address of the building which is the
subject of the application.
|(Continue on a separate sheet if necessary)
The building :-
1) Has been significantly altered both internally and externally from its original form
2) The building suffers from severe wrot in several areas.
3) Has been extensively extended unsympathetcially.
4) The buildings original Architect is unknown and what remains of the building is not of sufficient quality to warrant registration. The persons associated with the buildng are no of sufficent warrant or importance.
5) If retained as registered can not be upgraded suitably to meet current building control and environmental targets which form part of the governments strategic targets for carbon reduction.
6) Was registered without a full inspection internally - despite that being listed as requirement of the registration process.
7) It is uneconomic to restore the building especially with the very onerous nature of being on the register increasing the costs exponentially.
Further information to follow in due course.|
|---|
Have you consulted the Department prior to making this submission? Yes
| |
|---|
No
| |
|---|
|JM Project Management Ltd|
|---|
- 4. Name of owner
|Marown Court, Main Road Glen Vine|
|---|
Address if different from question 1
|Work 01624 618672|
|---|
|Home|
|---|
Telephone number
|mark@mpassociates.im|
|---|
Applicants email
|MP Associates Limited|
|---|
- 5. Full Name of Agent
|12, Strathallan Crescent, Douglas, IM2 4NR|
|---|
Address
|Home|
|---|
|Work 618672|
|---|
Telephone number
|mark@mpassociates.im|
|---|
Agents email
| |
|---|
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.
Agent
| |
|---|
Applicant
Please Note: If this box is not completed all correspondence will be directed to the Agent.
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 DPO-DEFA@gov.im.
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.
## Redacted
|18-03-2024|
|---|
Date
Signed (*Applicant/*Agent)
|MP Associates Limited|
|---|
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.
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: planning@gov.im
From: To: Sinden, Thomas Cc: Chance, Jennifer Subject: Re: Application to de-register Date: 26 April 2024 16:37:25 Attachments: Leyton Registration.pdf
Redacted
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
Redacted
Director MP Associates Ltd 12, Strathallan Crescent, Douglas, Isle of Man - IM2 4NR T - 01624 618672
###### Redacted
Redacted
From: Sent: 25 March 2024 11:44 To: Sinden, Thomas Cc: Subject: Re: Application to de-register
Redacted
Thanks Tom Kind regards
Redacted
On 25 Mar 2024, at 09:49, Sinden, Thomas 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
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: thomas.sinden@gov.im
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
Objection to the Proposal to Register the Building known as Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas IM2 6AQ
Redacted
MP Associates Ltd 12 Strathallan Crescent Douglas Isle of Man IM2 4NR
Date: 26th April 2024
###### 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.
Dormer to top of stairs
Dormer to Bedroom 3
Loft hatch to landing
Flat roof and Upvc bay window at first floor level to Bedroom 1
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
Dormer to top of stairs at First Floor
Corner of Bedroom 2.
Dining room ceiling
Former Shower room to extension
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
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
Timber fascia and barge boards need replacement
###### Side elevation to garden
Timber fascia and barge boards need replacement
###### Part Side elevation to garden
###### 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
Upvc French Doors and sidelights
Existing felt roof has severe water ingress
###### Rear flat roofed extension
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
###### 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
First floor front and side corner to driveway side showing uvc bay window
First floor view of front elevation
###### Front elevation from Victoria Road
###### Annex 1 - Consultation Submissions
South East Elevation (Front)
Scale 1:100
South West Elevation (Side)
Scale 1:100
North West Elevation (Rear)
Scale 1:100
North East Elevation (Side)
Scale 1:100
Ground Floor Plan
Scale 1:100
First Floor Plan
Scale 1:100
M P Associates
All Distributors, Executive Directors
Institute for Strategic Development Consultants
SIX EAST SEVENTH AVE
NEW HAVEN, MA
JM PROJECT MANAGEMENT LTD
Project
2 NEW HOUSES AT LEYTON
VICTORIA ROAD DOUGLAS
Drawing Title
EXISTING HOUSE LAYOUT
^{}[]
[Table omitted in markdown export]
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:Thomas.Sinden@gov.im] Sent: 28 March 2024 13:17 Cc: Chance, Jennifer 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 buildingconservation@gov.im, 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: thomas.sinden@gov.im
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 -
AnyvIEwSExPRESSEDInTHISEMAILARETHOSEOFTHEOFFIcEROnLyAnDAREwITHOuTPREjuDIcETOAnyFORMALDEcISIOn MADEunDERTHEPROvISIOnSOFTHETOwnAnDcOunTRyPLAnnIngAcT1999AnDAnyRELEvAnTSEcOnDARyLEgISLATIOn.
PLEASEBEAwARETHATSHOuLDTHEcOnTEnTOFTHISEMAILBEMATERIALLyRELEvAnTTOAPLAnnIngAPPLIcATIOn, ITS cOnTEnTMAyBEPuBLISHEDASDETAILRELEvAnTTOTHEFORMALASSESSMEnTOFTHEAPPLIcATIOn. PuBLIcATIOnwILLIncLuDE AvAILABILITyvIAOnLInESERvIcES.
###### 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
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
Redacted
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
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.
###### Redacted
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.
Redacted
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
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
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
From: To: Sinden, Thomas Subject: RE: Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas Date: 11 April 2024 13:39:05
Redacted
###### 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,
Redacted
###### Redacted
From: Sent: 11 April 2024 13:29 To: Sinden, Thomas 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-demolitiongets-registered-46882/), and it is buildings like this we should be protecting for the benefit of our
Manx children and our children’s children. Once these buildings go, they are gone forever.
Best wishes,
Redacted
From: Sinden, Thomas [mailto:Thomas.Sinden@gov.im] 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 buildingconservation@gov.im, 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: thomas.sinden@gov.im
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 -
AnyVIEwSExpRESSEDInTHISEMAILARETHOSEOFTHEOFFIcEROnLyAnDAREwITHOuTpREjuDIcETOAnyFORMALDEcISIOn MADEunDERTHEpROVISIOnSOFTHETOwnAnDcOunTRypLAnnIngAcT1999AnDAnyRELEVAnTSEcOnDARyLEgISLATIOn.
pLEASEBEAwARETHATSHOuLDTHEcOnTEnTOFTHISEMAILBEMATERIALLyRELEVAnTTOApLAnnIngAppLIcATIOn, ITS cOnTEnTMAyBEpuBLISHEDASDETAILRELEVAnTTOTHEFORMALASSESSMEnTOFTHEAppLIcATIOn. puBLIcATIOnwILLIncLuDE AVAILABILITyVIAOnLInESERVIcES.
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 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.
Redacted
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
###### Redacted
Holly Bank Little Switzerland Douglas IM2 6AG Tel: 473089
Redacted
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
Annex 2 - Principles of Selection
- • 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.
## Operational Policy on the Principles of Selection for the Registration of Buildings in to the Protected Buildings Register
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture
Planning and Building Control Directorate Murray House
## 1.0 Purpose Of This Document
1.1 This Operational Policy document sets out the criteria the Department will follow when assessing buildings for including in to the Protected Buildings Register, a register of buildings of special architectural or historic interest. It is issued by the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture with the approval of the Minister.
## 2.0 Legal And Administrative Context For Registration
2.1 Most European countries have systems to protect and to control change on important historic buildings. The system in the Isle of Man operates under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999. Registration ensures that a building's special character and interest are taken into account where changes are proposed. The Protected Buildings Register is compiled for the purposes of the 1999 Act and for guidance of the Department in its performance of its duties set out in the 1999 Act. The 1999 Act places a duty on the Department to maintain a register of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.
2.2 The Protected Buildings Register is available on the Department's website. Registration is the statutory process by which buildings are added to the Protected Buildings Register. Once included on the Register both exterior and interior has statutory protection under the provisions of the 1999 Act. Registration is intended to maintain the character of the Island's built heritage and to guard against unnecessary loss or damage.
2.3 Any building or man-made structure could be considered for entry into the Protected Buildings Register.
## 3.0 Statutory Criteria
3.1 As set out in Section 14(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act, the Department uses the criteria set out below when assessing whether a building is of special interest and therefore should be added to the Register.
## 3.2 Architectural Interest.
3.2.1 To be of special architectural interest a building must be of importance in its architectural design, decoration or craftsmanship; special interest may also apply to nationally important examples of particular building types and techniques (e.g. buildings displaying technological innovation or virtuosity) and significant plan forms.
## 3.3 Historic Interest.
3.3.1 To be of special historic interest a building must illustrate important aspects of the nation's social, economic, cultural, or military history and/or have close historical associations with nationally important people. There should normally be some quality of interest in the physical fabric of the building itself to justify the statutory protection afforded by Registration.
## 4.0 Wider Considerations
4.1 As set out in Section 14(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act, the Department will also take into account when considering whether to enter a building onto the register the following:
## 4.2 Group Value
4.2.1 When making a decision to register, the Department may take into account the extent to which the exterior contributes to the architectural or historic interest of any group of buildings of which it forms part. This is generally known as group value. The Department will take this into account particularly where buildings comprise an important architectural or historic unity or a fine example of planning (e.g. squares, terraces or estates) or where there is a historical functional relationship between a group of buildings (e.g. farm complexes). If a building is designated because of its group value, protection applies to the whole of the property, not just the exterior.
## 4.3 Objects and structures
4.3.1 When considering whether a building is of special architectural or historic interest the Department may take into account the desirability of preserving, on the grounds of its architectural or historic interest, any feature of the building containing a man-made object or structure fixed to the building or forming part of the land and comprised within the curtilage of the building. The desirability of preserving such a feature is a factor which would increase the likelihood of the building being registered. However, in the absence of any other aspects of special architectural or historic interest, such features will justify the registration of the building only if they are of themselves of sufficient interest to render the building of special interest. The provision can be used for a variety of features; examples could include a finely panelled sixteenth century room, a fireplace and over-mantel that has been introduced from another building, or an elaborate plaster ceiling. This provision cannot be used to preserve in situ anything that is not a fixture, such as furniture or paintings.
## 5.0 General Principles
5.1 In applying the statutory criteria and considerations, as set out above, the Department will also consider the following principles:
Age and rarity. The older a building is, and the fewer the surviving examples of its kind, the more likely it is to have special interest. The following chronology is meant as a guide to assessment; the dates are indications of likely periods of interest and are not absolute. The relevance of age and rarity will vary according to the particular type of building because for some types, dates other than those outlined below are of significance. However, the general principles used are that:
- before 1800, all buildings that contain a significant proportion of their original fabric are likely to be registered;
- from 1800 to 1860, many buildings may be worthy of consideration for Registration;
Photograph of property date stone
Portraits of Thomas Kneen (left) and William Lay (right)
- If it comes to the notice of the Department that a particular building may merit registration and may satisfy the criteria set out above, then the Department may itself propose such a building for registration.
## 7.0 Priority Of The Consideration Of Buildings For Registration
7.1
The Department will generally prioritise the consideration of buildings for registration in the following way:
7.2 In certain circumstances the Department may prioritise buildings for consideration by means other than the above. For example, as part of a particular theme or when important information or evidence is uncovered that makes a clear case for a building being of special interest.
[Table omitted in markdown export]
## Department Of Environment, Food And Agriculture
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (REGISTERED BUILDINGS) REGULATIONS 2013
IN ACCORDANCE with Part 3 14(2) of the Act, The Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture on the 28th February 2024 determined to enter:
Leyton
Victoria Road, Douglas IM2 6AQ
as identified on the Register Entry Summary hereto attached, in the PROTECTED BUILDINGS REGISTER.
As required under Schedule 2 2(1) of the Act the Department HEREBY GIVES NOTICE that WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT the demolition, alteration or extension of the building is prohibited in any way which would affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest UNLESS written consent is first sought under 15(2) of the Act ("registered building consent") and the authorised works are executed in accordance with the terms of that consent and any conditions attached to it.
Dated this 4th March 2024,
By Order of the Department
Redacted
Director, Planning and Building Control
- 5. The property is the subject of a current, but as yet undetermined application for replacement of the existing dwelling with two new houses.1 I understand that determination of that application is in abeyance pending the outcome of this appeal.
PLANNING LEGISLATION, POLICY AND GUIDANCE Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016
- 6. Environment Policy 31 sets out a presumption against the removal of any Registered Building from the Register.
Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man (PPS1)
- 7. The PPS provides no guidance as to possible de-Registration of buildings. I am mindful, however, that Policy RB/3 sets out general criteria that are to be applied to the consideration of registered building applications. These include a building’s importance, architectural and historic interest and rarity, particular physical features and its setting and contribution to the street scene.
Operational Policy on the Principles of Selection for the Registration of Buildings into the Protected Buildings Register (November 2018)
- 8. The Operational Policy confirms that the statutory criteria for the assessment of whether a building should be Registered relate to its architectural and historic interest.2 It goes on to advise that special architectural interest is considered in terms of architectural design, decoration or craftsmanship and may also apply to nationally important examples of particular building types and techniques and significant plan forms. To be of special historic interest, a building must, among other things, illustrate important aspects of the nation’s social, economic cultural or military history and there should normally be some quality of interest in the physical fabric of the building itself to justify the statutory protection afforded by registration.
- 9. In applying those criteria, regard will be had to age and rarity, aesthetic merits, selectivity in relation to other buildings of similar quality and national Manx context. Where a building is assessed as meeting the statutory criteria, the Note confirms that it should be registered, irrespective of its state of repair or other factors, such as implications for future use or financial issues.
THE CASE FOR THE APPELLANT The material points are:
- 10. The building is 128 years old. There have been many opportunities during that time to include it on the Registration list, including when previous applications to alter and extend the property were being determined. It does not appear on any list of buildings currently being considered for
- 1 23/01066/B
- 2 Section 14(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999
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.
- 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.
- 14. There is no consistent architectural language on the building. Arts and Crafts style buildings are usually much better designed than this and the house is not associated in any way with Little Switzerland, in terms either of design or location. Given the conflicting styles and architecture, the front elevation of twin gables is not on its own sufficient to be a distinguishing feature. The building has undergone significant alterations, with not much of the original front façade remaining once essential repairs are carried out. As such, there is not sufficient significance as to provide a good example of late Victorian Arts and Crafts architecture, the main reason given for Registering the building. It does not pass the test for having historic interest based on the architectural merits of the building, as backed up by Douglas City Council. Even if the building were to be retained, very little of the original building would be left and it could not be suitably upgraded to meet current building control and environmental targets which form part of the governments strategic targets for carbon reduction. Refurbishment is unviable and the property should be de-Registered.
THE CASE FOR THE PLANNING AUTHROITY The material points are:
- 15. The decision to add Leyton to the Protected Buildings Register was taken on 28 February 2024 for the following reasons:5
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.
- 16. Arts and Crafts was an influential architectural movement of the late C19th which attempted to re-establish the skills of craftsmanship threatened by mass production and industrialisation. The style was popular from the early 1890s through to the 1920s in towns and villages across the Island, although it was most widely used in the Victorian and Edwardian expansion of Douglas, and dominates the Little Switzerland Conservation Area. When the contributions by nationally and internationally renowned architects and artists are combined with the widespread use of the architectural style during the largest period of construction on the Island, the Arts and Crafts movement is judged to be an extremely significant element of the Island’s heritage.
- 17. The architect of Leyton is unknown at present. However, constructed in 1896/97, the property is contemporary with the nearby Baillie Scott designed houses Oakleigh (1893), Ivydene (1893) and the Red House
- 5 INSPECTOR’S NOTE: the published Notice of the entry on the Register is dated 4 March 2024.
Map
Scale: 1:2,000
Reproduced from the IoM Survey map with permission of the Department of Infrastructure © Crown Copyright 2015. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
- 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
- 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
## Determination of an application for de-registration of a building
Further to the de-registration recommendation report for Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas (Registered Building 339), 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, and that the de-registration application should therefore be **refused**.
Under the delegated authority item (3)(d) within DEFA Delegation No. 2022/05 dated 4th May 2022, I formally determine that the application for de-registration of Leyton (Registered Building 339) be refused, and that the recommendations within the de-registration recommendation report be followed in respect of Interested Party Status as per Regulation 9(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Building) Regulations 2013.
Dated this 30th May 2024
**Redacted**
Jennifer Chance, Director of Planning and Building Control
JM Project Management Limited
Marown Court
Main Road
Glen Vine
Telephone (01624) 685958
Email: scott.gallacher@gov.im
Contact: Scott Gallacher
Our Ref: MEC /AP24/0021
Date: 11th December 2024
Dear Sir/Madam,
## On Appeal
PA No: 24/90001/S1
Address: Leyton Victoria Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 6AQ
Proposal: Application for de-registration of a building (RB339)
I refer to an application for removal of the abovementioned property from the Department's Register of Protected Buildings.
I am directed to advise you that the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture, in pursuance of section 3(2) of the Government Departments Act 1987, has delegated responsibility for the determination of this appeal to Mr Lawrie Hooper, MHK.
In accordance with the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (Registered Building) Regulations 2013, I herewith give notice of the appeal decision.
Mr Hooper, MHK, on behalf of the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture, has considered the report, concurs with the appointed person's conclusions, and accepts the recommendation that the appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, he has directed that the Department's decision to refuse the application for de registration of the Building should be upheld, and that the property Leyton should be retained on the Register.
Formal notice of this decision is attached.
Yours faithfully
## Redacted
Scott Gallacher
Chief Officer
cc. M P Associates Ltd, 12 Strathallan Crescent, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 4NR
## The Town And Country Planning Act 1999
### The Town and Country (Registered Building) Regulations 2013
JM Project Management Limited
Marown Court
Main Road
Glen Vine
In pursuance of his powers under the above Act and Order/Regulations, and under delegated powers from the Minister for the Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture, Mr Lawrie Hooper, MHK does hereby in the name of and on behalf of the Department REFUSE application 24/90001/S1 by JM Project Management Limited for de-registration of a building (RB339) - Leyton Victoria Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 6AQ, for the following reason
### Reason For Refusal:
1. The readily identifiable special architectural and historic interest of this 1896/7 Arts and Crafts style dwelling overrides its present dilapidated state, justifying its continued inclusion on the Protected Buildings Register.
Date of issue 11th December 2024
By Order of the Minister
Scott Gallacher
Chief Officer
Note 1: A copy of the report of the appointed person is appended hereto.
Note 2: All parties should note that there is no prescribed right of appeal relevant to the Minister’s decision herein and accordingly the only right of challenge is by a petition of doleance brought to the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man. Such doleance proceedings required to be issued promptly and in any event within 3 months.
Note 3: The letter which accompanies this notice forms part of the notice in accordance with Article 11 (9) of the Town & Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013.
- 51. Whilst the impact of the deteriorated state of a building may have implications for viability, it cannot be right that an owner might benefit from permitting a Registered building to deteriorate deliberately in the hope of making consent or permission easier to gain. I am not suggesting for one moment that the current state of the appeal building is a result of deliberate neglect. It would seem, however, that little has been done in recent years to protect the property against ongoing damage, such as securing the roof against water ingress, carrying out running repairs, or properly securing the property against illegal entry and consequent vandalism. With that in mind, I consider that the current condition of the building should be disregarded in determining whether it should be de-Registered at this time, in accordance with the Operational Policy.
- 52. The Policy also indicates that no regard should be had to other factors, such as implications of building condition for future use, or financial issues. Even so, I would have expected some financial viability analysis, supported by detailed surveys, given the appellant’s assertion that refurbishment is unviable. None was before me.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- 53. The building has intrinsic architectural merit that is particularly evident in the visual quality of the front elevation, with sufficient of the original fabric and design remaining when the building is considered as a whole, to give it special architectural interest. Even in its current poor state of repair, it also survives as a good example of the Island’s cultural history, forming part of the late Victorian and Edwardian Arts and Crafts designed expansion of Douglas.
- 54. In coming to that view, I am mindful that no surveys undertaken by a conservation/heritage specialist are before me. Such surveys would have approached the task with a view to securing the conservation/preservation of the building as a first option and would have assessed necessary remedial works. It may be that such an investigation reveals, for instance, that the decay is not as widespread as is suggested by the appellant and that sympathetic repair/replacement may be practicable. In essence, there is no substantiated evidence on the part of the appellant to overcome the presumption against the removal of the Registered Building from the Register as set out in Environment Policy 31 of the Strategic Plan.
- 55. In light of the forgoing, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude, on balance, that the appeal should be dismissed. If accepted, this recommendation would have the effect of upholding the decision of the Department to refuse the application for de-Registration of the building.
Reason: The readily identifiable special architectural and historic interest of this 1896/7 Arts and Crafts style dwelling overrides its present dilapidated state, justifying its continued inclusion on the Protected Buildings Register.
##### Jennifer A Vyse
Independent Inspector
12 November 2024
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
From: To: DEFA, Planning Subject: PA23/00942/B Land South [South-west] of Leyton, Former Air Raid Shelter Site, Victoria Road, Douglas IM2
Redacted
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).
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.
###### Redacted
South Cape Laxey
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
- 1. This report provides a brief description of the appeal site and its surroundings; the proposal which is subject to the appeal; background information and relevant policy. The cases for the appeal parties are then summarised, fuller details being available for reference in the appeal case documents. My assessment, conclusions and recommendation follow.
Site and surroundings
- 2. In character Victoria Road includes a mix of development being predominantly residential but with some office and business units as well as a large supermarket and associated car park. Residential development varies in age design and density but closely spaced dwellings fronting onto the road are not uncommon along its length.
- 3. The appeal site, some 0.86 acres in size, has a direct frontage onto Victoria Road. To the north is Leyton a detached house of a design of an Arts and Crafts origin. It sits to one side of its plot with a large side garden. To the north of Leyton, larger well-spaced houses and apartment buildings occupy ample plots of a verdant nature. The northern end of Victoria Road is characterised by mature trees and hedges along its roadside edge including small woodland groups which give a verdant nature to the streetscene.
- 4. Opposite the appeal site is Lucerne Court which is made up of a development of large houses built on generously sized plots, but which very much turn their backs to Victoria Road and, whilst being seen beyond a fenced boundary with an intervening roadside row of mature trees, contributes little to the character of this part of the urban environs.
- 5. The appeal site was previously occupied by an old World War II air raid shelter. The site includes well treed boundaries and a wooded area in its southern corner. Adjoining this site is Sunnyside Cottage which sits on the common boundary with the appeal site and the roadside. The adjacent
- 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.
- 12. 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.
- 17.Environment Policy 3 (EP3) sets out that development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value.
- 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.
- 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.
- 26. Transport Policy 1 (TP1) requires where possible new development should, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes.
- 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.
- 30. In July 2021 the Residential Design Guide (RDG) was published7, the aim of which is to help all of those involved in the design process to work together to improve the quality of the built environment. Encouraging locally distinctive designs in a supportive context for good quality designs is one of the purposes of the guide. It is intended to apply to any residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions. Whilst I appreciate the RDG is just a guide, its aims and purposes reflect those within the IMSP those being that the design of new development can make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. It is acknowledged that in the past new developments have not taken into account a proper analysis of their context in terms of siting, layout, scale, materials and other factors8. It is a material consideration in the weighing of this decision.
- 6 2 spaces per unit.
- 7 Not adopted planning policy.
- 8 IMSP paragraph 4.3.8.
- 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
- 32. DEFA Agriculture and Lands Directorate Forestry, Amenity and Lands - Tree Protection Policy - the Directorate will normally object to planning applications if any of the following is true:
- (a) The proposed development includes the removal of any tree(s) worthy of a category A or category B classification, as defined by BS5837:2012.
- (b) The proposed development includes the removal of more than 50 percent of existing tree canopy cover from the site.
- (c) The proposed development includes the removal of any tree(s) worthy of a category C classification, as defined by BS5837:2012, without sufficient mitigation.
- (d) The application includes insufficient information to properly judge the arboricultural impact of the proposed development.
- (e) The application does not show how the proposed development could be implemented without having a detrimental impact on the health and longevity of adjacent retained trees and does not show how this impact will be mitigated.
- (f) The proposed development is likely to lead to significant future pressure to remove or prune trees, either by an application made under the Tree Preservation Act 1993 and/or by complaints made under the Trees and High Hedges Act 2005.
- (g) The proposed development includes the removal of a tree, group of trees or woodland which is registered under Section 2 of the Tree Preservation Act 1993."
- 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
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.
- 35. The appellant further states that the density is 7 houses to the acre which is not excessive compared to the Area Plan for the East requirement of a minimum of 8 houses to the acre and concludes that the site is an urban site and could sustain more houses than what is proposed and is therefore not overdeveloped. Whilst these comments are noted, no part of the final documents (Final Consultation Covering Report, Written Statement or any of the Draft Plan Consultation documents) which are the offshoots of consultations for the Area Plan and which are now online refer to 8 houses as being the minimum to the acre).
- 36. Paragraphs 6.5.1 to 6.5.4 of the Area Plan which addresses efficient use of sites, prioritises the need for densities of development to be in keeping with the character of the local area and as such should be read together with any targets the Area Plan seeks to achieve.
- 37.Paragraph 6.5.2 sets out that lower densities may be considered more acceptable in instances where there are site specific constraints. In the case of this appeal there is a need to protect the trees on the site, and the character and appearance of the area necessitates a development of a lower density. The need to keep higher densities within town centres, particularly in Douglas is reinforced by Paragraph 6.5.4 of the Area Plan for the East.
- 38.IMSP SP5 requires that new development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. A positive contribution means making places which are attractive and safe areas to live, work and invest in. In order to achieve this, it is essential that detailed design proposals be based around an understanding of constraints and opportunities of the site and that the proposal responds positively to local context, in terms of its scale, form, layout, materials, colouring, fenestration and architectural detailing. This, in turn, depends on a good understanding of the local character of the individual settlements in the East. Local character is defined by the natural and physical features of an area, including its topography, the pattern of streets and public spaces, the street scene, the density of development, the scale and form of buildings and the materials used in construction.
- 39.The individual plots on this part of Victoria Road are considerably large comparative to what is proposed within the current application. The majority of the properties on the western side of Victoria Road which directly adjoin
- 10 Source Planning Statement of the Planning Authority, its accompanying documents and the Planning Officer’s report.
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.
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.
- 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.
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 semidetached 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.
Mr Tim Luft
78 Priory Park
Belfast
BT10 0AG
Telephone (01624) 685958
Email: steven.stanley@gov.im
Contact: Mr S Stanley
Our Ref: MEC /AP22/0040
Date: 14th June 2023
Dear Sir/Madam,
## On Appeal
PA No: 21/01468/B
Address: Land South Of Leyton Victoria Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 6AQ
Proposal: Erection of 6 detached houses and associated parking
I refer to the appeal in respect of the above planning application.
I am directed to advise you that the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture, in pursuance of section 3(2) of the Government Departments Act 1987, has delegated responsibility for the determination of this appeal to Dr Michelle Haywood, MHK.
In accordance with the provisions of The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, I herewith give notice of the appeal decision.
Dr Michelle Haywood, MHK, on behalf of the Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture, has considered the report, concurs with the appointed person's conclusions, and accepts the recommendation that the appeal should be dismissed. Accordingly, she has directed that the Department's decision to refuse the application should be upheld, and that the application should be Refused. Formal notice of this decision is attached.
Yours faithfully
Redacted
Mr S Stanley
Interim Chief Officer
cc. Mr Mark Pearce, 12 Strathallan Crescent, Queens Promenade, Douglas, IM2 4NR
## The Town And Country Planning Act 1999
### The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019
Mr Tim Luft
78 Priory Park
Belfast
BT10 0AG
In pursuance of her powers under the above Act and Order/Regulations, and under delegated powers from the Minister for the Department of the Environment, Food and Agriculture, Dr Michelle Haywood, MHK does hereby in the name of and on behalf of the Department REFUSE planning application 21/01468/B by Mr Tim Luft for Erection of 6 detached houses and associated parking - Land South Of Leyton Victoria Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 6AQ for the following reason(s):-
### Reasons For Refusal:
1. 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 privacy. In this way the terms of IMSP Policies GP2, EP3, EP42, SP3, SP4, SP5 and the RDG would be unacceptably compromised.
2. Whilst the site is within an area designated for Residential use on the Area Plan for the East, the development will result in the definite loss of a substantial number of mature trees of category B classification, as defined by BS5837:2012 on site, without adequate provision made for their replacement within the site, and would result in the removal of more mature trees and canopy cover, whilst encouraging further removal of trees, which would result in a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the site and area. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to General Policy 2 (f), and Environment Policies 3 and 42.
3. It has not been demonstrated that the development could be undertaken without creating significant adverse impacts on the ecology of the site or biodiversity as insufficient information has been provided to indicate how the development could be sensitively integrated on site, without resulting in net loss of biodiversity. It is therefore, considered that the intensity of the development coupled with the lack of provision made within the scheme to address biodiversity concerns would be contrary to the requirements of General Policy 2 (d),
Environment Policies 4 and 5 of the Strategic Plan, as well as, Strategic Objective 3.3 Environment (b), and habitat loss action 21 of the IoM Government Biodiversity Strategy.
4. The siting, height and design of Plot 2 which is proposed as part of the development would result in overbearing impacts, unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy to the dwelling to the south (Sunny Cottage), contrary to General Policy 2 (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and the Residential Design Guide 2021.
Date of issue 14th June 2023
By Order of the Minister
Redacted
Mr S Stanley
Interim Chief Officer
Note 1: A copy of the report of the appointed person is appended hereto.
Note 2: All parties should note that there is no prescribed right of appeal relevant to the Minister's decision herein and accordingly the only right of challenge is by a petition of doleance brought to the High Court of Justice of the Isle of Man. Such doleance proceedings required to be issued promptly and in any event within 3 months.
Note 3: The letter which accompanies this notice forms part of the notice in accordance with Article 13 (3) of the Town & Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019.
[Table omitted in markdown export]
THIS DRAWING IS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ADDITIONAL DRAWINGS BY KELLY-LEWTHWAITE BUILDING DESIGN LTD, 200 WG WL2021484 INCLUDING THE SUPPLEMENTARY SUPPORTING INFORMATION PREPARED BY MERRIE MENDEE HAWA RESTS THIS MANAGEMENT. REF 02000 DATED: JAN 2020, MERRIE SUPPLIER CONSULTING ENGINEERY REPORT REF 74621, DATED DEC 2003, AND MERRIE SHE POWER VERIFICATION PLANNING CONSULTANT PLANNING STATEMENT DATED FEB 2020.
SITE SAFETY & PRELIM WORKS:
CONTRACTOR IS PREPARE SITE FIRM WORKS TO ENSURE ADEQUATE CONSTRUCTION HASARD CONTRACT ARE IN PLACE IS RECEIPT EQUIPMENT OF AFFECTED SPACE, WASTE IMPACT OF WORKS, SAFETY SCAUSE TO BE FUE IN PLACE, GOODANCE/COGNITION/PROTECT SERVICES CHANGING SITE OF PROPOSED WORKS TO APPROPRIATE EFFICIATE REQUIREMENTS, SHEET SUITABLE, SAFETY MANUFACTURERS TO RESTRICT EMBRYO/REDEVY ACCESS, AND TO PREVENT ELECTRICAL/ENG SELECTS, TO PROVIDE SITE SPECIFIC INFO RE LOCK, HANDHOLD, TO CHECK PLANT & EQUIPMENT ARE IN SAFE WORKING ORDERS, PROVIDE ACCESS SITE FOR STORAGE OF MATERIALS, TO ENSURE SITE INSPECTING THROUGH FOR NEW PERSONAL/CONTRACTORS, TO ENSURE USE OF PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT & CLOTHING, SAFETY HARMSIDES ETC IS SUITABLE FOR WORK.
[Table omitted in markdown export]
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.
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.
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.
- 75. 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 noncompliance with the terms of the License in establishing an area of mitigating planting as detailed in the License, which would be of value to reestablish 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.
- 76. 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.
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.
- 77. 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
- 78. 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.
- 79. 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.
- 80. 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.
- 81. 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.
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.
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
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.
- 2. 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.
- 3. 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.
- 4. 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
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.
- 7. 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.
- 8. 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
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.
- 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.
- 14. 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.
17. 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.
Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the site and amenities of the surrounding area.
End of Schedule
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
75. 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.
76. 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.
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.
77. 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
78. 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.
79. 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.
80. 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.
81. 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.
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.
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
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.
2.
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.
3. 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.
4.
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
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.
7.
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.
8.
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
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.
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.
14.
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.
17. 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.
25
Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the site
and amenities of the surrounding area.
End of Schedule
---
*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/88404-braddan-leyton-replacement-dwelling/documents/1142080*