Inspector's Report

Appeal No: AP24/0039 Application No: 23/00128/B

________________________________________________________________ Report on Planning Appeal – written representation case ________________________________________________________________ Site Inspection held on: 25 November 2024 _____________________________________________________________

Appeal by: Mr J Barton Against the refusal of planning approval for the conversion of residential site to a block of 4 residential apartments at 40 Peel Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 4LY ________________________________________________________________ Introduction

• 1. This report provides a brief description of the appeal site and its surroundings, the proposal which is subject to the appeal and relevant policy. The cases for the appeal parties are then summarised, fuller details being available for reference in the appeal case documents. My assessment, conclusion and recommendation follow.

Preliminary matter – description of development

• 2. The description of development refers to the conversion of a residential site to a block of 4 residential apartments. For the avoidance of doubt, I noted at my site inspection that the building which originally stood on the appeal site, has been demolished and the site is vacant with any demolition spoil having been cleared. In essence then the appeal proposal is for the construction of a four-storey end terrace block with a threestorey outrigger to the rear, including 2 covered car parking spaces on the ground floor. I shall determine the proposal on the basis of my understanding of the promoted development.
• 3. I have also noted there is a typographic error in the first reason for refusal where IMSP General Policy 22 is referred to. There is no General Policy 22 in the IMSP, and it should read General Policy 2. The appellant has considered the appeal on this basis as shall I.

Site, surroundings and the appeal proposal

• 4. The appeal site is located within walking distance of the centre of Douglas, in an area of predominantly residential property. It is characterised by four storey terraced housing, some of Victorian/Edwardian origin1, and some more modern2, which, nonetheless, reflects the bulk, mass and scale of the more long-established homes in the vicinity.
• 5. Any building which stood on No 40 Peel Road has long gone. The site is at the end of an established terrace of typical Victorian houses. The front elevation of No 38, the neighbouring house which stands on the common boundary with No 40, has been refurbished and I have no doubt, some of the original Victorian design features have

• 1 Terraces fronting Peel Road and similar upslope terraces in Circular Road and beyond.
• 2 Thomas Keag House opposite the appeal site and Analyst House further along the terrace of which the appeal site forms part.

been smoothed out, resulting in a much more modern plain façade lacking the relief and variety in typical design features of the rest of the immediate terrace.

• 6. Running along the side of the appeal site is Drinkwater Lane, a relatively narrow road which runs behind the terraces in Peel Road and Circular Road. It is from this lane which it is proposed to provide access to the 2 car parking spaces on the ground floor of the outrigger.
• 7. On the other side of Drinkwater Lane, fronting onto Peel Road, is a vacant plot currently used for the parking of vans.
• 8. A planning application for the erection of an apartment block to provide four apartments with associated parking at the appeal site was refused at appeal in July 2014.

Relevant policy3

• 9. The appeal site is located within an area identified as the St Georges Mixed Use Area by the Area Plan for the East (APE).
• 10. Town Centre – Mixed Use proposal 4 identifies that although much of the area is characterised by offices, financial and professional services some residential uses would be acceptable.
• 11. The density of development should be in keeping with the character of the local area4. Higher densities will be more appropriate in the central areas of Douglas, where four and five storey hotels and apartment blocks provide a distinctive visual image of the Capital and a highly practical form of space conscious living for a modern town.
• 12. In recent years, the Douglas town centre in particular has lost some of its population. The town effectively empties after the working day. The APE encourages the reintroduction of people living in the centre to have a positive impact upon the daytime and nighttime economy within the Town.
• 13. The planning policies most relevant to the appeal are contained within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP).
• 14. IMSP Strategic Policy 5 (SP5) requires new development, including individual buildings, to be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island'. A positive contribution means making places which are attractive and safe areas to live, work and invest in. In order to achieve this, it is essential that detailed design proposals be based around an understanding of constraints and opportunities of the site and that the proposal responds positively to local context, in terms of its scale, form, layout, materials, colouring, fenestration and architectural detailing.
• 15. IMSP General Policy 2 (GP2) sets out the considerations required for development to be permitted and includes, that proposals should not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality. Policy compliant development should

• 3 Policies of most relevance.
• 4 APE Paragraph 6.5.1.

respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them.

• 16. IMSP Environment Policy 42 (EP42) states that 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.
• 17. IMSP Strategic Policy 1 (SP1) requires development to make the best use of resources. Strategic Policy 2 (SP2) and Housing Policy 4 (HP4) set out that new development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages.
• 18. IMSP Strategic Policy 3 (SP3) identifies that proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by amongst other things having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character.
• 19. In July 2021 the Residential Design Guide (RDG) was published, the aim of which is to help all of those involved in the design process to work together to improve the quality of the built environment. It is intended to apply to any residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions. Whilst I appreciate the RDG is just a guide, its aims and purposes reflect those within the IMSP those being that the design of new development can make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. Of particular relevance in this case is the guidance in relation to impacts of proposals upon neighbouring properties.

Case for the Planning Authority5

Visual Impact

• 20. In assessing the principle of the proposed development, it is considered that the site is zoned for residential use which implies that the use of the site for residential purposes would be compatible with adjoining uses and conform to the general use of the area. The site is also within the settlement boundary and adjacent to and surrounded by existing residential dwellings; conditions which would ensure that residential development here broadly aligns with IMSP Policies SP1 and HP4.
• 21. However, this does not denote automatic approval for residential use of the site, given that the development of the site would have to be appropriate for the existing site character, character of locality and not result in adverse impacts on other attributes of the site, such as design, access, parking and highway issues, and impacts on neighbouring amenity.
• 22. The current scheme would create a block of four apartments within a single four storey building with footprint filling up the entire site, such that the quantum of built development would be considerably higher than the property that once existed on the site, or that which is present on any of the adjoining properties on the terrace to which it belongs (in terms of proportion of buildings relative to the site area).
• 23. Furthermore, the relationship with the spaces between the buildings which serve to define the rear character of most of the properties, is not replicated on the appeal

• 5 Source Planning Officer’s Report, Planning Statement of the Planning Authority and its accompanying documents.

site, as the proposed building fills up the entire site area, without introducing the utility and service gaps which are usually provided within the rear yards of the properties, and this weighs against the proposal, as the proposal would represent a visual overdevelopment of the site.

• 24. The proposal would tidy up an unmanaged site improving the general appearance. Notwithstanding that, due to its mass, height, and the lack of separating distance between the new property and the neighbouring property at No 38 Peel Road in the form of a rear yard, and the introduction of a considerable number of windows, particularly on the rear outrigger elevation, where they do not exist on the terrace, it is considered that the proposal fails to take cognisance of the site’s context and its immediate surroundings.
• 25. The proposal would alter the appearance of the immediate street scene, whilst altering that of the existing site (including layout of site and the spaces around them). As such, the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the character of the site and locality, contrary to the requirements of IMSP General Policy 2 (b & c), Strategic Policy 5, and Environment Policy 42. Impact on amenities of neighbouring residents
• 26. The proposed development would create overlooking concerns for the neighbouring properties, particularly the occupants of 85, 87 and 89 Circular road, given that the new windows proposed on the rear gable of the rear outrigger to the new property would directly overlook the bedroom windows on these neighbouring properties. The separating distance would be less than 10m which would result in privacy concerns for these neighbours.
• 27. In addition, the proposed development would sit considerably closer to the first-floor terrace on the rear of No. 85 Circular Road, such that there would be significant loss of light, which would be exacerbated as the new property would sit south of No. 85. It would also have an overbearing impact on the occupants No. 85 Circular Road when using their rear first floor terrace, given that the new building would sit just about 5.4m from the edge of this terrace and from an elevated position which is about 9.7m from the ground level. The terrace 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.
• 28. In respect of No. 38 Peel Road, the three-storey rear outrigger would result in adverse impacts on this neighbour. Firstly, the rear outrigger would sit on the boundary and would tower over the single storey rear element of No. 38, dominating views from the windows when seen in such close proximity to the shared boundary, the overall height of the proposed rear outrigger, which would be set taller than all of the rear outriggers at the rear of similar properties on the terrace to which it belongs. This, combined with the length of its projection which runs along the entire stretch of the site to the rear lane would, in turn, result in a form of development that would have an overwhelming physical presence with a significant adverse visual impact when seen from rear facing windows of No 38 Peel Road.
• 29. Also being set to the west of No 38, the position, height and extent of the proposed rear outrigger6 would create significant levels of overshadowing for the existing rear

• 6 The proposed rear outrigger spans about 8.2m from the rear windows on No. 38 Peel Road.

windows on No. 38. This would result in darker rooms for the residents of No 38 than at present7. This relationship would result in significant loss of light, particularly as these windows are the only windows serving the rear bedrooms and bathrooms of the neighbouring property. Impact on the development potential of neighbouring land

• 30. The vacant plot on the opposite side of Drinkwater Lane to the appeal site lies within the St George’s Mixed Use Proposals Area. It may have development potential, including residential development. However, the separating distance between both properties, which is only 5m would be such that there would be no privacy for development proposed for this adjoining site with some 13 windows and 2 Juliet balconies proposed for the west elevation of the new apartments facing directly over to this corner site. The potential for a lack of privacy, loss of light and being of an overbearing nature to development on this site in the future could result in a sterilisation of development, thus being contrary to the provisions of General Policy 2 (k) of the Strategic Plan which requires that development will not generally be permitted if it would prejudice the use or development of adjoining land. Conclusion
• 31. Whilst the proposal would meet those policies supporting more residential uses in this town centre area and would make use of an existing town centre site contributing to the overall vitality of the area, and with no significant highway safety and parking concerns, these matters are not considered to outweigh the negative impacts that would result from the proposal. By reason of the proposed site layout, height, bulk and quantum of built development on the site, the proposal is considered to result in adverse visual impacts on the site and immediate street scene, with the overall massing of the building, proximity of the development to nearby properties, and the position of fenestrations considered to result in significant levels of overlooking, overshadowing, and overbearing impacts on neighbours. The fact that the proposal would include 11 windows and 2 full height Juliet balconies on the side elevation also holds the potential to sterilise the immediate adjoining site which is zoned for development.
• 32. The appeal proposal by reason of its unacceptable visual impact, adverse impacts on neighbouring amenities, and potential to sterilise the adjoining land is considered contrary to IMSP Policies Strategic Policy 5, General policy 2 (b, c, g, h & k), and Environment Policy 42, and the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide 2021.

Case for the Appellants8 Character and appearance

• 33. The appeal proposal has been designed to make a positive contribution to the environment of the island9. The appellant cannot see that the proposal makes any less

• 7 Outcome if the 45-degree rule within the RDG (page 25) as an assessment tool.
• 8 Source Statement of Case of the Appellant (dated September 2024) and rebuttal dated November 2024. The Statement of Case includes the outcome of a simple sun path tracking tool which has not been reproduced in this statement but has been considered in the assessment below.
• 9 IMSP Policy SP5.

of a positive contribution than the new-build apartments situated immediately on the opposite side of Peel Road.

• 34. The appeal site is located on the site of a former terraced property and will form the end of the terrace on Peel Road at this location. The Peel Road front elevation line has been positioned to follow the line of that of the adjacent No.38 Peel Road property maintaining the building line at this location.
• 35. The design incorporates a pitched slated roof which follows the line of the main body of the terrace, with the roof slope facing Peel Road, and takes the form of a 4-storey building to the Peel Road section whilst the rear section of the proposal is formed from an ‘offshot’ at 90 degrees to Peel Road, the roof slope addressing the return section of Drinkwater Street Lane. This ‘offshot’ steps down in level from the main body of the building on Peel Road and is 3-storeys, though the ground level is reduced in height as it is the parking area, and the upper floor has a restricted internal height at the eaves of approx. 1650mm. Windows in the rear facing gable elevation of this section of the building will have obscure privacy glass to guard the amenity of occupiers of adjacent properties as well as that of the occupiers of the appeal proposal, though these are bedroom windows and as such are dormitory rooms. The height and extent of this rear offshoot is consistent with the form of development to the rear of the existing terraced properties on Peel Road.
• 36. The Peel Road elevation integrates detail which reflects the forms and materials of the existing buildings within the immediate vicinity of the site. It has been carefully designed to respect the street scene. The materials of the proposals incorporate selfcoloured render in contrasting shades to provide modelling of the building and to reduce the overall visual height. These materials are consistent with those of the terrace and the new apartments complex opposite on Peel Road10.
• 37. The Peel Road elevation integrates detail which reflects the forms and materials of the existing buildings within the immediate vicinity of the site.
• 38. The application proposals have been assessed by the DOI Highways Division and have been found to provide adequate parking provision with safe means of access and egress for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic, accordingly the proposals accord with subsection h) of GP2.
• 39. The Heritage Homes/Dandarra Group have been the owners of the adjacent vacant site which forms the corner of Peel Road and Circular Road for over 20 years, during which time they have secured two detailed planning applications (PA02/02129/B and PA06/01098/B11). However, they have let both lapse, the latter, an application for 52 residential apartments, on the 20/07/2013. Subsequent applications for the use of the site for temporary parking have been maintained for the past 11 years. It is unfair to restrict the appellant’s ability to secure a planning approval on the grounds of potential impact on the adjacent vacant site, when the owners of that site have had over 20 years and approved applications that they have failed to action. The Heritage Homes/Dandara Group were the developers of the new apartments scheme on the opposite side of Peel Road to the application site and are a major Isle of Man and UK

• 10 Accords with IMSP GP2 b),c) and g).
• 11 Appendix D of the appellant’s Statement of Case includes the permitted (now lapsed) elevational details and site plan/ground floor plan of PA06/01098/B.

developer, developing several hundred residential units per year and so their failure to develop the adjacent site is not due to any inability to obtain funds.

• 40. In relation to Environment Policy 42, the appeal proposal has been designed to take account of the character and identity in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. The proposal maintains and bring back into use the original boundary wall and gate position on Peel Road, together with the front garden and thereby reinstates the urban fabric that has been lost or unused for the past 10 years, providing a positive improvement to the character of the area12.

Living conditions

• 41. The windows to the Drinkwater Street Lane proposed gable elevation which faces the rear of No.’s 85,87 and 89 Circular Road are designated to be glazed with obscure privacy glazing. The height of the rear outrigger section of the proposal is consistent with that of the other rear outriggers on the other properties in the Peel Road terrace, which also extend to the very boundary with Drinkwater Street Lane. The proposal, therefore, follows the existing pattern of development in this area. As a result, as there can be no question of overlooking or a loss of privacy to these neighbouring residential properties from the appeal proposal, and the height and format of the rear outrigger is consistent with the form of development in the area, the proposal, therefore, accords with the requirements of sub- section g) of GP2.
• 42. No.85 Circular Road is situated to the rear of No.38 Peel Road and is not directly behind the appeal site. In addition, the height of the rear outrigger is variable as it presents a gable to the Drinkwater Street Lane elevation and as such provides modelling to the space, which coupled to the angle at which occupants of No.85 would view the proposal minimises such impact.
• 43. Additionally, the view of the proposal from the raised external deck to the rear of No.85 will only serve to reduce any potential impact in terms of the effective height and mass of the rear outrigger of the proposal, as it will be viewed from a higher relative level and will therefore appear smaller by comparison.
• 44. In respect of the impact on the outlook from the rear of No.38 Peel Road, the windows in the rear of No.38 Peel Road that are the closest to the appeal site serve the stairwell of that property and are not occupied space. The windows which serve occupied space (believed to be bedrooms) are situated at the other side of the rear elevation of No.38 and are almost alongside the party wall with No.36 Peel Road. Any impact on the occupants of No.38 Peel Road is minimal, especially given the dormitory nature of these rear facing rooms.
• 45. The rear elevation of No.38 Peel Road faces North to North-East and the relationship of the window fenestration on its’ rear elevation is such that the rear elevation is never in direct sunlight. Accordingly, the effect of the application proposals on the availability of direct sunlight into the rear windows is non-existent. No.38 Peel Road already has its own two-storey rear outrigger which is finished in natural render which is unpainted and dark, and which acts to restrict natural light already at this location.

• 12 As such the terms of IMSP Policy EP42 would not be compromised.

• 46. The erection of the appeal proposal will provide a well decorated surface in the area which will act to reflect natural light potentially improving the levels of light to the rear of No.38. It is also the case that the windows which are closest to the application proposals are from the common stairwell circulation space serving the property, and therefore the impact on the light levels into accommodation which is inhabited is negligible.
• 47. The layout of the individual apartments in that previously approved but now lapsed scheme, would have little or no impact on the application proposal at appeal, and the proposal would have little or no impact on the apartments in that scheme. The layout on the adjacent site could easily be adjusted to take full cognisance of the layout of the appeal proposal, such that any issues of privacy between the two proposals were avoided and without any impact to the density of development of that scheme or indeed the site as a whole. Conclusion
• 48. Policy – The application proposals accord with the governing planning policy which control development on the site. The site was previously a residential property, and the proposals are in accordance with the land use zoning indicated in Map 5 of the APE 20. The previously approved scheme on the adjacent vacant site which forms the corner of Peel Road and Circular Road would have significantly more impact on the levels of sunlight to the deck at the rear of No.85 Circular Road, together with the levels of natural light and privacy to No.’s 89,87 and 85 Circular Road together with the application site and adjacent Peel Road terrace than any impact of the appeal proposal, yet the planning authority have sited the potential detrimental impact on this vacant adjacent plot by the appeal proposal in two reasons for refusal. This lack of continuity in the consideration and decision-making process adds to the appellant’s feeling that the reasons for refusal are all flawed.
• 49. Design – The appeal proposal has been designed following a careful review of the context of the site and its’ surroundings and giving due regard to impact on the owners or occupiers of the adjacent properties. The proposals represent a contemporary interpretation of traditional forms, utilising traditional materials, following both the building lines and orientation of the other dwellings on this section of Peel Road.
• 50. The existing site has been vacant for some time and its’ development to provide much needed dwellings in a sustainable location and making best use of under used land which can easily be serviced in the main business and population centre of the Isle of Man should be encouraged.

Other Parties

• 51. The representations received at the application stage are as follows:

Department of Infrastructure Highway Services do not oppose the application subject to the bin storage, cycle storage, car parking and EV charging points on the approved plans being conditioned to be implemented before first occupation of the proposals.

DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team do not object. Douglas Borough Council have considered the proposal and have no objection.

The owners/occupiers of 38 Peel Road - comments:

• o They state that they are happy that the derelict site is to possibly be developed but 3 apartments seem suitable.
• o The proposed height of the development seems unnecessarily high and could create problems to their building. They suggest that it would be more appropriate if its height was to be at the same level as their building (number 38).
• o They have not stated how this height difference would create problems for their building. The owners/occupiers of 87 Circular Road – object:
• o The proposed creation of FOUR new flats on the site is excessive.
• o The First and Second Floors are proposed to run right across to Drinkwater Lane which is a complete use of the site footprint at those levels and does not keep in line with the neighbouring properties (BUILDING LINE) along Peel Road.
• o The HEIGHT of the proposed building is way in excess of the neighbouring properties along Peel Road.
• o The MASS of the proposed building is vastly in excess of the neighbouring properties along Peel Road.
• o The proposal OVER DEVELOPS the site.
• o The proposed CAR PARKING provision is wholly inadequate and not compliant with Planning Standards.
• o The proposed BIN COLLECTION area is inadequate for four dwellings.
• o Drinkwater Lane is already under pressure from parking and bins/rubbish, and this will only make it worse.
• o In considering the proposal, I would have no objection in principle to a single house
• or two apartments with compliant and associated car parking, bin storage and landscaping.
• o A previous similar planning application 14/00081/B was REFUSED in 2014 for the erection of four apartments by the same applicant. The owners/occupiers of 85 Circular Road – object:
• o The proposed creation of four flats is excessive.
• o The proposed plans are not in line with the neighbouring properties, specifically the height being well in excess of existing properties and filling the property boundary up to Drinkwater Lane.
• o The parking provisions are inadequate, parking is already limited in this area, and we have already had issues with people leaving cars within Drinkwater Lane, this would likely contribute to this issue.
• o The proposed excessive height would result in a significant loss of light for the properties 85-89 Circular Road. The overall bulk and size of the plans would also have a detrimental impact on the outlook of neighbouring properties.
• o Our property has an outdoor patio area raised above ground level, the proposed plans for two bedrooms backing onto Drinkwater Lane would be directly overlooking
• our patio, and will be directly opposite the bedroom windows, compromising our privacy. This would not be such an issue if the plans were in line with neighbouring properties which do not use the full boundary. o Due to the narrowness of Drinkwater Lane, it would be impossible to park in the proposed spaces without encroaching the land of 85-89 Circular Road.

Assessment by the Inspector

Extent of the proposed development in the context of the character and appearance of the immediate locality

• 52. The appeal site is a vacant, overgrown plot at the end of a substantial terrace of predominantly Victorian, four storey terraced houses fronting onto Peel Road, a busy thoroughfare in the Town. Opposite the appeal site on the other side of Peel Road is Thomas Keag House, a modern five-storey block of apartments which, in essence, mirror in a very simplistic form the scale, proportions and rhythm of its period neighbours, which together frame the approach in and out of Douglas.
• 53. Behind the terraces of Peel Road, on rising ground are the terraces of Circular Road. Drinkwater Lane, a narrow road running from Peel Road, up the side of the appeal site, passes behind the terraces in Peel Road and Circular Road providing limited vehicular access to the back of the houses.
• 54. The appellant has provided photographs of the appeal site before the original threestorey house was demolished in 201313. It very much repeated the scale, form and appearance of the existing neighbouring house at No 38 Peel Road14. It was smaller scale than other period houses in the terrace and those behind in Circular Road, and it did not include a large multi-storey outrigger to the rear, the back wall of the house being contiguous with the rear house wall of No 38, allowing for some open space behind the homes15.
• 55. Obviously, the original property is long gone, but the photographs16 show how it sat quite comfortably alongside No 38, terminating the wider period terrace and turning the corner of Drinkwater Lane in a simply stated manner. What is proposed is a considerably larger building designed to take full advantage of the developable area of the plot, leaving only the small front garden onto Peel Road as being the only undeveloped area.
• 56. The attached continuation to the terrace would be five full stories17, including a lower ground floor. The front elevation would show a considerable step up from the height of the roof of No 38 to which the proposal would have the closest physical relationship in visual terms. This additional bulk and massing would be more obvious when viewed from further along Peel Road towards, and at the junction with Circular Road. The proposed array of windows and French doors on the side elevation would further emphasise the increased height, bulk and mass of the proposal when viewed in the context of the smaller scale of No 38 and the elegance of the period homes in the immediately adjoining terrace, as well as those to the rear.
• 57. The three-storey outrigger only adds to the scale of the proposal and would visually dominate the corner of Drinkwater Lane, there being no set back from the highway edge. There are other existing three storey outriggers which back onto Drinkwater Lane, behind the other terraced houses fronting Peel Road. However, whilst they also reach out to the edge of the highway, they, in the main, do not cover the whole of the footprint of the plot, maintaining some outside space between the blocks which are not of the same expansive scale as the proposal.

• 13 Photographs at Appendix B of the appellant’s Statement of Case.
• 14 Although it is noted that No 38 Peel Road does include flat roof dormers to the roof, front and back.
• 15 Although, it was noted at the site visit that No 38 did have a single storey rear covered parking area.
• 16 Photographs at Appendix B of the appellant’s Statement of Case.
• 17 With the lower ground floor being part of a one bed apartment as is the apartment in the roof space.

• 58. To my mind, it is the quantum of development which has dictated the height, scale, mass and footprint of the proposal. It has resulted in a visually dominant block added to a period terrace, which, whilst achieving some design nods to the features of the modern building opposite, has visually squashed No 38, ignoring the character and scale of this simple scale house. In this way the proposal would not respect the immediate surroundings where the character and appearance of period terraces in respect of their layout, scale and form prevail.
• 59. Therefore, I agree with the Planning Authority that the appeal proposal amounts to an overdevelopment of the appeal site resulting in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the immediate surroundings thereby compromising the terms of IMSP Policy SP5 and GP2 b), c) and g).

Living Conditions

• 60. Nos 85, 87 and 89 Circular Road are all part of the terrace of homes in Circular Road which back onto the terrace in Peel Road, of which the appeal site forms part. They share rear access from Drinkwater Lane with the other terraced houses in the immediate vicinity. The rear elevations of these properties look directly at the rear elevations of the properties fronting Peel Road. It is reasonable to conclude that there is already some degree of intervisibility between properties and, I have no doubt, in such a dense urban area levels of privacy are such that there would be some perception of being able to look into neighbouring apartments, if not an ability to do so. However, at present No 38, and the rear windows of other adjoining houses in the terrace, are set at a distance to the rear of the Circular Road terrace, with the length of their respective intervening rear yards and the width of the road itself separating the buildings. This makes for a reasonable separation distance. In addition, I noted that the existing outriggers extending to the highway edge along Drinkwater Lane, to the rear of Peel Road, do not have windows in the gable ends adjoining the highway and facing the Circular Road rear elevations. In the main, windows were confined to the side elevations of the outriggers.
• 61. The appeal proposes six rear facing windows within the outrigger, two of which would serve bathrooms18. The other four, would face directly towards Nos 87 and 89, the view towards No 85 being more oblique. These windows would be closer to the existing neighbouring properties than in the case of other spatial relationships between windows/viewpoints along the terrace. This would result in an unacceptable degree of overlooking and loss of privacy, not just to the existing residents of Nos 87 and 89, but also to the future residents of the new apartments. The appellant appears to agree as on plan no K386 P10-03 Rev A the drawing is annotated that the proposed windows on the rear elevation of the outrigger would be glazed with frosted obscure privacy glass. However, in the appellant acknowledging there is a legitimate concern regarding mutual loss of privacy, the obscure glazing of these windows would, to a degree, overcome any direct overlooking when the windows are closed. When open the obscurity of the glazing would not be effective. In addition, four of these proposed windows serve bedrooms. Future residents would experience an unpleasant blank, restricted outlook, undermining the reasonable enjoyment of their living space.
• 62. The proposed rear outrigger apart from extending out to the edge of Drinkwater Lane would also stand hard up to the rear side boundary with No 38 Peel Road. The rear side wall of the existing house and outrigger of No 36 Peel Road already

• 18 Would have obscure glazing as would be expected for the mutual privacy benefit of residents.

delineates the common boundary between No 38 and No 36 and presents a blank dominant wall in the outlook from within the house (No 36). What is now proposed is to introduce an equally dominant blank side wall on the other common side boundary between No 38 and No 40. In combination with the existing outrigger to No 36, this would markedly reduce the levels of daylight entering the rooms to the rear of No 38 which the windows serve. The appellant suggests most are bedrooms towards the No 36 side of the elevation and, any overshadowing or loss of light, in some way, is less important as the rooms are bedrooms. I do not agree. Residents are entitled to enjoy their living space with a reasonable standard of amenity no matter what the room is used for. There is also no guarantee that in the future the use of the rooms may not change, for example to an office or similar. Therefore, I consider that the appeal proposal would present a dominant feature in the outlook of the residents of No 38, which would diminish the levels of daylight, both internal and external to the property and result in an unacceptably overbearing outlook for the residents of the house. Therefore, for the above reasons the living conditions of neighbouring residents would be unacceptably harmed adversely affecting amenities contrary to IMSP Policy GP2 g).

• 63. The residents of No 85 Circular Road have an elevated rear terrace/balcony which allows for parking beneath it. The terrace has been screened off by the erection of fence panels around the edge, which are effective from road level giving the residents of No 85 some sense of privacy in this area. However, residents on the upper floors of the adjoining properties in the Circular Road terrace, and, to a lesser extent the occupants of No 38 Peel Road would, in my judgement, be able to obtain a view over the terrace should they so wish. For this reason, I do not consider the proposed rear windows of the outrigger would increase adversely any impact on privacy already experienced by the users of the terrace, sufficient to warrant dismissing the appeal on this ground alone. Further in the context of the other existing outriggers, the proposed three storey rear element would not present an unacceptable overbearing intrusion into the outlook from the rear terrace, nor would it result in a significant loss of light to the terrace in the context of a dense urban environment of predominantly substantial, closely set terraced homes.

Prematurity

• 64. The Planning Authority suggest the granting of permission in this instance would sterilise the development of the much larger site on the corner of Peel Road and Circular Road, which includes the land to the side of the appeal site beyond Drinkwater Lane, currently used for the parking of vans. The concern centres on the proposed design in the case of this appeal, including considerable windows and French Doors to the side elevation, facing onto the vacant development site, which a future design for the larger development may have to accommodate in respect of consideration for the living conditions of the residents of the No 40 apartments when constructed, in terms of privacy and overshadowing.
• 65. However, although never built I am aware that the development permitted on the larger corner site19 appeared to be designed to take account of the surrounding existing development and this would be the case going forward. The appellant points out it has been nearly 20 years since permission was given and no development has started as yet. I consider it would be wrong to moth ball other sites which might be ready to come forward for development because another developer has other

• 19 PA06/01098/B – Appendix D to the appellant’s statement of case

priorities in relation to their development portfolio. Therefore, this, in itself, should not be a barrier to an appropriately designed development going forward on the appeal site and the terms of IMSP Policy GP2 k) would not be compromised. Conclusion

• 66. Therefore, for the reasons set out above I agree with the Planning Authority that the appeal proposal amounts to an overdevelopment of the appeal site resulting in unacceptable harm to the character of the immediate surroundings thereby compromising the terms of IMSP Policies SP3, SP5, EP42 and GP2 b), c) and g). Further, the living conditions of neighbouring residents would be unacceptably harmed, adversely affecting amenities contrary to IMSP Policy GP2 g).
• 67. In reaching this view I have taken into account that the appellant would be bringing back into use an untidy and vacant plot in the approaches to the Town, providing four residential units, either for sale or rental which should be encouraged. The development would also provide some jobs whilst construction was underway which would contribute to the economic well-being of the Island. The proposal would be in support of IMSP Policy SP1. However, these identified benefits of the scheme are not sufficiently weighty to outweigh the harms I have identified above.

Recommendation

• 68. Therefore, I recommend that the appeal be dismissed. If accepted, this recommendation will have the effect of upholding the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application. The relevant reasons for refusal are set out at Annex A taking into account my reasoning above. Should the Minister agree with all of the Planning Authority’s reasons for refusal Annex B includes the two extra ones which I reasoned were not justified.
• 69. In the event that the Minister should agree with the appellant’s case and decide to grant planning permission, recommended conditions are attached at Annex C below. They are based on the conditions suggested by the Planning Authority as part of their Statement of Case although a condition relating to the obscure glazing of the rear windows has been added. The reasons for each condition are set out within the schedule.

Reason

• 70. The impact of the proposed development would undermine the terms, policies and objectives of the IMSP.

Frances Mahoney MRTPI IHBC

Independent Inspector 12 February 2025

Annex AReasons for Refusal

• 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 unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the site, and the immediate locality of this part of Douglas, thus failing to comply with Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 (b, c & g), 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. 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 erection of the three storey rear outrigger, which is proposed as part of the development, and which sits at about 9.7m high from ground level, spans some 8.2m, and is positioned directly on the shared boundary with No 38 Peel Road, is considered unneighbourly due to its overall mass and length and would result in significant loss of light, particularly in the evenings, as well dominating the outlook for the occupants of No. 38. 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.

Annex B

• 4. 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 No 85 Circular Road, resulting in overbearing impacts, particularly when viewed from the first-floor terrace serving this property. The scheme would also result in significant loss of light for the rear terrace of 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. 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.
• 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 re-development 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.

• Annex C Schedule of Conditions

• 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.

• 2. 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.

• 3. 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.

• 4. 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 thedevelopment and of the amenities of the area.

• 5. 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.

• 6. 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/northwest 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 and the bird bricks shall be installed prior to the development being first occupied.

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

• 7.Details, including samples, of the proposed glazing, including the level of obscurity of the glass, for the proposed first and second floor windows on the rear elevation of the outrigger hereby approved (as highlighted with red stars on dwg no P12-04 Rev B), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The agreed details shall be fully installed before first occupation of the development and the obscure glazing shall be retained as agreed in perpetuity.

Reason: In the interests of preserving the living conditions of neighbouring residents.

The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan - K386 P10-100 Proposed Site Plan - K386 P10-07 Rev B Lower Ground Floor Plan Apartment 1 - K386 P10-01 Upper Ground Floor Apartment 1 + Communal Parking/Service Area - K386 P10-02 Rev B First Floor Plan Apartment 2 - K386 P10-03 Rev A Second Floor Plan Apartment 3 - K386 P10-04 Rev A Third Floor Plan Studio Apartment 4 - K386 P10-05 Sketch Cross-Section A-A - K386 P11-01 Rev B Proposed Front Elevation E1 (Peel Road) - K386 P12-03 Rev A Proposed Rear Elevation E2 (Drinkwater Lane) - K386 P12-04 Rev B Proposed End Elevation E3 (Drinkwater Lane) - K386 P12-05 Rev B