Officer Report

Application No.: 15/01081/B Applicant: Shaun Buckley Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling Site Address: Land Adjacent To Westdene Croit E Quill Road Laxey Isle of Man Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 06.01.2016 Site Visit: 06.01.2016 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE GIVEN THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE AND ALSO BECAUSE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS OBJECTED WHILE THE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is a parcel of land that is located on the eastern side of Croit-e-Quill Road, adjacent its junction with Ballacollister Road in Lonan. From Croit-E-Quill Road, the site slopes away quite significantly to the southeast and, although it is characterised by its well-treed surroundings the site itself does not benefit from very much vegetation. To the south lies the bungalow known as 'Westdene', the owners of which also previously owned the application site.

2.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 2.1 The principle of a dwelling was refused on this site under PA 07/00905/A but six years later, under PA 13/91346/A, was approved in line with the officer's, Planning Committee's and, ultimately, Planning Inspector's recommendations. The 2013 application was approved with the following eight conditions:

• C 1. Details of the access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning & Building Division before any development is commenced and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.
• C 2. The development hereby permitted shall be begun either before the expiration of four years from the date of this approval or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters.
• C 3. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Planning & Building Division 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 as approved.

• C 4. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 2, above, shall include details of:

• (a) the provision to be made for the parking and turning of vehicles within the site.
• (b) the surface treatment of any roadways and other parts of the site which will not be covered by buildings.
• (c) all external materials to be used in the development.
• (d) visibility splays.
• (e) existing and proposed ground and floor levels.
• (f) foul and surface water drainage.
• (g) a landscaping scheme that pays specific regard to boundary treatment.

• C 5. For the avoidance of doubt, plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in condition 4(a), above, shall provide for no fewer than two car-parking spaces within the land identified with a red line on the Untitled Site Plan and the Untitled Location Plan.
• C 6. Prior to the commencement of any development an additional parking space must be provided at Westdene (within the blue line identified on the Untitled Site Plan and the Untitled Location Plan).
• C 7. There must be no discharge of surface or foul water to any ditch or watercourse.
• C 8. There must be no discharge of surface water (directly or indirectly) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s) so as to comply with the requirements of the Isle of Man Water & Sewerage Authority and the Sewerage Act 1999.

2.2 One other dwelling has been approved near the site in the past under PA 11/00952/B, which is to the southern side of Westdene. This dwelling is now complete.

3.0 THE PROPOSAL - 3.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a dwelling on the site. The dwelling provides for accommodation over three storeys but from the highway appears as a bungalow with converted roofspace (three rooflights are shown). The main entrance to the dwelling would be on the middle storey, which would provide the main living accommodation plus one of the three bedrooms. The remaining two bedrooms would be provided within the roof space, which is partially hipped. The lowest storey would provide a 60sqm garage, family room and garden room, the latter of which opens out over the garden to the rear. - 3.2 The dwelling design is bespoke for the plot and offers some traditional finishes - natural Manx stone, slate, render - along with more contemporary features such as floor-to-ceiling glazing panels and timber cladding. There are quite significant levels of glazing to the rear, which overlooks the garden area in this direction. - 3.3 The application has been submitted with a tree-planting plan. It is limited in scope but can be understood. The trees within the site that have approval for removal have been so removed, leaving a treed boundary. This is proposed to be added to with a range of shrubs and tree species well-suited to hedging. - 3.4 Some artist impressions of the proposed dwelling have been provided, although these are not wholly realistic.

3.5 Although the application was originally submitted seeking approval for those matters reserved from the Approval in Principle, the MUA subsequently advised that they did not have concern with regards the discharge of surface water into the adjacent ditch and so the applicant provide a scheme that met with Condition 7 attached to that AiP. There were other matters that did not quite meet with the information required under Condition 4 as well, and with all that in mind it was considered appropriate to alter the description of the application to 'Full', following which the application was re-advertised. There is sufficient information on which to reach a judgement on the application.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being of predominantly residential use under the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005. There are two policies within the Area Plan Order that are of relevance to the current application. Policy L/RES/PR/1 states:

"Residential development will generally only be approved within the study area in those areas designated as proposed and existing residential. In particular, in the case of Agneash no further dwellings will be approved although, as will be the case in areas zoned as residential, alterations and extensions to existing property may be accepted if such proposals are sympathetic to the character and appearance of both the building to be altered and the surrounding area in general."

4.2 L/OSNC/PR/6 states:

"With the exception of the felling of trees planted for commercial purposes, there will be a general presumption against the removal of trees within the study area including instances where this is proposed in order to facilitate development."

4.3 It is appropriate to consider General Policy 2, Environment Policy 42 and Housing Policy 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. - 4.4 General Policy 2 states (in part): "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:

• (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;

• (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, and (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding."

4.5 Environment Policy 42 reads in full: "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". - 4.6 Housing Policy 6 reads in full: "Development of land which is zoned for residential development must be undertaken in accordance with the brief in the relevant area plan, or, in the absence of a brief, in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 6.2 of this Plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive".

Paragraph 6.2 of the Strategic Plan contains General Policy 2, the relevant extract of which has been provided above.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Highway Services within the Department of Infrastructure commented as follows on 30th September 2015:

"Nothing must be planted or erected within the agreed sightlines, approved under application No. 13/91346/A which may exceed 1.05 metres in height."

They re-confirmed these comments on 26th November 2015.

5.2 Lonan Parish Commissioners recommended the application be refused on 21st October and 16th December 2015; their latter comments added slightly to their previous matters of concern, which in totality comprise the following:

• o There have been no changes in circumstance to the site in question that would alter the Board's original decision to oppose development here on the grounds that it would be contrary to L/RES/PR/1 and L/OSNC/PR/6 of the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order and also Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan;
• o The proposal constitutes over-development on a site that has restricted access, other dwellings and a nearby stream;
• o The proposed access represents a hazard to road safety given the multi-junction nature of it at this point of a narrow road;
• o The dwelling will overlook the properties below to the prejudice of their privacy;
• o The proposed style and size is too large for the area and is out of keeping with the surroundings - the roofing is considered to be inappropriate, and
• o The development is potentially harmful to what is a designated wildlife and woodland corridor, and no information has been provided with respect to the earth displacement necessary to accommodate the building.

5.3 The owner / occupier of 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey, objected to the application on 14th October 2015 (at which point the application was seeking approval for the matters reserved rather than a full application), with their specific points of concern being as follows:

• o The lack of a detailed topographical survey of the site;
• o The lack of information regarding the removal of soil and re-shaping of the land required;
• o The finishes of the proposed house in terms of walls and windows;
• o Drainage plans;
• o Assessment of how the proposal will impact on existing trees, which is especially important given that part of the site is a designated wildlife / woodland corridor;
• o The footprint is larger than that approved under PA 13/91346/A;
• o The use of a semi-mansard roof will be over-powering on the adjacent properties to the south and south east, and
• o On a site where the land levels step down from the neighbouring Westwood, one would expect the proposed roof levels to do the same.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The acceptability of the principle of a new dwelling has been firmly established. What remains for consideration is the detail of the dwelling now proposed: issues of highway safety, surface water runoff, design of the proposed dwelling, trees and wildlife, and neighbouring living conditions all need to be addressed.

• Design of the proposed dwelling
• 6.2 As noted, the design is bespoke to the site and, as a general principle, this is welcome. Moreover, the design would fit within the streetscene on this side of the highway, which is characterised by bungalows with hipped roofs to a greater or lesser degree. This is not considered to be a pre-requisite for the acceptability of a new dwelling here, though it is not an unacceptable approach by any means. Significant glazing and an overhanging roof above the gable feature proposed for the frontage of the bungalow hint at the very contemporary approach taken at the rear, but it would be difficult to argue that the front elevation would be inappropriate for the streetscene.
• 6.3 The applicant was encouraged to consider a design that reflected the heavily vegetated nature of the site and exploit this. While the form of the dwelling does not offer a particularly clear architectural treatment, and the use of varying roof styles is perhaps a little clumsy, and partMansard roofs in particular can be difficult to design well, it is compact and well-proportioned and would sit comfortably on the site. The use of clean, contemporary materials, and in particular plenty of glass and timber, is appropriate for a site that is fairly dark because of its being surrounded by trees. The use of timber cladding would help the dwelling fit in with this well-treed site. It is concluded that the design is appropriate to the site and streetscene in which it would sit and, as such, complies with Environment Policy 42 and parts (b) and (c) of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. Impact of the proposal on neighbouring living conditions
• 6.4 In the first instance, it is noted that no occupiers of neighbouring dwellings have lodged comments in respect of the application.
• 6.5 It cannot be ignored that there would be a significant level of glazing in the new dwelling at that this would obliquely face "Beechwood" to the south from a fairly significant height. The impact could potentially be overbearing and also result in a loss of privacy to that dwelling. The decking that extends around the rear elevation would be roughly 5m higher than the land at Beechwood, with the nearest corner of that decking just over 8.5m away.
• 6.6 Normally, this relationship might be considered sufficiently close and uncomfortable to warrant an objection to the proposal. However, there are two reasons why this is not considered the case here. Firstly, and of greatest significance, there is only one window in the side elevation and on the ground floor, which given its small size would appear to either serve a bathroom or be a secondary window. As such, there will be very limited loss of privacy within Beechwood; its gardens lie to the front and rear of the property and given the angle at which they lie relative to the proposed dwelling would not be sufficiently overlooked to a degree that would warrant the application's refusal.
• 6.7 Secondly, and this is of much less significance, there are some notable trees within the site and also to the front and rear of Beechwood, the former of which are within the control of the applicant and the latter Beechwood, that help to soften the impact of the new dwelling. Less weight is given to this as tress can - with the appropriate licence - be removed at any time, but it is noted that there are trees outside of the control of the applicant such that the issue with regards loss of privacy or overbearing would, at least in part, be able to be controlled by the occupiers of Beechwood.
• 6.8 Similarly, and given the number of trees in the area, there would be limited loss of light relative to the existing situation resulting from the erection of the proposed dwelling.
• 6.9 Turning to the impact on the neighbouring Westdene, it is noted that there are two windows and a door with a glazed panel facing onto the application site. It is understood that the previous applicants on this site no longer reside at the property and have no interest in the application site -

• were they still directly involved with the site then some material weight could be given to this in considering the relationship between Westdene and the proposed new dwelling.
• 6.10 There would be five windows in the western elevation, one of which would serve an en-suite bathroom and two a sitting room at middle storey level (that is, similar to ground floor level of Westdene), and a further one serving an en-suite bathroom and another serving an associated dressing room on the floor above. It would not be inappropriate to require the bathroom windows be obscure glazed (indeed, this would be likely in any case), as well as that of the dressing room. Those serving the sitting room would be further back than the windows in the side elevation of Westdene and so might face more directly into the rear elevation, but they are fairly limited in size in any case - 0.9m by 0.7m.
• 6.11 It is considered that the relationship between these side elevations would, at 7m, again be a little uncomfortable for occupiers of both the dwellings but not so sufficiently as to warrant the application's refusal. A condition requiring the two bathroom windows be obscure-glazed would help improve this relationship and is recommended accordingly. The fact that the ridgelines of the two dwellings would be identical is such that there would be limited overbearing impacts or loss of light - again, regard needs to be had to the existing tree cover on this point - and so no objection is raised on this point either. It is also to be noted that a new line of trees would be planted between the two dwellings.
• 6.12 The dwelling known as "Newtown", opposite to the site, sits 15.5m from the proposed dwelling and also noticeably higher than it; a band of trees also runs along the highway in Newtown's garden. These points are all sufficient to conclude there would not be a sufficiently uncomfortable relationship between the existing and proposed dwelling to warrant the application's refusal. Highways access and parking proposed
• 6.13 The access is in a different position to that which is existing but this is not in itself considered to be a negative point. The visibility that can be achieved is the maximum that could be achieved in the westward direction (the only direction from which vehicles could be travelling since this is a one-way road) given the curve of the highway. Highway Services are content subject to a condition requiring nothing be allowed within the visibility splay of a height greater than 1.05m. The drawing showing the visibility splay is, much like the rest of the application, fairly basic, but the splay is visible and measurable and a condition to that end would be appropriate and could be enforced against, even if the vast majority of land falling within the visibility splay forms either the driveway or public highway.
• 6.14 There is more than sufficient parking shown, both in the form of the garage and the parking area shown, as well as a parking bay for itinerant visitors such as postmen or bin lorries. Scale of development relative to the site
• 6.15 In view of the conclusions reached in respect of the proposed design, the impact on neighbouring living conditions, and also the quality of the access and availability of parking, it is also considered that the proposal does not represent over-development. There would be sufficient garden land, and also other outdoor space in the form of two terraces, along with sufficient parking land, sufficient to conclude that the site is capable of supporting a dwelling of this size. A smaller dwelling would have been preferred in this respect, and also in respect of the impact on neighbouring living conditions, as this would quite likely have resulted in a more comfortable relationship between the existing and proposed dwellings. However, while this may have been preferred, it is not what has been submitted, and the conclusion has been reached having regard to all the matters discussed that the proposal does not represent over-development. Trees and wildlife

6.16 While concern raised with respect to the site as being within a wildlife corridor is understood, this issue was considered by the Inspector considering the Approval in Principle, concluding that: "…the site is sufficiently large for this part of the site to remain undisturbed as garden land."

The dwelling proposed is not within this area, although the new access appears to be positioned on part of this piece of land. In view of the lack of concern raised by the Senior Biodiversity Officer in respect of the proposal, or that previously submitted on the site, it is considered that this is not of sufficient concern to warrant an objection to the application.

6.17 As noted, the site no longer has many trees within it; those at the boundary remain. While it is possible that occupants of the proposed dwelling would seek to have some trees removed, a condition attached to a planning approval could prevent that. Moreover, the additional tree-planting proposed would help reinforce the well-treed location. The planting plan, though quite basic in detail, demonstrates a welcome intention and conditions relating to the implementation of this would be appropriate. There has been no objection from the Forester; in view of all of this, it is considered that the application is acceptable in terms of its impact on trees and the general treeplanting and landscaping proposed. Surface water runoff - 6.18 The Manx Utilities Authority stated in an email to the applicant following the application's submission that they would have no objection to the discharge of water into the nearby stream. This is therefore not considered to be a concern.

7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 The proposal has been a difficult one to assess. A dwelling of the size and positioning proposed has a number of benefits but also raises a number of concerns. None of the concerns is considered sufficient on its own to warrant the application's refusal, but it can also be the case that the sheer weight of concern overall indicate that the way a scheme has been approached is not appropriate. - 7.2 In this case, however, and while the approach taken has been somewhat piecemeal and lacking coherency, it is considered that the resulting impact from the proposed dwelling, associated tree-planting and site access would be satisfactory when considered against the key policies of the Development Plan, which here has included both the Area Plan and the Strategic Plan. Some conditions are considered to be required to ensure the proposal remains acceptable, and these are recommended accordingly.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• o Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material;
• o The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; and
• o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated

as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.

In this instance, it is considered that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and should not therefore be awarded the status of an Interested Person:

• The owner / occupier of 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey, which sits approximately 0.58km northeast of the application, are not near enough to be materially affected by the proposal.

- 9.0 POST-PLANNING COMMITTEE UPDATE

9.1 The Planning Committee noted that though there was specific protection for the retention of trees on the site in the recommended Condition 4, an additional condition requiring protective fences be installed and retained during the construction works to provide greater surety with respect to the protection of those trees.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 06.01.2016 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. The existing trees as shown on Drawing 4, date-stamped as having been received 18th November 2015, shall be retained. Any trees that, within a period of five years from the date of this approval notice, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Department. Reason: In order to provide an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
• C 3. The proposed planting as shown on Drawing 4, date-stamped as having been received 18th November 2015, shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved. Any trees or plants indicated on Drawing 4 that, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Department. Reason: In order to provide an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
• C 4.

The proposed bathroom windows on the northwestern elevation facing the dwelling currently known as "Westdene" shall be glazed with obscure glass to Pilkington Level 4 or equivalent and permanently retained as such.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers from overlooking and loss of privacy.

• C 5. The visibility splay as shown on Drawing 5, date-stamped as having been received 18th November 2015, shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, and shall thereafter be kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050mm in height above adjoining carriageway level. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
• C 6. No site works or clearance shall be commenced until a plan showing the intended location of protective fences which conform with British Standard 5837:2012 (or any British Standard revoking and re-enacting British Standard 5837:2012 with or without modification) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. No site works or clearance shall be commenced until those protective fences have been erected in accordance with that plan and unless and until the development has been completed these fences shall not be removed and the protected areas are to be kept clear of any building, plant equipment, material, debris and trenching, and there shall be no entry to those areas except for approved arboricultural or landscape works.

Reason: To safeguard the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.

The development hereby approved relates to the Site Location Plan, the Elevation Sheet, Drawing 6 ad Drawing 7, all date-stamped as having been received 24th September 2015, and also Drawing 1, Drawing 2, Drawing 3, Drawing 4 and Drawing 5, all date-stamped as having been received 18th November 2015.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Approved Committee Meeting Date: 18.01.2016

Signed :E Riley Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See Paragraph 9.0 above

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.