Loading document...
"3.18 The influence of Arts and Crafts is seen in a variety of other developments in the area, as found in Tennis Road and Sartfell Road. The Arts and Crafts approach to architecture seems to have injected local designers and builders with a confidence to introduce their own ideas, as well as adapting those of others. It should also be remembered that illustrations of house designs would be readily available in publications such as Country Life, or The Builder during the period when this area was undergoing major development." PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a pair of 4 bedroom semi-detached dwellings. 2.2 The built form would measure; 11.8 m long wide high to the ridge. Each building would measure an external footprint of . 2.3 The appearance would be four stories high with additional accommodation utilised within the roof space. The design would see projecting pitched gables to the front elevation with centrally positioned windows. The proposed finish would see Upvc windows with Georgian bar glazing, painted smooth render and natural slate tiles. Each dwelling would have a front garden area bounded by a low masonry wall with only pedestrian access to the fronts. 2.4 The internal layout of each of the terraced dwellings would be slightly different with one half having an integral garage access from the rear lane. Vehicle parking would be provided to the rear of the property. 2.5 This application has been through various consultations and pre-application discussion prior to determining. ## Planning History
3.1 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning application that is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential" identified on the Douglas Local Plan 1998. The property sits with the Selborne Drive Conservation area. 4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application; 4.3 Spatial Policy 1 states: "The Douglas urban area will remain the main employment and services centre for the Island." 4.4 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services." 4.5 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." 4.6 Strategic Policy 10 states: New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car;
4.7 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:
4.8 Environment Policy 35 states: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development." 4.9 Environment Policy 42 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." 4.10 Housing Policy 4 states: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:
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.
5.1 Douglas Borough Council has no objection (25/11/17) 5.2 Highways Services have commented (15/06/18) recommending refusal on account of; "the proposal fails to provide two off road parking spaces per flat in accordance with Appendix 7 of the strategic plan and Manual for Manx road and no justification is made for an exemption in this case"; "Manual for Manx Roads recommends garages are not counted towards the overall parking provision, unless conditioned to retain the use as a garage for storage of vehicles"; "Tennis road is a residential street with double yellow lines on one side, and
controlled parking on the other, restricted to two hours between 8am-6pm on weekdays"; Highways Services recommends refusal of this application as it does not provide sufficient car parking as required by Transport Policy 4 and General Policy 2(h) of the strategic plan. 5.3 The arboricultural officer has commented (28/12/17) to confirm the removal of the 6-7 conifer trees will be noticeable but not considered to be detrimental, they have outgrown their location. The existing three broad leaf trees however are more of an asset to the area, but there are concerns on how these will be protected during construction, and also their root structure will be affected by the ground works. Also compounding the problem are neighbouring trees,(outside of the application site) whose roots will be under the boundary wall and into the site, would be affected by the proposal. There is future potential for conflict when the trees reach maturity leading to shading and risk of damage to the building. It is their recommendation that an arboricultural impact assessment is needed in accordance with BS5837:2012 to demonstrate how they will be protected during construction and how this conflict will be avoided. Again on the (21/05/18) commented further regarding the need for a arboricultural impact assessment and tree protection plan, the generic tree protection information is not acceptable as a TPP. He feels the proposal is not compliant with the retention of trees. 5.4 A resident from "Ancrage" (19/01/18) have commented regarding the erection of two dwellings next to their house will cause a lot of noise and disruption to their lives. The building would block light to both the front and rear gardens. The proposal would add to the already congested parking area problem. 5.5 A resident from "The Loop" has commented firstly on (18/01/18) regarding the adjoining building that has fallen into a state of disrepair and is allowing vermin to enter the property. They also request further particulars of the building adjoining theirs. (25/05/18) regarding an access issue that has hindered the access lane, restricting access to their offices on Woodbourne Lane, Douglas.
6.0 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; (i) the principal of developing the site for residential purposes; (ii) the visual impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and street scene, including that of the neighbouring Conservation Area. (iii) potential impact on the neighbouring properties' living conditions in terms of overlooking, loss of light and over bearing impact. (iv) potential impact upon highways safety, (v) Potential impact upon the trees.
6.1 The application site is located within an area of residential properties within Douglas and the Selborne Conservation area. The underlying themes of spatial policy 1, strategic 2, and Housing Policy 4 are to ensure new development is within existing settlements and not in the open countryside. In turn, development of the site would meet the aims of Strategic Policy 1 making use of "under-used land" and being located close to existing shops that can be access by foot would comply with Strategic policy 10. In this instance, the principal would meet the criteria of those mentioned policies above and development of the site for residential use could be deemed acceptable on this basis in terms of complying with the broad spatial and strategic policies of the strategic plan. 6.2 Furthermore, given the above reasons, it is considered the principle of developing the majority of the site for residential purposes is acceptable in accordance with the land use designation. This is not an automatic reason to allow development as further material planning matters as explored below need to be considered to determine if the detail of the proposal for a pair of semi-detached dwellings on this site is acceptable.
6.3 In considering the context of the area, it has to be noted applications in the vicinity have previously been approved where a non-traditional approach was taken to their design. This proposal would seeks influence from those design attributes as approved under 16/00227 on the land adjacent to the application site, which saw redevelopment of the site from an undeveloped parcel of land, to a terrace of five new dwellings, two stories high with accommodation in the roof space and parking at the rear. It also has to be acknowledged the approved scheme above has not been built (at the time of the site visit) but each application is assessed on its own merits. 6.4 The overriding character of the area would indicate the height of the buildings is no more than three stories in height with accommodation being utilised with the roof space. By using modern day floor to ceiling heights, this proposal sits a full storey higher and has the appearance of four stories. Whilst this is not any higher than the adjacent building at No. 5 or Ancrage, the overall height of the building is not proportionate with those neighbouring properties and would visually appear at odds within the streetscene. 6.5 This design could appear to be overbearing given the narrow width of the plot by comparison to those semi-detached properties within the streetscene. This increase in height and floor spacing has placed the windows at irregular levels when compared to the neighbouring properties, which also appears at odds as it does not follow any rhythm. It could also be considered the density of two dwellings on this plot is too much, and from a plan view would be tight up against No. 5 to the east. 6.6 It is also important to note that Tennis Road does have a variety of properties and styles from a number of periods and arguably the introduction of the proposals could be appropriate for this part of the Conservation area. Unfortunately the proposed semi-detached dwellings do not follow the traditional nature of properties found along Tennis Road, nor do they offer a more contemporary take on the traditional appearance. The appearance and finish appears somewhat flat and lacking in any form or detailing on the window surrounds and doorways, unlike the other examples in the terraces within the streetscene and those already approved under 16/00227. 6.7 I consider that the proposal is contrary to policy GP2 (b) in that it does not respect the site and its surroundings in terms of layout, form, design and the landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them. The design would be seen as a cramped development on this site seeing a loss of green space associated with No. 5 contrary to EP42. Without doubt the proposal will have a harmful impact upon the character of the street scene contrary to GP2(c) and I struggle to see how the proposal would seek to preserve or enhance the conservation area in accordance with EP35 and could be considered inappropriate development for the reasons described above.
6.8 In terms of overlooking towards the properties opposite, namely No's 14 and 14a across Tennis road, these are located approx. 17 m away. It is not considered there to be any loss of privacy or overlooking on account there is already a degree of inter visibility from the neighbouring properties No. 5 and "Ancrage" and the outlook from this proposal would not be any different from the those properties, or would not be at odds with those along the streetscene. 6.9 In relation to overbearing impacts or loss of light to either of the neighbouring properties. The majority of the impact would be towards No.5, which is within the applicant's ownership. There are windows at a higher level and on each floor that would be deprived of outlook and importantly, day light. However, those windows present on the gable elevation are to be blocked up and on the rear roofscape the inclusion of two velux windows. It is
understood this room is a lounge of the top flat. The remaining rooms, per floor are bedrooms which also have windows to the rear. In any case the proposed development would be removing the existing amenity space for the flat which when combined with the above is deemed unacceptable and contrary to GP 2(g). 6.10 To the rear of the site is the detached building referred to as the "coach house", a further concern is the outlook from the study / guest bedroom window of one of the properties that would be blocked by the "coach house" at the rear which is only 2.0 m away. This particular relationship to the coach house could result in an oppressive and overbearing feeling for any occupants within this room. Furthermore the close proximity of this building to the application site, if approved would be seen to prejudice the use or development of this adjoining building / land referred to as the "Coach House" and is considered contrary to .
6.11 Highway Services have considered the proposal and have shared a number of concerns which are fundamental to the design of the proposal. As a result they have recommended refusal as per paragraph 5.2 of this report on insufficient parking provisions. On these grounds alone, the application would be contrary to GP2 (h) \& (i) and Transport Policy 4 for highway safety.
6.12 The comments from the arboricultural officer are taken into consideration from paragraph 5.3 and the understanding for conflict between existing trees and any proposed building, and the potential risk to trees outside of the application site are an important consideration. Whilst mitigating measurers could be implemented, the element of harm on the neighbouring property from the construction works and is considered detrimental to the streetscene. On this basis this aspect would be contrary to General Policy 2(c) and Environmental Policy 35 for its impacts on the streetscene and its existing character.
7.1 For the above reasons, the application is recommended for refusal.
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) 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; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision-maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made: Refused Date: 20.09.2018
Signed: S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
