**Document:** Officer Planning Report Recommendations **Application:** 11/00528/B — Erection of a replacement dwelling **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2011-06-22 **Parish:** Braddan **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/876-braddan-36-king-replacement-dwelling/documents/1247303 --- # Officer Planning Report Recommendations ## Planning Report And Recommendations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Considerations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Written Representations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Consultations [Table omitted in markdown export] ### Officer's Report #### The Application Site And Proposed Development The application site comprises the residential curtilage of a detached dwelling that is located on King Edward Park in Onchan. The proposed development comprises the erection of a replacement dwelling. The application is being considered by the Planning Committee due to the local authority objection. #### Planning History The application site has been the subject of one previous planning application that is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: Planning application 10/01711/B sought planning approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling on the application site. This previous planning application was refused on the 8th March 2011. #### Representations Onchan District Commissioners recommend that the planning application be refused on the grounds they consider that the proposals do not respect the site and surroundings in terms of their scale, form and design, and would adversely affect the amenity of the neighbour. The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose the planning application. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority do not oppose the planning application. The owner and/or occupant of 64A Harbour Road, which directly adjoins the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the revised proposal does not overcome their previous issues and they still believe it represents an over development of the site that is of a design that is out of keeping with the area. ### Planning Policy In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being within predominantly residential use under the Onchan Local Plan. Policy O/RES/P/21 of the written statement (Planning Circular 1/2000) that accompanies the Onchan Local Plan states: "Extensions and alterations to existing residential property will generally not be opposed where such proposals are appropriate in terms of scale, massing, design, appearance and impact on adjacent property." In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains one policy that is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: - (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; - (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; - (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; - (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; - (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; - (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; - (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; - (h) provides 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) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; - (j) can be provided with all necessary services; - (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; - (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; - (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and - (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption." ### Assessment The planning application seeks planning approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling on the application site. The proposal seeks to address the previously refused planning application (10/01711/B) and was the subject of pre-application discussion with the applicant's agent. The application site is double fronted with aspect onto both King Edward Park and Harbour Road. The existing dwelling contained within the application site is positioned with the two gable ends facing onto these two different sides, an orientation that is repeated with the proposed dwelling. As can be seen on site there is a significant difference in the form and design of the properties that adjoin the application site on the two different sides. It is considered reasonable to suggest that this position makes redevelopment of the application site more difficult than first thoughts would suggest. The proposed dwelling remains orientated with both gable ends onto King Edward Park and Harbour Road. In terms of size the footprint of the proposed dwelling is similar to that of the existing dwelling. Whilst the proposed dwelling appears significantly taller than the existing dwelling on the submitted drawings it can be seen through a lowering of ground level on site the actual increase in height is limited to a ridge level increase of 1.25 metres above the ridge level of the existing dwelling. In terms of assessment the three main issues to consider are i) impact on public amenity; ii) impact on private amenity; and iii) impact on highway safety. In respect of impact on public amenity it can be seen the surrounding area contains a variety of dwelling types of differing sizes. The proposed dwelling is designed for the application site and to that extent is a unique design. Whilst there is no intrinsic reason why a unique design cannot be used within a residential area it is still necessary to consider the merits of individual design and how such design would fit into its surrounding area. In this instance, it is evident that the applicants have attempted to balance the desire to provide the maximum amount of habitable accommodation against developing a dwelling of appropriate size and design for the application site. The earlier attempt to achieve this through previous planning application 10/01711/B was concluded to be awkward and ultimately unacceptable. The revised proposal is considered to be much more sympathetic to the character of the surrounding area and an acceptable approach to bridging the difference between the King Edward Park and Harbour Road. The impact of the proposed development on private amenity is considered to be acceptable. The overall increase in height compared to the existing dwelling is not as great as first appears on the drawings and, as such, any loss of light is unlikely to be significantly greater than the existing situation. As for the effect on privacy, although the proposed development includes two elevated balcony areas it can be seen that these would overlook areas that are already publicly visible. Their impact is therefore considered not to be significant enough to warrant refusal. As for impact on highway safety the proposed development is concluded not to unduly harm highway safety, with vehicular access arrangements remaining basically the same as existing. This conclusion is supported by the representation from the Department of Infrastructure Highways Division. Overall, the proposed development is concluded to satisfactorily accord with the provisions of Policy O/RES/P/21 of Planning Circular 1/2000 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. It is recommended that the planning application be approved. ### Party Status It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status: Onchan District Commissioners; and The owner and/or occupant of 64A Harbour Road. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should not be afforded interested party status: The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division; and The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority. [Table omitted in markdown export] C 2. This approval relates to drawing no.s P01, P02 rev. B, P03 rev. A, P04 rev. A and P05 rev. A date stamped the 13th April 2011. I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Authority in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005 Decision Made: _____________ Authority Meeting Date: _____________ Signed: _____________ Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Authority 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/876-braddan-36-king-replacement-dwelling/documents/1247303*