Officer Planning Report 12/01526/B

Application No.:	12/01526/B
Applicant:	Mr Keith Vernon Sheppard
Proposal:	Demolition of existing property and erection of a replacement property to provide four apartments with associated parking
Site Address:	145 & 147 Royal Avenue Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 1LG

Officer's Report

The Application Site

1. The application site comprises a rectangular parcel of land located on the western side of Royal Avenue in Onchan, which currently contains a detached two storey building divided into two separate apartments. Vehicular access onto Royal Avenue already exists.

The Proposal

1. The proposal comprises the demolition of the existing property and the erection of a replacement property containing four 2 bedroom apartments. The proposed building is three storeys in height, although the third storey of accommodation is contained with the roof space. Each apartment has a private terrace on the rear of the building, with the rear garden being a communal shared space. Four on-site car parking spaces are proposed at the front of the application site, in the space between the proposed building and Royal Avenue.

Planning History

1. The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.

Planning Policy

1. 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/19 of the written statement (Planning Circular 1/2000) that accompanies the Onchan Local Plan states: "The erection of new residential properties may be permitted within areas designated for residential use where these would fit in with the density, massing, design and character of existing adjacent dwellings."

1. In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains two policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.

1. General Policy 2 states:

Case Officer:	Mr A Holmes
Photo Taken:
Site Visit:	14.01.2013
Expected Decision Level:	Officer Delegation

"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."

1. Transport Policy 7 states:

"The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."

1. Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 sets out parking standards. For apartments the relevant car parking standard is 1 space for 1 bedroom; 2 spaces for 2 or more bedrooms.

Representations

1. Onchan District Commissioners recommend that the planning application be approved.

1. The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division expresses an interest in the planning application. They highlight that under the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 the relevant parking standard is 2 spaces per unit, therefore the parking requirement for the proposed development is 8 spaces. They also highlight that the parking bay measurements of 2.5m x 5.5m within the proposed development do not meet current standards of 3.25m x 6 m. Furthermore, they state that the minimum entrance width for a shared access/drive as proposed is 4.1m but the proposal only measures 3.9m. Finally, they believe that the planning application needs to demonstrate that vehicles can manoeuvre in and out of the proposed spaces, and exit the drive in a forward gear.

1. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority do not object to the planning application.

1. The Manx Electricity Authority expresses an interest in the planning application. The subject of their interest relates to a non planning consideration that is not material to the assessment of the planning application.

1. The owners and/or occupants of 116 Royal Avenue, which is located opposite the application site across Royal Avenue, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposed development will result in undue loss of light and harm their privacy. They consider the proposal to be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area and have concerns over the car parking provision.

1. The owners and/or occupants of 143 Royal Avenue, which directly adjoins the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposed development is harmful to their private amenity, particularly in terms of overlooking. They consider the proposed development to be an over intensive use of the site that is out of keeping with the character of the area and also express concern over additional traffic generation. They also highlight concerns over the accuracy of the depiction of the culvert within the submitted planning application.

1. The owners and/or occupants of 149 Royal Avenue, which directly adjoins the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposed development is harmful to their private amenity, particularly in terms of loss of light, overshadowing and overlooking. They consider the proposed development to be an over intensive use of the site that is out of keeping with the character of the area and also express concern over additional traffic generation.

1. The owners and/or occupants of 18 Kerrocoar Drive, which directly adjoins the application site, object to the planning application. The grounds for their objection can be summarised as concern that the proposed development will unduly harm their private amenity, particularly in terms of overlooking and noise nuisance.

Assessment

1. The first issue to consider is the principle of residential development on the application site. In terms of this as stated earlier in this report the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as being predominantly residential use under the extant local plan. As the planning application proposes residential development in a residential area the basic principle of residential development is concluded to be acceptable. The main purpose of the planning application is therefore to consider the site specific impacts and acceptability of what is specifically proposed by the planning application. In terms of assessing the site specific impacts the key issues to consider are i) public amenity; ii) private amenity; and iii) highway safety and car parking arrangements.

1. In terms of public amenity the key issue is the acceptability of the appearance of the proposed development within the street scene. It can be seen that Royal Avenue contains a mixture of detached and semi-detached two storey buildings of generally similar heights. Whilst the character of Royal Avenue is reasonably well established by this pattern the actual design of buildings does vary. The planning application proposes to replace an existing detached building with a detached building of similar ridge height but greater site coverage. Taking account of this the effect of the proposed building within the street scene and therefore the impact on public amenity is considered to be acceptable.

1. When considering private amenity it is necessary to consider i) the acceptability of the proposed development on the private amenity of existing surrounding property; and ii) the acceptability of the private amenity of the proposed development. In terms of i) whilst the proposed building is larger than the one it replaces it is not considered that it would result in undue loss of light, overshadowing or overbearing on the existing surrounding properties. However, the proposed development includes the provision of upper floor balconies on the rear of the building. It is considered that these elevated balconies will result in unacceptable overlooking or an unacceptable perception of overlooking of the adjoining properties to the detriment of the private amenity of those properties. That is concluded to be grounds for

refusal of the planning application as this would be contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. As for ii) it is considered that the proposed development creates acceptable private amenity for the proposed apartments.

1. Under the provisions of Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 the proposed development requires 8 on-site car parking spaces. The planning application only proposes 4 on-site car parking spaces. Whilst there are instances where car parking standard can be relaxed it is not accepted that such circumstances exist in this case and a 50% shortfall in parking provision is concluded to be unacceptable. Furthermore, the layout of the proposed car parking raises questions over the actual viable use of all of those spaces. Specifically, as highlighted by the Department of Infrastructure Highways Division the sizes of the proposed spaces for this type of car parking and the width of the shared access/drive do not meet current minimum standards, which brings their viable use into question. It is also questionable whether vehicles using the proposed spaces could exit the site in a forward gear. In particular the effective turning head for the two spaces adjacent to the proposed building is likely to result in vehicles reversing off the application site or simply require unduly awkward manoeuvring that may limit their actual viability. This is concluded to be grounds for refusal of the planning application as the proposal would be contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. It could be said that the lack of car parking provision and restricted manoeuvring space actually demonstrates that the proposed development is an over intensive use of the application site.

Recommendation

1. It is recommended that the planning application be refused.

Party Status

1. It is considered that the following parties that made representations to the planning application should be afforded interested party status:

Onchan District Commissioners; The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority; The owners and/or occupants of 116 Royal Avenue; The owners and/or occupants of 143 Royal Avenue; The owners and/or occupants of 149 Royal Avenue; and The owners and/or occupants of 18 Kerrocoar Drive.

1. 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 Manx Electricity Authority.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 30.01.2013

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

• : Notes attached to refusals

R 1. The proposed development would cause unacceptable harm to the private residential amenity of existing residential property adjoining the application site. Specifically, the proposed elevated balconies will result in unacceptable overlooking or an unacceptable perception of overlooking of those adjoining properties to the detriment of their private residential amenity. As such, the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

R 2. The relevant parking standard for the proposed development under the provisions of Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 is eight spaces. By providing only four spaces the proposed development fails to meet that standard and is therefore contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 and Transport 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

R 3. The dimensions of the proposed car parking spaces fail to meet current minimum standards of 3.25m x 6m for this type of car parking layout and the entrance width fails to meet the current minimum standard width of 4.1m. Furthermore, it is not believed that all vehicles could enter and exit the site in a forward gear due to the limited manoeuvring space. As such, it is concluded that the proposed development is detrimental to highway safety and public amenity, thereby contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007.

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 : 3-1-13

Determining officer (delete as appropriate)

Signed : Samuel Anthony Holmes Senior Planning Officer

Signed : Samuel Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control

Signed : Samuel Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer

Signed : Jennifer Chance Development Control Manager