DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No.: 22/01457/B Applicant: Mr Luba Novak Proposal: Demolition of existing garage and store and construction of new garage Site Address: Thie Awin Cronkbourne Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 4QH Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken: 17.02.2023 Site Visit: 17.02.2023 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 21.08.2024 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. By reason of the siting, scale, massing and height of that part of the garage nearest Cronkbourne Village, the proposal results in an unacceptable overbearing and adverse impact on outlook from those properties (No's 24 - 28 Cronkbourne Village) having an unacceptable amenity impact failing General Policy 2 (g) and the principles of section 7 of the Residential Design Guide. - R 2. By reason of the lack of information in respect of flooding, flood risk and surface water the proposal is considered contrary to General Policy 2 (d, j and l) and Environment Policies 10 and 13 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 3. By reason of the lack of information on trees the proposal is considered contrary to General Policy 2 (b, c, f and g) and the principles of Environment Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 4. By reason of the lack of information in respect of ecological matters, habitats and the wildlife corridor the proposal is considered contrary to Environment Policies 4, 5 and 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and contrary to the objectives contained within IOM First Biodiversity Strategy 2015-2025.

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

• DOI Flood Risk Management _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site relates to an existing detached dwelling known as Thie Awin. - 1.2 The site sits south of Cronkbourne Village (RB 092) and is access via a small shared lane from Ballafletcher Road. - 1.3 There are a number of mature trees throughout the site and around the entire curtilage and the River Glass runs the entire stretch of the eastern boundary. - 1.4 In the north east corner of the site and at the bottom of the sloping drive are two existing garden shed structures.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks to remove the existing shed and approval is sought for their replacement with a large detached garage and store building measuring approx. 26m long and approx. 12.6m at its widest stepped down to 6.9m at its narrowest facing into the garden. - 2.2 The building comprises three keys parts:

• o a one and half storey double garage nearest the northern boundary with a large front peaked gable approx. 9m wide and 7.2m to central ridge and 3.6m to eaves. Two garage doors are proposed to face into the driveway with a large apex picture windows above. The side elevation facing towards the back of Cronkbourne Village measures 12.6m and is to have a single pedestrian door and two high level windows. Three large roof lights are proposed on the north facing roof slope towards Cronkbourne.
• o A single storey garage and store building measuring approx. 17.2m long x 6.9m wide,

• 2.7m to eaves and 5m to central ridge. The front elevation is proposed to have another garage door, along with a number of smaller double doors, single doors and windows.

• At the rear infilling the corner is a flat roof extension 6.3m x 2.7m x 2.7 to eaves.

2.3 Annotation on the proposed drawings show external finished as smooth render, dark metal roof sheets and the "doors to be fitted with garadam flood barrier to base and to have proprietary flood barriers"

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 Planning has been granted previously for alterations and extensions to the main house. PA 87/00691/A was refused for the erection of a dwelling and garage within the garden. There is a concurrent application 24/00847/B seeking approval for the removal of the existing garden buildings and erection of a replacement implement storage building. - 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The application site is within an area zoned as:

• o "Predominantly Residential" identified on the Area Plan for the East (Douglas map).
• o within the 2016 Flood Risk Study Area (Map1b)

• o On recent flood maps as being at low/medium surface water flood risk and the river and immediate banks being at high river and tidal flood risk.
• o Within an area containing registered trees (Map 1a) although the site itself does not contain any specific registered trees or tree areas.
• o The river and its banks are recognised as being part of the Wildlife Site 3776/001.

4.2 IOM Strategic Plan 2016 - relevant parts:

• Strategic Policy 1 - make best use of existing sites o Strategic Policy 2 - new development in existing settlements o Strategic Policy 4 - protect registered buildings and their setting, and protect areas of special designation o Strategic Policy 5 - development to have design making positive contribution o General Policy 2 - general standards towards acceptable development o Environment Policy 3 - no loss or damage to woodland areas o Environment Policies 4 and 5 - protection of species and habitat o Environment Policy 7 - no harm to watercourses o Environment Policies 10 and 13 - flood risk o Environment Policy 42 - designed to take account of locality, removal of open spaces not permitted o Paragraph 8.12.1 - works to existing residential properties

4.3 Other material considerations

• o Permitted Development Order 2019 - Class 17 Garages
• o The Residential Design Guide July 2021 - Sections 2.0, 3.1, 6.0 and 7 in respect of local distinctiveness, sustainable construction, wider site context and impact on neighbours and how be to consider and assess.

REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 Braddan Parish Commissioners - no comments received as of 09/08/2024.

5.2 DOI Highway Services - do not oppose (30/11/2022) - no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking.

5.3 DOI Flood Risk Management - Do Not Oppose Subject to Condition (12/12/2022) - the building is on the edge of a flood zone and FRM recommend that flood mitigations are employed. These comments followed from an original objection dated 28/11/2022 stating the proposed building is in a flood risk zone and no flood risk assessment (FRA) has been provided. Floor levels should be shown in relation to the Douglas 02 levels along with details of displacement of the proposed building. No planning should be granted until an in depth FRA has been received and reviewed.

5.4 DEFA Ecosystems - OBJECTION (07/12/2022) - the proposal results in the loss of a number of trees and the site is directly along a wildlife corridor. The proposal will result in net loss for biodiversity and for which there is no justification provided. The tree removal and habitat loss is highly likely to negatively impact wildlife. While the arboricultural statement indicates replanting this information is not detailed within the application. In addition to strategic plan policy reference they outline the proposal would be contrary to action 21 of IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015. If planning are minded to approve a Preliminary ecological appraisal is sought as a prior to condition, preferably this should be provided before any planning decision is reached.

5.5 DEFA Inland Fisheries - no objection (30/12/2022) - they also highlight that the applicant should ensure no harmful materials enter the river and as the river is high value migratory fish spawning area that exterior lighting not directly illuminate the river.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues to be considered in the assessment of this application are:

• o Principle
• o Visual impact on site and surrounds including setting of Conkbourne RB
• o Amenity impact on neighbours
• o Highway safety impact
• o Flood risk impact
• o Impact on trees
• o Impact on ecology

6.2 Principle

• 6.2.1 Detached garages are not uncommon within existing residential curtilages and the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2019 recognises this at Class 17 so long as their erection meets the specified conditions as to its size, scale and design and that there remains only one within the curtilage. In this case of this application the proposed garage is significantly larger and also would be the second within the site (existing integral garage within the house). Nevertheless there is a principle in favour of residential development within residentially zoned areas (8.12.1 and GP2 of the IOMSP) subject to their visual and amenity impact on the surroundings and the neighbours.

6.3 Visual Impact

• 6.3.1 The garage is quite large with an overall footprint of nearly 250sq m. Although installed with three garage doors on the front and a number of other access doors and windows, the overall arrangement, including the first floor apex feature glazing and the 6 roof lights give a more domesticated appearance. The existing dwelling is two storey and with an overall footprint around 410sq m. The topography of the site means the main dwelling sits higher that the proposed garage and given its scale is likely still to be read as the primary building with the garage secondary, although the tallest part of the garage with the apex glazing does challenge this to degree.

• 6.3.2 The siting of the garage within the curtilage and clustered amongst existing built development in this area of Douglas means there is no unacceptable spread of development. The setback nature of the site means that there is fairly limited public view and the vegetation along the river also limits views from Tromode Road.
• 6.3.3 Overall the proposed garage is considered to have an acceptable visual impact on the site and surrounding area in line with 8.12.1 and General Policy 2 (b, c, g).
• 6.4 Amenity Impact in Neighbours.

• 6.4.1 The garage is to be set in the lowest part of the site and this helps to minimise any impact to the main house, and also to The Fieldhouse, Cronkbourne House and Cronkborne Place due to the change in levels and distance between them. The properties to be most affected are those much smaller terrace dwellings forming part of Cronkbourne Village and which back onto the site.

• 6.4.2 There are around 5 dwellings towards the end of the terrace which would be closest to the proposed garage. The distance between their rear elevations to the nearest side of the garage would be between 10m - 16m. The terrace sits on the northern side of the site and although there is a rear access lane and an intervening boundary wall between them and the site, its height still allows views of the roof of the applicants existing garden shed (seen during site visit dated 01/02/2023). The proposed garage would sit in place of the existing shed and

• would be notably taller to its eaves 3.6m and 7.2m to central ridge. It would also be considerably longer (12.6m).
• 6.4.3 The proposed garage sits within the sun path being located south of the terrace. Minded that this existing terrace already sits within the dip of the land where trees already limit some daylight levels, it is considered that the nearest section of the proposed garage being 12.6m long and up to 7.2m tall and in fairly close proximity would further result in a reduction to daylight levels here and having an overbearing impact on the rear of the terrace as well as a negatively impacting overall outlook from those 6 dwellings in the bottom corner.
• 6.4.4 By reason of the one and half storey height part of the garage and its siting in close proximity to the rear of the terrace dwellings, the proposal is considered to have an unacceptable overbearing impact on the neighbours and to harm their overall outlook contrary to General Policy 2 (g) and the principles of the RDG section 7.
• 6.5 Highway Safety Impact

6.5.1 The garage is within the existing curtilage and set back considerable distance from the main highway. The garage is to serve the main house and so no expected increase in traffic or movements beyond the existing situation, and there are no changes proposed to any access. The proposal is not considered to result in any new or increased adverse impacts on the highway beyond the existing situation of the single dwelling and is acceptable in respect of General Policy 2 (h and i).

6.6 Flood Risk Impact

6.6.1 The site is within a high surface water area and close to the river where there is high flood risk. The proposed drawings indicate and annotate some mitigation flood protection barriers for doorways. Although there is no flood risk assessment (FRA) provided for the application, DOIFRM have updated their comments from an objection to 'do not oppose' subject to the mitigation being installed.

• 6.6.2 There are however still some reservations as to the flood risk impacts and how surface water will be dealt. The application form indicates that surface water will be dealt by soakaway however no details have been provided including any percolation results. These issues were raised in an email to the agent on 23/02/2023 yet no details have been received to date. The proposal results in a large area of surface compared to the existing permeable garden area and there is no understanding as to whether the proposal would result in any increased flooding on or off site. Minded of the negative findings for other parts of the application and lack of response from the agent to date, it was not felt reasonable to delay the determination any longer to ask for this information. As part of any subsequent application this should be considered by the agent and addressed accordingly as part of detailed FRA.
• 6.6.3 The lack of flood risk detail and surface water services weighs against the proposal contrary to General Policy 2 (d, j and l) and Environment Policies 10 and 13.

6.7 Impact on Trees

• 6.7.1 The application is provided with a tree survey dated 2018. The 'existing plans and elevations' drawing provided includes an existing site plan on which a number of trees are shown although does not seem to correlate with the existing site plan. The site plan annotates the two sheds to be demolished and two small trees to be removed, the same plan also annotates one tree 'licensed to remove' although no evidence to demonstrate this.

• 6.7.2 The tree survey outlines several recommendations for the removal of a number of trees however the submitted plans only seek removal of two 'small trees', one of which appears to be recognised as tree no. 2019 in the tree report and a category B tree in good condition and to be retained. There is some confusion between submitted information and the tree report and this was raised with the agent but no response or clarification received. Also raised was

the lack of information in respect of tree protection for the trees being retained, especially minded of the close proximity of the garage and the potential to impact on their root systems, including any potential soak away as well as the lack of tree replanting mitigation.

• 6.7.3 Although not a designated woodland, nor individually designated registered trees, nor recognised as being within a formally designated registered tree area, Map 1a shows the site as washed over with registered tree area and trees form part of the character of this particular area. The lack of clarity as to the true impact on trees and lack of any replanting mitigation and tree protection weighs against the proposal contrary to General Policy 2 (b, c, f and g) and the principles of Environment Policy 3.

6.8 Impact on Ecology

6.8.1 Inland fisheries have confirmed no objection, however there remains lack of clarity as to the potential for any surface water entering the watercourse and any potential issues this may or may not have. The application is not provided with any completed 'development within

• 9m of watercourse form' to understand the full potential impact and this weighs against the proposal contrary to Environment Policies 4, 5 and 7.

• 6.8.2 The site itself is not within the formally designated nature conservation zone, however it directly adjoins it, and this zone is recognised as being a key wildlife corridor where the loss of a number of trees would result in a net loss of biodiversity and this highly likely to negatively impact on wildlife. No preliminary ecology appraisal has been provided and no mitigation for any loss of trees or habitat is provided. As it stands there is a lack of clarity between the plans and information submitted as to the trees on site and what is and isn't to be removed and what impact this will have on ecology contrary to Environment Policies 3, 4 and 5 and objectives within IOM First Biodiversity Strategy 2015-2025 and this weighs against the proposal.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposed detached garage, while consistent with the overall principle of residential development in the area and would not result in any highway safety issues, the proposal raises significant concerns across various aspects. Although its visual impact is deemed acceptable, the garage's size, height and proximity to neighbouring properties in Cronkbourne Village is likely to have an overbearing effect, reducing daylight and negatively impacting their outlook. Additionally, unresolved issues regarding flood risk, surface water management, and the potential adverse effects on trees and ecology further weigh against the proposal.

7.2 The above issues collectively render the proposal contrary to General Policy 2 (b, c, d, f, g, j, l), Environment Policies 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 13 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and the principles outlined in the Residential Design Guide and IOM First Biodiversity Strategy 2015-2025. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

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 above 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 a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Refused Date: 22.08.2024 Determining officer

Signed : C BALMER Chris Balmer Principal Planner

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.