Officer Report 11/01484/A

Application No.:	11/01484/A
Applicant:	Mr David Corris
Proposal:	Approval in principle for the erection of two semi detached dwellings with attached garages and one detached dwelling with an integral garage
Site Address:	16 & 16A Marathon Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4HL

Officer's Report

Introduction

1. This application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a two semi detached dwellings with attached garages and one detached dwelling with an integral garage 16 and 16A Marathon Road, Douglas.

The Site

1. The application site is the curtilage of 16 and 16 A Marathon Road, Douglas. The site has a frontage onto Marathon Road and extends to the south east with its rear boundary fronting onto Victoria Road. The building sits at the north western end of the site. To the south is the detached property Clarecourt and to the north is The Chapel House.

1. The existing building is split level as a result of the slope of the land. The Marathon Road elevation is single storey and the rear, Victoria Road facing elevation is two storeys. The boundaries shared with Clarecourt and The Chapel House are planted with mature trees and hedging. The south eastern boundary of the site has a stone wall in the middle of which is an opening which at the time of visiting the site was closed off with timber boarding.

1. The boundary onto Marathon Road is defined by a stone wall. At the northern corner is a vehicular access which leads to a sloping driveway.

The Proposal

1. This application seeks approval in principle for the erection of a two semi detached dwellings with attached garages and one detached dwelling with an integral garage. The existing dwelling would be demolished. Access to the site would be taken from Marathon Road. The submitted site plan shows the footprint of a pair of semi detached dwellings with attached garages on either side. These would be orientated so that their front elevations would face toward the side elevation of The Chapel House and their rear elevations would face onto the side elevation of Clarecourt. The plan is annotated "2no. three bedrooms semi detached with single attached garages". A further dwelling is proposed at the other end of the site. This would use the same access from Marathon Road which would pass the front of the semi detached dwellings. The plan annotates this property as being "1no five bedrooms detached with single integral garage."

Case Officer:	Mr Steve Stanley
Photo Taken:	18.12.2011
Site Visit:	18.12.2011
Expected Decision Level:	Officer Delegation

1. The application form sets out the following:

"Although there are no trees on the site, there are a number of trees along the boundaries with the adjacent properties. As this application is for 'approval in principle' the implications for the trees will be discussed at 'approval for development' should this 'approval in principle' be successful.

Development Plan Policies

1. The application site is located within an area of Predominantly Residential use by the Douglas Local Plan. Within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, the following policies are judged to be relevant:

General Policy 2, which 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."

Paragraph 7.34.1, includes the following:

"Backland development" (which is development on the land at the back of properties) may also be acceptable in some circumstances, but only if satisfactory access can be achieved and if there is sufficient space to provide adequate amenity for both new and existing adjoining dwellings."

Environment Policy 42, which states:

"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. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."

Transport Policy 4, which states:

"The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."

Planning History

1. The following previous planning applications are considered relevant to the determination of this proposal:

05/92258/B - Alterations, erection of a first floor extension over existing bedroom to provide additional bedroom and bathroom and enlarge existing vehicular access. Permitted.

10/01854/A - Approval in principle for the erection of two blocks of six apartments to replace existing dwelling. Refused for the following reasons

R1.

The proposed development would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that

• the proposed development would not be able to provide a satisfactory level of car parking within the development. Therefore, the future occupiers of the development would have to rely on parking on the public highway which will lead to an increased demand for on-street spaces and will lead to increased noise and general disturbance to the existing residents of Marathon Road, and;

• The application does not provide a suitable access with the required visibility splays for a development of this scale, which would be detrimental to highway safety.

R2.

The indicative layout would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Recreation Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that:

• the development does not provide adequate amenity space and open space provision within the proposed layout. In the absence of details showing how the required level of on-site open space could be provided, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development could accommodate the required level of open space along with any amenity space; and

• it proposes a hardstanding area between the apartment blocks, which would create a poor residential environment for future occupiers of the residential units and would result in a poor form of development to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality.

R3.

The indicative layout would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that its siting, design and layout would result in an unsatisfactory living environment for the future occupiers of the apartments as the separation distance between the two apartment blocks would allow overlooking and loss of privacy to occur.

R4.

The indicative layout would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 by reason of its siting and design in that it would result in

• harm to the residential environment of Clarecourt in terms of loss of privacy and the development being overbearing and visual intrusive;

• harm to the residential environment of The Chapel House in terms of loss of privacy, overshadowing, loss of light, being overbearing and visual intrusive;

• harm to the residential environment of No's 50, 50a, 50b and 52 Victoria Road in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy; and

• the introduction of an incongruous and unsympathetic development in the street scene which would detract from the character of the area to the detriment of the visual amenities of the locality.

R5.

The proposed development would be contrary to Housing Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the applicant makes no provision for any affordable housing within the scheme.

Representations

1. The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure has deferred this application stating "There is insufficient information to evaluate the application in respect of access, parking, visibility and turning arrangements. Minimum visibility splays of 2.4 x 35 metres are required in both directions over land within the ownership of the applicant. Entrance to the shared driveway needs to be a minimum of 4.5 metres wide."

1. Douglas Borough Council does not object to this application. They comment on the drainage of the proposal site stating that they have no objection in principle subject to the development being connected to the main public sewer.

1. The owner/occupiers of 52 Victoria Road, Douglas object to the proposed detached dwelling but not to the proposed semi-detached dwellings. It is stated that the area is already crowded with houses and flats.

1. The owner/occupier of 56 Victoria Road, Douglas does not object to the proposed semi-detached properties but does object to the proposed detached dwelling as it, it is stated, would require access from Victoria Road.

1. Mrs B Cannell MHK has expressed concerns regarding the proposal stating that the semi-detached properties are not objected to in principle but that the detached dwelling would be development on a green field site, spoiling the visual effect of the street scene and potentially imposing on the privacy of the dwellings situated on the opposite side of Victoria Road. This is stated as being undesirable and over-intensive.

Assessment

1. The key issues to be assessed in the determination of this application are the principle of residential development on the site, impact upon adjacent properties, impacts upon the surrounding area, the amenity of the proposed properties and highway considerations.

1. The application is in principle only and as such detailed matters of siting, design and the external appearance of the proposed dwellings would be assessed as a reserved matters stage if this application were to be approved. However the proposal is for a specific number of dwellings and due to the size and shape of the site and the proposed access, certain elements of the proposal such as the indicative siting of the buildings and the route the access would take, form part of the consideration as to whether the development would be acceptable in principle.

1. The site is within an area that is designated for residential development by the extant Douglas Local Plan. As such the principle of residential development on the site is accepted and indeed the existence of the existing dwelling on the site demonstrates this. However the proposal seeks to increase the number of dwellings and the resultant layout which raises a number of issues.

1. The site is rectangular in shape and slopes from Marathon Road down to Victoria Road. The width and length of the site is such that in order to position three dwellings on it requires a tandem layout, in this case the two semi detached properties would be laid out with one

below the other and access running to one side of the site. This layout raises a number of issues. Firstly the semi-detached dwellings are shown as being sited close to the boundary shared with Clarecourt and with their rear elevations facing onto the side elevation of Clarecourt. This layout has been derived from the need to provide an access from Marathon Road to the detached dwelling proposed at the Victoria Road end of the site. The amenity of the semi-detached properties would be characterised by a poor outlook from their rear elevations and little daylight. They would have a very small useable private garden area dominated by the side elevation of Clarecourt. Secondly, this layout would result in the side elevation of the semi-detached dwelling facing onto Marathon Road. This would result in a poor relationship with the highway. In addition to these concerns, the access road serving all of the properties would have to pass at close range to the semi-detached properties, causing noise and disturbance and undermining their amenity and privacy. The layout would also result in limited private outdoor space to serve the semi-detached dwellings. Furthermore, due to the position and orientation of the semi-detached dwellings, they would have a poor relationship with other dwellings, in particular their rear elevations would overlook, and be overlooked by Claremont at close range.

1. The Highways Division has commented that the plans do not demonstrate the required visibility over land in the control of the applicant. Having assessed this, it would appear that it would not be possible to achieve the required splays. This further undermines the acceptability of the proposed scheme.

Recommendation

1. On the basis of the information submitted, it is concluded that the proposal is unacceptable as it would result in harm to the amenity of Clarecourt, would provide an unacceptable level of amenity for the proposed dwellings, would undermine the character of Marathon Road and would not provide satisfactory access arrangements and as such would prejudice highway safety.

Party Status

1. It is considered that the following parties, who submitted comments, accord with the requirements of Planning Circular 1/06 and are therefore, afforded Interested Party Status:

• Douglas Corporation
• The owner/occupiers of 52 Victoria Road, Douglas
• The owner/occupier of 56 Victoria Road, Douglas

1. Accordingly the following parties are not granted Interested Party Status:

• Mrs Brenda Cannell MHK does not have sufficient interest under the provisions of Planning Circular 1/06 to be afforded Interested Party Status.
• The Highways Division and the Planning Authority are both part of the Department of Infrastructure. As such, the Highways Division cannot be afforded Interested Party Status.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 24.01.2012 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

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

• : Notes attached to refusals

R 1. The proposal would represent inappropriate backland development which would result in a poor standard of amenity for the proposed properties, contrary to Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

R 2. The proposed layout would have an unacceptable impact upon the streets cene of Marathon Road in that in order to provide an access to the property to the rear, the proposed semi-detached houses would have to be orientated so as to be gable end on to the highway. This would fail to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, specifically parts (b) and (c).

R 3. The development would cause unacceptable harm to the amenity of Clarecourt due to the proximity of the proposed semi-detached dwellings to the south eastern boundary of the site. As such the proposal would fail to comply with General Policy 2 part (g).

R 4. As far as it can be ascertained from the information submitted, it would not be possible to provide the required visibility splays at the proposed access and as such the development would prejudice highway safety contrary to Transport Policy 4.

I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning Officer.

Decision Made : Refused Date : 1 February 2012

Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed : ... Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer

Signed : ... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control

Signed : ... Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer

Signed : ... Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager