**Document:** Planning Officer Report
**Application:** 12/00533/B — Erection of dwelling with garage
**Decision:** Permitted
**Decision Date:** 2012-05-30
**Parish:** Braddan
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/2666-braddan-plot-23-new-build-garage/documents/1169187

---

# Planning Officer Report

### Officer's Report

[Table omitted in markdown export]
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF A PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBER.

### The Application Site

1. The site is the curtilage of Plot 23, Murrays Lake Drive, Mount Murray, Santon, which is a parcel of undeveloped land situated on the eastern side of Murrays Lake Drive and south of the Mount Murray Hotel Complex. The site is adjacent to a pair of semi-detached dwellings (Nr 24 & 25 Murrays Lake Drive) which are to the south of the site.

### Proposal

2. The application seeks approval for erection of dwelling with garage. The proposed dwelling would be two storeys in height, with a total width of 11.9 metres, a depth of 8 metres and a ridge height of 8.1 metres.

3. The proposal would be sited 2.8 metres from the gable end wall of Nr 24 and set 3 metres forward of the front elevation of this neighbouring property. Parking would be provided by a driveway (length 10 metres& width 3 metres) and a single garage attached to the main dwelling house, giving a total of two off road parking spaces.

### Planning Policy

4. The application site is within an area zoned as "Tourist Accommodation in Parkland" identified on the Braddan Local Plan 1991. Despite this, the site has approval for residential purposes and is now a residential area of some 180 properties.

5. The Spatial Distribution Policies within the Strategic Plan set out the hierarchy of settlements, indicating that Douglas will remain the main employment and service centre for the island, with other towns as supporting service centres. Some large villages are identified as service villages where appropriate increase in employment and housing should be provided to meet local needs. Newtown, within which Mount Murray is classified as not within any of those service villages and consequently Spatial Policy 4 set out that these villages should maintain the existing settlement character and be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities. Area plans will define the development boundaries.

General Policy 2 provides for development in accordance with the land-use zoning but provides good planning criteria upon which all development should be assessed. Of relevance here is:

The development should...

- (b) respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
- (c) not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
- (d) not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
- (g) not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
- (h) provide satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
- (i) not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
- (j) be provided with all necessary services;
- (m) take account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
- (n) be designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

Other relevant policies are

Business Policy 10: Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exceptions of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas...

Community Policy 1: Where relevant and appropriate, there should be provided by the developer of new or expanded residential areas, community benefits in the form of neighbourhood centres.

Community Policy 2: New community facilities should be located to serve the local population and be accessible to non-car users, and should where possible re-use existing vacant or underused buildings.

Community Policy 4: Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable.

### Planning History

6. The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:-

Erection of dwelling - 01/02047/B – REFUSED at appeal on the following grounds:- 'Given that the application site represents the last vacant plot on this phase of the development and one on which approval was granted in 1994 for a shop, the Planning Committee consider that the applicants have not demonstrated that need no longer exists for a shop in this location within the development.'

Erection of dwelling - 99/00582/B - REFUSED on the following grounds:-
'Whilst the proposal now submitted does not prejudice the maintenance of the public sewer, it is considered that the applicants have not adequately demonstrated that no need exists for a shop on this site.'

Erection of two semi-detached dwellings - 98/01531/B – REFUSED on the following grounds:-

1. 'The proposed dwellings as sited do not achieve the minimum distance of two metres from the existing sewer, this may prejudice the maintenance of that public sewer which in the original site layout passed through public open space.'
2. 'The application site was previously proposed as a village shop; the Planning Committee is of the opinion that a shop is a necessary facility for the development at Rowan Woods, given the number of properties to be served and the distance from any other facility, and the development of the site with housing would be detrimental to the amenity of existing and future occupiers of Rowan Woods.'

Change of Plot 24 to provide village shop (NOW PLOT 23) - 94/01060/C – APPROVED – application has expired.

### Representations

7. Santon Commissioners have objected to the proposal which can be summarised as; site was originally expected to have a shop on; previous applications were refused; it is scarcely credible that an estate with hundreds of residents should not satisfactory support a small general/convenience store and such a facility would seem to be a real necessity; and Santon has grown quiet significantly in size in terms of housing and population and has lost its filling station, school, post office, general store, public house and Methodist Church and therefore desperately needs infrastructure and a shop at Mount Murray would be a start in the right direction.

8. The Highways Division have no objection to the application as the proposal has no adverse traffic management, parking or road safety implications.

9. The Water and Sewerage Authority have no objections to the proposal.

10. The Manx Electricity Authority make no comments on the merits of the application but ask for an informative note is attached to any approval.

### Assessment

11. It is considered the following issues need assessing;

1. potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the street scene;
2. potential impacts upon neighbouring residential amenities; and
3. loss of a potential neighbourhood shop.

Potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the street scene

12. The design, finish, proportion and form of the proposed dwelling follow the lines of the existing properties within the Mount Murray Estate. The neighbouring properties which the proposal would relate to most are the semi-detached properties to the south of the site (6 pairs of semi detached properties). It should be noted that whilst the proposal is a single detached dwelling, in terms of its width, depth and height it is very similar to each pair of semi detached dwellings in terms of massing. Consequently, when read in the street scene it is considered the proposal would be an appropriate form of development, in keeping with the street scene.

13. Perhaps the proposal being set forward of Nr 24 front elevation by approximately three metres is the most contentious issue with regards to the appearance of the proposal in the street scene. It is important to note that the majority of semi-detached properties (Nrs 27 to 35) which make up the building line along the street are set forward of Nr 24 front elevation and of the front elevation of the proposed dwelling. Consequently, it is not considered the proposal would have a significant impact upon the visual amenities of the street scene to warrant a refusal on this ground.

Potential impacts upon neighbouring residential amenities

14. The neighbouring property most likely to be affected is Nr 24 which is to the south of the application site. Generally the three main issues which need consideration are loss of light, overbearing impact upon outlook and/or overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy.

15. Within the gable end of the neighbouring property there are no windows which face towards the application site. The front windows of the neighbouring property could potentially be affected by the proposal, namely due to the forward projection of the new dwelling. Using the 45 degree guideline, which helps to determine the potential impact upon the outlook from a neighbouring property (measured from midpoint of neighbouring window), the proposed dwelling would be set behind the 45 degree line. Consequently, the distance between the two properties and the siting to the north of Nr 45 (sun orientation east to west), it is considered the proposal would not have significant impacts upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring property, complying with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

Loss of a potential neighbourhood shop

16. As indicated within the history section of this report, there is a long history of applications to building a dwelling/s on the site to replace the previously approved shop unit. Currently, there are approximately 180 properties (dwellings and apartments) within the Mount Murray complex. Currently there is no shop/retail unit which serves any of the properties within the complex. Originally, the plot had been approved for housing, but the site gained approval for a shop unit under application 94/01060/C. These approvals have since expired.

17. The applicants have indicated that at no time before or since the last refusal has the site been purchased to take advantage of a commercial opportunity to provide a shop or post office. The applicants have also indicated that the plot was marketed by the estate's developer in 1998 as being available for sale as a village shop and more recently (December 2010 and February 2012) advertised as a 'Convenience Style' shop, again on the open market through a local estate agent (Chrystals). Visiting the web site the application site is valued at £99,500 and indicated as being sold, presumably due to the applicant purchasing the site.

18. The applicants have also provided a letter from Chrystals indicating that they advertised the property between December 2010 and February 2012 indicating it was zoned for commercial neighbourhood development and planning approval had been obtained for such use. They indicate that:

"It is not terribly surprising that we should experience limited demand for the sale for commercial purposes. It lacks a main road position, and would be a stand-alone unit in an otherwise residential area. The opening of a new general retail unit would probably involve trading through several years losses before the turnover and increased to the level where it became viable, and since the credit crisis in September 2008 it has been difficult to obtain finance for such ventures."

19. Community Policy 1 is a relevant policy to consider as this indicates that where relevant and appropriate, there should be provided by the developer of new or expanded residential areas, community benefits in the form of neighbourhood centres. Paragraph 10.6.2 of the Strategic Plan indicates that local shopping/neighbourhood centres are; "typically described as local centres, usually comprise a newsagent, a general grocery store, a sub-post office and occasionally a pharmacy, a hairdresser and other small shops of a local nature." Arguably this is perhaps why the proposal may not be finically viable given it is a stand-alone unit and has not the benefit of attracting a footfall that a neighbourhood centre might.

20. It is reasonable to consider that the majority of residents (and population on the IOM - Spatial Policy 1) of Mount Murray work within Douglas. There are a number of

supermarkets/retail units within the town centre and on the outskirts of Douglas centre (Tesco, Shoprite, Marks & Spencer, Iceland, Co-ops, Spar and number of smaller retail units) which are available to the residents, especially when travelling too/from work, lunch times and at weekends. The Commissioners make a relevant point that whilst the population in Santon has increased, services such as a filling station, school, post office, general store, public house and Methodist Church have all been lost and Santon has become a "dormitory suburb". The applicants counter argument to this point is that supports the view that these one-off units are no longer viable. It should be noted that since the previous applications the Isle of Man Strategic Plan has been adopted and within this Spatial Policy 4 would support this view indicating that Newtown (adjacent and closest settlement to Mount Murray) "should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities". Spatial Policy 1 & 2 indicate that Douglas will remain the main employment and service centre for the Island and Ramsey, Peel, Port Erin, Castletown and Onchan will be Service Centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services.

21. Whilst undoubtedly a local shop could provide increase convenience for local residents, it is likely that there is insufficient population within walking distance to support a local convenience store. The estate agents views seem reasonable, and whilst viability is not always a planning consideration, if there is little or no likelihood of the site being taken up for this use, there needs to be reconsideration as to whether such a facility is absolutely necessary.

22. It is perhaps relevant to consider that there are no objections from local residents in the Mount Murray estate for the proposal.

23. Overall, it is considered the proposal is a finely balanced application. Whilst the Planning Authority preference would be for a shop unit on this site, the authority also has to be realistic to whether such a unit is justified and a necessity. In this case given the relevant Spatial Polices identified within this report and the reasons indicated by the applicant in terms of limited demand for the site since its approval 18 years ago, it is considered the proposal for a dwelling on this site is an appropriate form of development.

### Recommendation

24. Overall, it is considered the proposal would comply with the relevant policy of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan therefore it is recommended that the application be approved.

### Party Status

25. It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should be afforded interested party status:

Santon Commissioners

26. It is considered that the following do not meet the criteria of Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (d) and should not be afforded interested party status:

The Manx Electricity Authority

The Water and Sewerage Authority

27. The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.

## Recommendation

**Recommended Decision:** Permitted

**Date of Recommendation:** 21.05.2012

### Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This approval relates to the erection of dwelling with garage as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07 and 08 all received on 3rd April 2012.

C 3. Prior to the occupation of the approved dwelling the driveway and garage are to be completed as shown on drawing 02 to allow on-site parking provision for two vehicles and be retained thereafter.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

**Decision Made:** [Handwritten signature]
**Committed Name:** [Handwritten name]
**Committed Place:**
**Signed:** [Handwritten signature]
**Presenting Officer:** [Handwritten initials]

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate **Yes/NO**

---

*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/2666-braddan-plot-23-new-build-garage/documents/1169187*