DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 21/00133/B Applicant: Michael & Natalie Hooper & Casson Proposal: Erection of two semi-detached dwellings and creation of new vehicle entrance Site Address: Land To Rear Of Glenlea Highfield Drive Baldrine Isle Of Man IM4 6ED Site Visit: 04.03.2021 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 16.04.2021

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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

• C 3. The visibility splays identified on drawing no. 1002-002 shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1.05 metres in height above adjoining carriageway level. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
• C 4. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the means of vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and shall thereafter be retained for access purposes only. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

• C 5. The boundary fencing and hedging as shown on drawing no. 1002-002 as approved, shall be erected/planted prior to the first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved and shall be retained as such thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Department.

Reason: To ensure the privacy of the occupants of Glenlea in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

• C 6. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, details of boundary treatment between the two proposed dwellings to the rear shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department, and shall be retained as such thereafter unless agree in writing by the Department.

Reason: To provide a suitable degree of privacy between the rear garden areas of the proposed dwellings in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

• C 7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
• C 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected or placed within the curtilage of any dwelling house forward of any wall of that dwelling house which fronts onto a highway, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
• C 9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no garden sheds or summerhouses shall be erected or placed within the curtilage of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
• C 10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no greenhouses or polytunnels shall be erected or placed within the curtilage of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
• C 11. The existing trees and hedges shall be retained in accordance with the approved details in drawing no. 1002-002 (received 11.02.21). Any retained tree or hedge which within five years of the approved development being occupied or completed (whichever is the later) dies, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced by a similar species, of a size to be first approved in writing by the Department, during the next planting season or in accordance with a programme of replacement to be agreed in writing with the Department. Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.
• C 12. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the Department, all tree/shrub planting, seeding or turfing proposed as per drawing no. 1002-002 (received 11.02.21) must be carried out in the first

planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwellings, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: the landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved

This approval relates to the following plans and drawings, received on 11.02.21:

• 1002-001 - Site Location Plan
• 1002-002 - Proposed Site and Site Section
• 1002-003 - Plans and Elevations as Proposed _______________________________________________________________

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

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article (4(2)):

Bramalea, Highfield Drive, Baldrine Woodford, Highfield Drive, Baldrine Lingmell, Highfield Drive, Baldrine Slieu Ruy, Highfield Drive, Baldrine Leithgate, Highfield Drive, Baldrine

as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2)):

Emscote, Highfield Drive, Baldrine

as it is not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION AS THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL IS CONTRARY TO WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE PLANNING OFFICER WHERE THE LEVEL OF SUCH VIEWS IS SUBSTANTIAL.

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site relates to an approximately 420m2 area of land currently constituting part of the garden to the west of Glenlea - a detached single storey dwelling within the centre of the

• Highfield Drive estate in Baldrine. Glenlea is also known as Saint Bees but is referred to as Glenlea in this report as per the submitted plans.
• 1.2 The site does not relate to any Registered Building and is not within a Conservation Area. It is within a Predominantly Residential area as designated by the Area Plan for the East 2020.
• 1.3 The site bounds Glenlea which sits to the rear (east), the two-storey dwelling of Lark Rise to the north, and the two-storey dwelling of Leithgate to the south. The street scene is varied, with detached dwellings spaced close together in modest plots to the west and north and larger plots with larger dwellings to the east and south.
• 1.4 The site is currently accessed from Highfield Drive from the west. It contains a number of small trees and some other planting, with hedging to the western (road) northern and southern boundaries. The site topography falls from south to north and west to east.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings to the western part of Glenlea. - 2.2 Each of the two dwellings would have a separate access, with the existing entrance used for dwelling A (northern) and a new access created for dwelling B (southern). A 6m x 3.2m parking space to the sides of each dwelling would be created, with an additional (minimum 4.5m deep) parking/turning area to the front. - 2.3 Existing boundary hedging would be retained to the northern and southern boundaries of the application site (with Lark Rise and Leithgate respectively). New hedging is proposed between the frontages of the two proposed dwellings, with fencing to the rear garden. The proposal would see some of the trees on site removed, with new trees planted throughout, including to the site frontages. - 2.4 The dwellings would be both set in 3.2m from the northern and southern boundaries, and would be set forward of the newly created 1.8m fenced boundary with Glenlea by approximately

• 6.5m, with a patio/lawn area between, along with some planted trees. An approx. 72m2 area would be retained to the rear of Glenlea, following the subdivision of the plot.

2.5 The dwellings themselves would be designed with an overhanging hipped roof with pitched front porch projecting by 1m. The dwellings would have a 1.5 storey appearance to the rear with a longer pitch to the roof and rooflights in place of first floor windows. First floor windows are proposed to the front elevation only. The dwellings would each be just under 7.9m deep, not including the front porch, and slightly over 6m wide. Ridge height as proposed is 7.7m, with eaves height between 5m and 4m. - 2.6 Both dwellings would have a brick chimney stack and would be finished in composite slate to the roof and a smooth render to the external elevations.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site falls within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Area Plan for the East 2020. Baldrine is classed as a Village within the Plan and spatial policy notes that development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and employment opportunities. Strategic Policy 2 also relates to the proposal, stating that new development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. - 3.2 Strategic Policy 5: New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.

3.3 General Policy 2 states that 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;

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

3.4 Housing Policy 4 follows Strategic Policy 2 and states that new housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans. - 3.5 Housing Policy 6 requires that development of land which is zoned for residential development 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. - 3.6 Transport Policy 1 sets out that development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes. Transport

• Policy 6 follows on from this and states that in the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users. Transport
• Policy 7 is relevant to parking and requires that all new development has parking provision in accordance with the current standards (set out in Appendix 7 of the SP).

3.7 Environment Policy 42: 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. - 3.8 Paragraph 7.34.1 of the Strategic Plan states that, "Every settlement in the Island has its own individual character and identity which needs to be conserved and enhanced. If such characteristics and qualities are not to be lost, any new development must be appropriate to the locale in terms of scale, siting, design, relationship with other buildings and land uses. Area Plans should identify important spaces within settlements, whether in the form of village greens, squares or areas which simply add to the attractiveness and interest of particular areas which have positive amenity value. It is important to the attractiveness and individuality of centres that over intensive development is avoided as well as the gradual merging of towns and villages in order to preserve a sense of identity and sense of place.

In terms of existing settlements, in both rural and urban areas, new development will be expected to follow the following design principles. Development will need to:

• i. be of a high standard of design, taking into account form, scale, materials and siting of new buildings and structures;
• ii. be accompanied by a high standard of landscaping in terms of design and layout, where appropriate;
• iii. protect the character and amenity of the locality and provide adequate amenity standards itself;
• iv. respect local styles; and
• v. provide a safe and secure environment.

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."

3.9 DEFA's Residential Design Guidance (2019) is a material consideration. This guidance notes in paragraph 2.7.2 that land is a finite resource and it is important to strike a balance between the need to make best use of land (i.e. by maximising densities, so that as many dwellings as possible can be provided on the least amount of land thus reducing the need to develop new areas) and the need to make sure that new developments are attractive and fit-for-purpose.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 20/00588/B - Creation of raised patio area, parking and vehicular access. APPROVED September 2020. This development has been largely completed and provides parking to the front of Glenlea, offsetting the proposed loss of parking and access to the west via the current proposal. This approval also included the creation of a raised patio amenity area to the front of Glenlea.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only. - 5.1 DOI Highways do not oppose the application, stating that the proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues, subject to a condition requiring highways access arrangements to be in accordance with the submitted drawing. (08.03.21). - 5.2 DoI Flood Risk Management have confirmed that there is no flood risk management interest in the application (30.03.21). - 5.3 DEFA Arboriculture Officer has been consulted and raised no concerns in relation to impact on trees (07.04.21). - 5.4 Garff Commissioners state that there was no consensus to object to the proposals, but several members requested that the Planning Authority consider whether there was adequate space at the site for the semi-detached dwellings, particularly in terms of adequate parking space and garden amenity (01.04.21). - 5.5 The owners/occupiers of six dwellings - Woodford 13.03.21), Lingmell (16.03.21), Slieu Ruy (23.03.21), Leithgate (31.03.21), Emscote (19.03.21) and Bramalea (13.03.21) in Highfield Drive, Baldrine object to the application. Reasons cited are summarised as follows:

• o Site notice is not in an obvious location/incorrectly displayed;
• o Overlooking;
• o Overdevelopment of the site;
• o Adverse impact on character and appearance of the area;
• o Design inappropriate to the context;
• o Covenants on the land and legal concerns;
• o Increased parking on the road;
• o Increased traffic flow;
• o Lack of amenity space;
• o Overbearing on 'Glenlea';
• o Car parking provision too limited;
• o Poor visibility from access;
• o Concern about cars using their property to turn;
• o Too large
• o Interfere with their on-street parking;
• o Not in keeping with the building line;
• o Loss of green space;
• o Plans do not accurately represent the neighbouring properties;
• o Will create a precedent;

• o Increased surface water flood risk;
• o Loss of trees and hedging;
• o Interrupt views of the sea from neighbouring properties;
• o Safety risk from increased traffic;
• o Queries relating to the previous planning approval on the site.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this planning application are:

• o Principle of the development
• o Visual impact on the character and appearance of the site and wider street scene
• o Residential Amenity
• o Future occupant living conditions
• o Highways and parking

6.2 Principle of development

• 6.2.1 The Area Plan for the East land use designation for the site is for predominantly residential use. The proposal would create 2 new dwellings in a residential area, contributing to housing provision on the Island. Therefore, the principle of developing the site for two dwellings is considered to be broadly acceptable in principle and in accordance with Strategic Policy 2 of the IOMSP.
• 6.2.2 The site is within the existing settlement of Baldrine and within walking distance of the bus network. It is considered a sustainable site suitable for development, subject to the detailed considerations below.
• 6.3 Visual Impact and Design

• 6.3.1 In considering the visual impact of the proposed development on the existing character and appearance of the site, regard must be had to the density and siting of the proposed development, site layout, scale and design.
• 6.3.2 The subdivision of the existing plot into three separate plots is firstly considered. The smaller Glenlea plot as retained would occupy around 60% of the total plot which currently runs the width between the east and west sides of Highfield Drive. As proposed, the Glenlea plot would be similar in size to Duncraggan, lark Rise and other nearby properties - albeit with a dwelling occupying a large footprint. The application site would constitute two smaller plots of land which would become the smallest plots with Highfield Drive. When considered as a whole, the application site is largely in keeping with the density to the western end of the estate.
• 6.3.3 In terms of the actual density of development and dwellings per hectare, the proposal would introduce a greater level of density than that seen through most of the estate. Visually however, the semidetached pair would occupy a site of similar width to most of the properties in the area, and the proposed density would have limited adverse visual impact. 3.2 metre spacing between the northern and southern boundaries and the sides of the dwellings would ensure a layout which provides suitable visual breaks between buildings reflecting the pattern seen in this section of Highfield Drive. The increased density is not considered likely to have a significant negative visual impact when the design and layout of the development is assessed - as set out below.
• 6.3.4 The dwellings would be set back from the road and follow a building line very similar to the adjacent dwellings. The front porch would project 1 metre further forward of this line but would not be the primary elevation. The front elevation of the dwellings would follow the established building line. The layout of the dwellings set back from and below the front boundary, and set in from the sides, would be similar to the detached dwellings to either side and would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the street scene. With regard to Glenlea itself, concerns have been raised in representations around the dwelling being too large for the curtilage. Visually, the size of the rear garden would not be a significant factor in the appearance of the site when viewed from the road, or on the street scene. Occupant amenity is discussed below in section 6.5.

• 6.3.5 The scale of the dwellings would also be appropriate to the street scene, with the ridge height of 106.7 metres AOD. For reference, Lark Rise to the north has a ridge height of 106.85 metres AOD and Leithgate to the south 107.14 metres. The height of the dwelling as proposed would respect the appearance and form of the surrounding built context. Similarly, the width and depth of the dwellings when viewed as a unit would be within the range of scales seen in this area of Highfield Drive, and smaller than Glenlea to the rear and dwellings with larger footprints to the east of the estate. The scale of the dwellings is considered appropriate for and in keeping with the area.
• 6.3.6 The retention of hedging and planting of trees to the roadside boundary, save for the creation of an additional access, would largely preserve the character and appearance of the street scene reflecting the mix of boundary treatment in the area and the prevalence of mature hedging and planting. The hedging between the two proposed dwellings, and the creation of an additional access, are the only obvious visual indications that the proposal is semi-detached, with entrance doors to the sides of the front porch contributing to a single-dwelling appearance.
• 6.3.7 The design of the dwellings themselves is similar to the two adjacent properties to the north and south - being two-storey, with modest first floor height and slightly overhanging eaves with hipped roof. The use of a slate type hipped roof with a render finish and brick chimneys and porches would be reflective of the architectural variety in Highfield Drive and would fit well visually with the surrounding dwellings on the western side. The fenestration layout would be largely traditional to the front elevations, and the use of brick sills would provide a degree of interest to the design. The use of a longer eastern pitch on the rear of the roof and a one-and-a-half-storey appearance, would reduce the visual impact of the proposal when viewed behind Glenlea from the eastern part of Highfield Drive, ensuring that the proposed development does not appear cramped or contrived within the site.
• 6.3.8 The overall density, layout, design, landscaping and materiality of the proposed development is considered to take appropriate cues from the surrounding built development and pattern of the street scene. It is considered that the proposal would not be incongruous with the character and appearance of the street scene and would not have a dominant appearance on the existing dwelling or surrounding dwellings. For this reason, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2, Housing Policy 6 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

6.4 Residential Amenity

• 6.4.1 General Policy 2 further requires that new development does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents. Further details of how residential amenity can be impacted are set out in the Residential Design Guide. The key aspects are overlooking (loss of privacy), overbearing (loss of outlook) and overshadowing (loss of sunlight).
• 6.4.2 With regard to overbearing, its is considered (as per section 6.3 of this report) that there would be sufficient spacing between the proposed dwellings and the surrounding dwellings so as to avoid any cramped or dominant appearance. The building would be a similar height to the neighbouring properties of Leithgate and Lark Rise, and with 3.2 metres to the boundary, coupled with further separation to the closest elevations of those properties. Space would be retained to the north and south to counter any overbearing risk, and in addition to the hipped roof design, would limit any overshadowing risk.
• 6.4.3 There would be between 10-11 metres between the rear elevation of the dwelling which would have an eaves height of 4.5 metres. The topography of the land is sloped down from the application site to Glenlea, west to east. Given the modest eaves height and the separation distance to the rear elevation of the Glenlea bungalow, there would be no severe overbearing on the occupants of Glenlea. There is likely to be some limited loss of light during the late evening hours on the rear amenity area of Glenlea as a result of the proposal. The property in question has a patio amenity area to the front however and would retain amenity space which would not be affected. No significant loss of light into the habitable rooms is likely given the separation distance.

• 6.4.4 Again regarding Glenlea, the risk of overlooking is considered - particularly given the ground level differences from west to east. The applicant has provided a diagram which indicates expected lines of sight between the properties which would be avoided through the erection of a 1.8m fence with hedging as proposed. Users of the gardens, patios and ground floor rear windows associated with the proposed dwellings would not have direct views into the ground floor windows or rear amenity space of Glenlea as a result of the proposed boundary treatment. This boundary treatment will be secured via condition prior to occupation.
• 6.4.5 No habitable room side elevation windows are proposed on either dwelling. No overlooking to the properties to the north and south would result. The existing boundary hedging to these boundaries would be retained, avoiding any severe overlooking from the proposed rear garden/patio areas to the gardens of the neighbouring dwellings.
• 6.4.6 The levels of activity and noise associated with the proposed development of two dwellings is unlikely to be unusual for a small housing development such as Highfield Drive. Disturbance during construction has been cited as a reason for objection, although it is not a material planning consideration.

• 6.5.7 Occupants of properties to the west of the road have raised concerns over a potential loss of sea views. General Policy 2 seeks to protect 'public views of the sea' (e). The proposal is within an existing area of residential development and would not introduce a height of development unusual for the area. Some private loss of sea view is probable, although public views of the sea are not considered likely to be affected.

6.5 Future occupant amenity

• 6.5.1 General Policy 2 requires development to have satisfactory amenity standards in itself. The proposed dwellings should have outdoor amenity space appropriate for the scale of the dwellings and the number of bedrooms - in this case, three.
• 6.5.2 Both of the proposed dwellings would have approx. 65sqm of patio and lawned garden to the rear. For a semi-detached three-bedroom dwelling, with good access to public footpaths, this is considered an appropriate level of provision.
• 6.5.3 The level of amenity space to the rear of Glenlea would be greatly reduced as a result of the development. The proposal has been considered with reference to the recently approved enclosed patio/amenity space to the front of Glenlea however (as referenced earlier in this report). The retained 140-160 sqm space to the rear and side of that dwelling, and the new 65sqm patio to the front, would provide sufficient outdoor amenity space.

6.6 Highways, Access and Parking

• 6.6.1 Parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 relate to the provision of adequate parking and turning space, and to highway safety. For a residential dwelling, the parking standard is two vehicle parking spaces.

• 6.6.2 Highways have reviewed the application and have confirmed that they have no objection. The proposal has provided one designated parking space to the side of each dwelling and adequate room for the parking of a second vehicle as well as turning space in the 'turning area' shown. The existing dwelling, Glenlea, also has two designated parking spaces to its front, permitted under planning application 20/00588/B. Therefore, the removal of the rear access and parking area of the existing dwelling for the development of the two new dwellings is acceptable. The proposed and existing dwellings all have adequate parking provision.
• 6.6.3 The application proposed the creation of a new access for the southern dwelling and the repurposing of the existing rear access to Glenlea for the northern dwelling. The Highways officer notes that visibility from the proposed access has only been provided for one dwelling, however, it is expected that a similar visibility of 38.5 and 16.75m can be achieved from the other access but reversed. A 2m setback length has been used in the drawings, which is acceptable for the low speed

• area the site is located. Highfield Drive appears to have high levels of on-street parking, which would result in reduced speeds from oncoming vehicles. The on-street parking situation is also referred to by neighbour representations on the application. Highways also note that visibility splays of similar lengths have been accepted on surrounding applications. With the above considered, the proposed visibility splays are acceptable.
• 6.6.4 A planning condition requiring access and parking to be provided in accordance with the approved plans prior to occupation is recommended on any approval decision. Furthermore, electric vehicle charging points would encourage the use of more sustainable transport options and support the Island's carbon reduction goals. There is sufficient space to the rear of the dwellings for the secure storage of bicycles. It is not considered necessary to condition the above, although the applicant is encouraged to provide these.
• 6.6.5 It is considered that the proposed access and parking arrangements are acceptable for the nature and scale of the proposal and the site context in accordance with General Policy 2 (h&i) and Transport Policy 7.

6.7 Other Matters

• 6.7.1 As the site falls from west to east, it should be ensured that surface water runoff from the proposed dwellings does not adversely affect Glenlea. An area of garden is proposed to the rear of each dwelling with a length of approx. 2 metres. This should act as a natural soakaway for surface water to the rear. Full drainage plans are controlled via building regulations and no objections have been received from DoI Flood Risk Management. There is therefore no significant flooding or surface water concerns identified which cannot be controlled through building control.

• 6.7.2 The case officer has consulted the DEFA Arboriculture officer on the loss of some of the trees on the site, the retention and protection of other trees and the planting of new trees as proposed and set out in drawing no 1002-002. The officer raised no concerns relating to the above, noting that the trees do not appear to be important amenity trees. Nevertheless, for the sake of the visual amenity of the street scene, conditions securing the planting of trees within the plots are recommended.
• 6.7.3 Concerns have been raised regarding the display of the yellow notice, namely the positioning of the notice. The applicant has advised that the yellow notice was posted to the front of Glenlea and was then moved to the rear (application site). A photograph has been provided confirming this, and it is considered that the notice has been on display, clearly visible to the public, for no less than 21 days.
• 6.7.4 Impact on property values has been a concern raised by some objections to this proposal. It is noted that this is not a material planning consideration.
• 6.7.5 Similarly, any legal/covenant concerns or matters are not relevant to planning and the applicant is advised to ensure that any such civil matters are dealt with in the correct manner.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 In summary, the proposal for two new dwellings to the rear of Glenlea constitutes sustainable development in an area designated for residential development in the Area Plan for the East and is acceptable in principle. - 7.2 Visual, residential amenity, highways and other matters have been considered in detail in this report, with no unacceptable impacts identified to an extent which would warrant a refusal. On balance, the proposal accords with the relevant planning policies set out in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. - 7.3 As such, it is recommended that the planning committee approve this application subject to the relevant conditions.

- 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 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 : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 26.04.2021

Signed : N SALT 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 below

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.

Planning Committee Decision 26.04.2021

Application No. : 21/00133/B Applicant : Michael & Natalie Hooper & Casson Proposal : Erection of two semi-detached dwellings and creation of new vehicle

entrance

Site Address : Land To Rear Of Glenlea Highfield Drive Baldrine Isle Of Man IM4 6ED Planning Officer Mr Nick Salt Reporting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Committee, by majority, rejected the Officer's recommendation. Following advice from the Head of Development Management, the Members proposed refusal on grounds of scale of the development, feeling it to be over-intensive, and the increase in overlooking to the rear of the site.

Reason for Refusal

• R 1. The siting and design of the two dwellings as proposed would result in unacceptable overlooking and resulting loss of privacy to the dwelling to the rear (east), to the detriment of the residential amenity of the occupants of Glenlea, contrary to General Policy 2 (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• R 2. The proposed semi-detached pair of dwellings would, by virtue of their layout and the quantum of development on the application site, result in a visual overdevelopment of the site. The proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the street scene contrary to General Policy 2 (b, c, g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.