DEFA Planning Officer Appeal Statement

Please reply to the signatory ☐ Our Ref: 23/00128/B

Tel: (01624) 685915 Fax: (01624) 686443 Email: [email protected]

Mr. A. Johnstone, Planning Appeals Secretary, Cabinet Office, Government Offices, Buck’s Road, Douglas, IM1 3PN.

Paul Visigah Senior Planning Officer 14 October 2024.

Dear Mr Johnstone,

PA No: 23/00128/B Proposal: Conversion of residential site to a block of 4 residential apartments. Address: 40 Peel Road, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM1 4LY

Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application.

The statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report which was determined by a Principal Planner on 12th August 2024, which is online and forms part of the planning file.

The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:

1. Appendix 1 – Statement of Case

In the event that the appointed Planning Inspector is minded to recommend that the application be approved, then the four-year expiration condition should be attached along with consideration to any potential conditions included at 4.0 of the Statement of Case.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Visigah, B.Tech (Hons), MSc, MRTPI Senior Planning Officer

Appendix 1 – Statement of Case STATEMENT OF THE Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate

Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to:

Conversion of residential site to a block of 4 residential apartments. 40 Peel Road, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 4LY PA Reference: 23/00128/B Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Senior Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah, B.Tech (Hons), MSc, MRTPI

1.0 Appeal against refusal for PA 23/00128/B

The reasons for refusal were:

• 1. Due to the overall height, bulk, layout of the site, design of the spaces around the building, coupled with the quantum of development on the application site, the proposal is considered to result in a visual overdevelopment of the site. The proposal would also fail to relate positively with the buildings on the terrace to which it belongs, whilst also failing to take proposer cognisance of the context of the site within which it is to be established. It is, therefore, considered that the development would result in detrimental impacts on the character and appearance of the site, and context of this part of Douglas, thus failing to comply with Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 22 (b, c, g, h & k), and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan.
• 2. The siting, height and design of the proposed rear outrigger would result in unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy to the neighbouring residential properties at Nos. 85, 87 and 89 Circular Road, contrary to General Policy 2 (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and the Residential Design Guide 2021.
• 3. The proposed development would, by virtue of its proximity, three storey height for the rear outrigger, and overall mass, would have an adverse impact upon the outlook of 85 Circular Road, resulting in overbearing impacts, particularly when viewed from the first floor terrace serving this property. Likewise, the scheme, by virtue of its proximity, three storey height, overall mass, and length which stretches to the boundary with Drinkwater Lane, would have an overwhelming visual impact, dominating the outlook from the rear of No 38 Peel Road, Douglas, and this would conflict with General Policy 2(g) of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide, which together and among other things seek to protect such interests.
• 4. The scheme would result in significant loss of light for the rear terrace on No. 85, which is the main outdoor area serving this neighbouring dwelling, and no screening or mature landscaping exists on this boundary, which would serve to soften the impacts in this regard. It is also considered that the erection of the three storey rear outrigger, which is proposed as part of the development, and which sits at about 9.7m tall from the ground level, spans about 8.2m, and is positioned directly on the shared boundary is considered unneighbourly and would result in significant loss of light, particularly in the evenings for the occupants of No. 38 Peel Road Douglas. In this respect, the proposed development is considered to be unacceptable when assessed against General Policy 2 (g) and the relevant sections of the Residential Design Guide 2021.
• 5. The inclusion of 13 windows and 2 full height Juliet balconies on the side elevation of the proposed development holds the potential to result in a sterilisation of the immediate neighbouring site (which is only separated by a 5m lane) and prejudice the potential redevelopment of this Mixed Use Area situated close to the Douglas town centre, contrary to General Policy 2(k) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• 2.0 Legal and Policy Position

In accordance with S10 of the Town Country Planning Act the application has been considered; S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection (3), the Department shall have regard to —

• (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; (ab) any relevant national policy directive under section 2A;
• (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3;
• (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and
• (d) all other material considerations.

There is a statutory duty to take into account the above, and while it is recognised that weight to be given is a matter for the decision maker.

That being said, it shall be noted that the Development Plan and other Adopted Policies do not have primacy as they do in the UK. The Isle of Man is also different from the UK as there is no presumption in favour of development as set out in the NPPF, and there is no 5-year land supply requirement.

In this application, the most weight has been given to the Strategic Plan and the Area Plan for the East as they have been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process, and are adopted by Tynwald.

Other material considerations referred to in the officer report include Residential Design Guide (RDG) which followed targeted consultation and adoption by the Minister and has therefore been afforded greater weight, along with the Central Douglas Master plan, 2015, and IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025.

• 3.0 Response to Reasons for Appeal

This report addresses those issues directly which were highlighted as a basis for the appeal. For a full assessment of the initial application please refer to the original Officer’s Report which would have been supplied with the initial documentation.

3.1 There appear to be three issues raised by the appellants. The issues include:

• 1. The applicant believes the proposals are not an over-development of the site, as they do take cognisance of the terrace to which they belong and also of the site context, and that the rear outrigger has been designed with sufficient consideration for the outlook and privacy of surrounding residents.
• 2. The applicant further believes that the officer has not given due regard to the context of the site as a transition between the existing terrace and the adjacent vacant site, or indeed the

presence of the five-storey Borough of Douglas apartments complex immediately opposite the site to which the application also relates.

1. The applicant believes the reasons for refusal to be incorrect and that planning policy has not been correctly applied and therefore wishes to appeal the decision.

• 3.2 FOLLOWING SECTION ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES DIRECTLY
• 3.3 Issue with site Context

• 3.3.1 On the issue of the relationship between the proposed development and the site context, which was considered to not respect the site character and context of the immediate locality, whilst also resulting in overdevelopment of the site, the Planning Officer provided clear basis within the Officer Report for such conclusions and these can be viewed within Paragraphs 7.3.1 to 7.3.8. As the applicants have not provided a clear articulation of the basis for which they disagree with assessments within the Officer Report, no further comments would be made to that regard until the applicant’s statement has been provided with details to back their assertion.

3.4 Relationship with neighbouring sites in terms of impacts on amenity

• 3.4.1 The appellants argue that the planning officer fails to take into cognisance the context of the site as a transition between the existing terrace and the adjacent vacant site, or indeed the presence of the five-storey Borough of Douglas apartments complex immediately opposite the site to which the application also relates.

• 3.4.2 In response to this assertion, it would be worth noting that the assessment did not take into account the impact of the impact of the existing five storey dwelling with the proposed dwelling at 40 Peel Road and the adjacent undeveloped site as the developments here would be front facing, with any relationship with the five-storey Borough of Douglas apartments complex impacted by the busy highway which separates these sites from the opposite apartments.
• 3.4.3 In addition, the separating distance here would be at least 14.6m from the windows on the five-storey Borough of Douglas apartment’s complex towards the proposed development, and about 14.8m from the site boundary of the undeveloped site, which although is less than 20m (which is considered to be the acceptable distance where privacy concerns are considered to be diminished), would be located just under the general 20 metres threshold considered acceptable within the Residential Design Guide 2021 between directly facing windows. Therefore, it is not considered that the relationship between both undeveloped plots and the five-storey Borough of Douglas apartment’s complex would be so significant to preclude future development.
• 3.4.4 The above is not the case with the undeveloped land relative to the proposed windows on the proposed development which would sit only 5m from the boundary of the adjacent land, such that there would be direct views into the site and at very close proximity, and this is considered to prejudice the future use of this land as it would considerably limit the development options available for the owners of this adjacent land when they seek to develop the land. It should be noted that 5m is well below the 20m rule, so cannot be compared with a minimum 14m separating distance.

• 3.4.5 With regard to the comment that the site is a transition site, it would be vital to note that this does not preclude the applications of relevant policy which seek to prevent adverse impacts for adjoining land such as GP 2 (k). Besides, new developments ought to take cognisance of site constraints within their specific sites, and ensure that designs do not unduly impede the future use of adjoining sites or compromise their future development, and it is not considered that this is the case with the current application.

• 3.5 Matters Relating to Reasons for Refusal

3.5.1 The applicants consider the reasons for refusal to be incorrect and that planning policy has not been correctly applied. However, they have not stipulated which reasons for refusal they contend with and their initial reasons for refusal only relate to the first and last (fifth) reasons for refusal. As such, no further comments would be made until a detailed statement has been provided by the applicants which clearly identifies these issues, whilst providing a basis for contentions with the recommendations within the Officer Report. It should be noted that sections 3.3 and 3.5 have sought to address the issues highlighted with the first and last reasons for refusal.

• 3.6 CONCLUSION

• 3.9.1 This statement seeks to address the initial reasons for appeal articulated in the appellant’s Appeal Request. Additional statement(s) would be provided as rebuttal(s) further to the appellant’s providing additional statement(s) on the issues highlighted in their appeal request.
• 4.0 Potential Conditions

4.1 In the event that the Inspector is minded to recommend approval it is recommended that the following conditions be applied:

• C 1: Standard 4 years

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: Access and Parking

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until all access and parking areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than for purposes 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 in the interests of highway safety.

C 3: Materials

Prior to the installation of external finishes and materials, a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

C4: Secure Bin/Recycle Storage

1. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, the secure bin/recycle storage areas shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans (Drawing No. P10-02 Rev B) and shall be permanently retained thereafter and solely for the purpose of refuse storage.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and of the amenities of the area and to promote sustainable travel in the interests of reducing pollution and congestion.

C5: Bicycle/Pram Storage

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the cycle racks and pram stores to be installed within the secure bicycle storage areas shown on Drawing No. P10-02 Rev B shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The cycle/pram storage areas shall be permanently retained thereafter and solely for the purpose of cycle/pram storage.

Reason: To promote sustainable travel in the interests of reducing pollution, congestion and given a relaxation of the parking standards have been agreed.

C6: Bird Brick Mitigation Plan Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a bird brick mitigation plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

This Plan shall contain details of at least 2 integrated swift nest bricks, high up on the north/north west elevation of the new building, but not above windows and doors, and with at least 5m clear space underneath.

Any plan provided shall show the specific location, number and type of structure to be provided.

The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing in the area.