Inspector's Report

Appeal No: AP24/0055 Application No: 23/01345/A

________________________________________________________________ Report on Inquiry into Planning Appeal ________________________________________________________________ Inquiry held on: 15 April 2025 Site Inspection held on: 14 April 2025 _____________________________________________________________

Appeal by: Mr Jon Joughin Against the refusal of an application for approval in principle for the construction of new housing at 60 Victoria Road, Douglas ________________________________________________________________ Present: For the Appellant

Mark Pearce – Ellis Brown Architects For the Planning Authority Russell Williams – Planning Officer Interested Parties Mr David and Mrs Pauline Hobson – local residents Mr Mike Giles – local resident

Introduction

• 1. This report provides a brief description of the proposal, the appeal site and its surroundings 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.

The Proposal

• 2. The proposal is an application for an approval in principle. At face value this seeks to establish whether residential development would be compliant with the policies of the development plan. The appellant contends that no matters of detail are to be determined at this stage, including siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping and contextual impact. It is common sense that in considering whether the proposal in principle ie residential development of an unspecified nature, is acceptable, the deliverability of development on the site should be considered. This may not stretch to the detail of design of a specific scheme, but it is reasonable to consider the general constraints of the appeal site, where they exist, in the context of the nature of the proposed development. To do otherwise would be perverse when considering compliance with the policies of the development plan, including the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IMSP).

• 3. The only plan submitted by the appellant as being relevant is the location plan1. The location plan, existing & proposed site plans & site sections2 has been submitted on the basis of being for illustrative purposes only, and not being determinative. However, this plan does include a proposed site plan which shows a direction of travel in respect of how a proposal of the nature applied for could be accommodated on the appeal site. It shows the likely point of access onto Victoria Road and the sweep of the vehicular access from the street level down the side of No 60 Victoria Road to the land behind, with a crude layout and parking for two pairs of semi-detached homes.
• 4. The appellant at the Inquiry confirmed the indicative layout did illustrate one option for accessing and laying out of the site to accommodate two pairs of new houses with associated car parking, but that the proposed development could equally apply to a block of apartments or other arrangement and number of residential units3.
• 5. This indicative site plan/layout informed the discussion at the Inquiry and so it is reasonable that it should inform my reasoning in this report as one option, amongst a number, which could be adopted should permission be granted for residential development on the site.
• 6. It was also noted that the application form indicated that the proposed number of parking spaces within the site would be 11. The illustrative layout shows the 11 car parking spaces to the rear of Nos 60 and 58. Whilst the proposal is an inprinciple application the appellant has proffered the number of car parking spaces as proposed design provision detailed on the application form. This should inform the consideration of the proposal.

Site and surroundings

• 7. The appeal site is located within walking distance of the centre of Douglas, in an area of predominantly residential property. This part of Victoria Road includes a variety of house types from varying periods of development, but with a dominant characteristic of linear development, a common feature of the layout of the surrounding roads.
• 8. No 60 Victoria Road is half of a pair of semi-detached houses in a group of similar frontage properties on the eastern side of the road. At street level they appear as two storey homes. However, ground level drops markedly away to the rear sufficient to allow some of the backs of the properties to be three storey, with further falling away, flattening off in an area of open green space, of what has the character and appearance as communal garden behind three pairs of semidetached houses4. It is part of this area5 which it is proposed as a residential development site.
• 9. No 60 Victoria Road includes a detached garage to the side of the house with a relatively flat access from the road and parking in front of the garage. However, to take account of the steep drop from the road to the garden behind, the garage

• 1 Dwg no 22/3175/PL10.
• 2 Dwg no 22/3175/PL02.
• 3 The appellant’s letter of the 4 Oct 2023 sets out that it is envisaged that 4 houses could be constructed on the land.
• 4 The location plan, existing & proposed site plans & site sections includes sections which indicate the degree of ground level change from the road to the backland behind the frontage houses.
• 5 Area behind Nos 58 & 60 Victoria Road.

is built up to the rear. It is in a poor state of repair6 and is proposed to be removed to allow for the construction of a new driveway which would need to be cut into the sloping ground level to allow vehicles to access the backland site.

Relevant policy7

• 10.The appeal site is located within an area identified as being mixed use within the Area Plan for the East (APE). The rear boundary also adjoins the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area.
• 11.The planning policies most relevant to the appeal are contained within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• 12.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 locality8. Policy compliant development should respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them9. Further, development should not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways10, and should have appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users11.
• 13.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. 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.
• 14. IMSP Strategic Policy 1 (SP1) requires development to make the best use of resources by amongst other things optimising the use of previously developed land.
• 15.IMSP Strategic Policy 2 (SP2) and Housing Policy 4 (HP4) set out that new development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages.
• 16.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.
• 17. IMSP Transport Policy 4 (TP4) sets out that new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of the IMSP.

• 6 Has suffered from extensive structural movement and is beyond repair – appellant’s letter of 4 October 2023.
• 7 Policies of most relevance.
• 8 IMSP Policy GP2 (c).
• 9 IMSP Policy GP2 (b).
• 10 IMSP Policy GP2 (i).
• 11 IMSP Policy GP2 (h).

• 18.IMSP Transport Policy 7 (TP7) also requires that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards.
• 19. As already identified the appeal site is just outside of the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area. The terms of Section 18 (4) of the Town and County Planning Act 1999 requires the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of any impacted Conservation Area to be considered. IMSP Environment Policy 36 (EP36) identifies that important views into and out of a conservation area can contribute significantly to its character. Development adjacent to conservation areas must be assessed in respect of the impact on such views.
• 20. 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.

Planning History

• 21.The application site has been subject of the following historical planning applications:

91/00134/A - Approval in principle for erection of dwelling - Refused on Review 99/01793/A - Approval in principle for residential development - Withdrawn

Case for the Planning Authority12

• 22. The application site is centrally located within the contiguous built-up area of Douglas and is close to the area defined as the "town centre". The application site is located on land that is designated as a "Mixed Use" on Map 4 of the Area Plan for the East.
• 23. Having regard to the above policies, the application site is located within an accessible and sustainable location where the principle of residential development is supported by both Strategic Plan Policies and the Area Plan for the East. A residential use on the land would be compatible with the "mixed use" designation and new housing on the land is a use that would be compatible with adjoining land uses, (subject to further assessment). In sustainable locations and within existing towns and villages, new housing will be supported in order to meet the identified housing need for the Island. Having regard to the above considerations, and subject to an assessment of material considerations, it is accepted that the principle of development on the site is acceptable and compliant with the aforementioned Strategic Plan and Area Plan policies.

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

• Comments on reason for refusal 1

The size, shape and layout of the site together with the lack of suitable amenity space for occupiers indicate that the proposal is inappropriate back land development and overdevelopment of the site which would be harmful to the character of the townscape. As such it is considered contrary to General Policy 2c and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• 24. The indicative nature of the submitted site layout plan is acknowledged. Each of the 4 indicative dwellinghouses will have garden spaces that offer outdoor space for future occupants. It is also recognised that should the Appeal be allowed then a scheme for fewer than the indicated 4 dwellings may come forward which would increase the amenity space available. Notwithstanding, the indicated layout, when compared to the prevailing density of development and prevailing character of the built environment, the proposal is cramped, and this is at odds with the character of the townscape to which this important greenspace makes a positive contribution towards.
• 25. It is acknowledged that layout and design were excluded from the detailed assessment at this stage, however, it is the view of the Department that in assessing the principle of development a view can and should be taken as to whether the principle of developing the site would have an acceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the area. Whilst it is acknowledged that the application seeks approval in principle only, it is still necessary to assess the ability of a site to accommodate development without adversely impacting upon the character and appearance of the area. In this regard, IMSP Policy GP2 states that development will normally be permitted where it: (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape. This understanding of the way in which the in-principle assessment should be undertaken was carried through the Officer’s Report and reiterated to Members of the Planning Committee during the meeting.

• Comments on reason for refusal 2

The proposal is also contrary to General Policy 2 b in that it does not respect the site and its surroundings in terms of layout, form, design and the landscaping of the buildings and the spaces around them. Furthermore, it would result in the loss of important green open space to a cramped form of development, at odds with visual amenity in the area.

• 26. The layout is indicative, but regard can still be had to the principle of built development on a site. General Policy 2 (g) states that development will normally be permitted provided that "does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality."
• 27. Neighbouring residents have objected to the development siting, among other matters, adverse impacts upon privacy, outlook and tranquillity. The backland position of the application site is such that the amenities of the residents of the existing dwellinghouses at 58 and 60 Victoria Road has the potential to be impacted upon. The indicative site layout, which could reasonably change prior to the detailed design stage, indicates how 4 two storey dwellings could be positioned on the site together with parking, turning and access. Details relating to the detailed design of the development are subject to further approval. Notwithstanding, it is acknowledged that the indicative details which show two

• pairs of semi-detached, 2 storey dwellings located on land at the rear of Victoria Road, would give rise to a loss of privacy upon adjacent gardens. However, proximity to the rear elevations of existing dwellings exceeds 30 metres and so loss of privacy to habitable rooms is unlikely to occur.
• 28. Regarding other impacts of the development upon residential amenity, the submitted indicative layout does give rise to concerns over the impact of noise and vibration upon the amenity of existing dwellinghouses, as well as light from vehicles at night. This impact could ultimately change should revisions be made at the final, detailed design stage and so whilst concerns of neighbouring residents are acknowledged, the impact of development upon neighbouring amenity is a matter that should be assessed fully at the detailed design stage.
• 29. The appeal site forms part of an important open green space within the urban environment. IMSP Policy EP42 states that “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” and the Department considers that for the reasons set out in the Officer Report and Reason for Refusal, the Appeal development would erode the green open space that positively contributes towards visual amenity, the character of the area. It therefore fails to comply with EP 42.
• 30. The application site comprises an area of informal lawns in the ownership of Nos 58 and 60 Victoria Road. The site, together with those open areas of lawn to the rear of Nos 50 - 60 Victoria Road, form a relatively large area of green open space within the urban environment, creating a visual break between built form.
• 31. The pattern of development, or urban grain, in the area is largely characterised by well-defined semi-detached dwellings fronting onto Victoria Road, smaller terraced properties along Castle Mona Avenue and large, terraced and semidetached properties at Empress Drive. Save for The Hollows to the north, in the immediate vicinity and wider area surrounding the application site the character of residential development is of active road frontages with well-proportioned gardens and areas of open space.
• 32. The location of the application site is such that it would be considered as "backland" development, sitting on open ground to the rear of dwellings fronting onto Victoria Road. Paragraph 7.34.1 of the Strategic Plans states that in regard to backland development: ""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."
• 33. IMSP Policy EP42 is clear that inappropriate backland development and the removal of open or green spaces will not be permitted. Paragraph 7.34.1 guidance also refers to backland development only being acceptable in "some circumstances".
• 34. The application site is assessed as comprising an important area of green open space within an area otherwise dominated by built form. The gardens to the rear of properties along Victoria Road are important spaces for the amenity of residents and for also maintaining open breaks within the townscape. The loss of these open spaces, which are by no means prevalent in the area, would lead to a

• permanent change in the character of the area and alter the way in which residents experience the local environment. The loss of the green open space to backland development would harm visual amenity and the character of the area.
• 35. The application is supported by an indicative site layout plan that indicates how four dwellings and 11 parking spaces with turning could be accommodated on the site. However, the indicative layout represents a cramped form of development at odds with the pattern of development and character of the area. The plots and dwellings would be smaller than those along Victoria Road and have narrow and modest gardens.
• 36. The development would require a significant amount of engineering operations to construct both the access road, parking spaces and dwellings. Such would be visible from Victoria Road, with the existing garage removed. Dwellings being set at a much lower ground level to the highway would appear out of keeping with visual amenity.
• 37. In addition to what would represent an unacceptable loss of green open space, the development of up to four dwellings on the site, access drive and parking/turning areas would fail to deliver active road frontages, which will be at odds with the pattern of development and prevailing character of the surrounding townscape.
• 38. Overall, it is considered that residential development on the site would represent an unacceptable backland development, at odds with the prevailing residential pattern of development in the area and harmful to the character of the townscape. It would result in the loss of important green open space to a cramped form of development, at odds with visual amenity in the area. The proposals are therefore considered to conflict with IMSP Policies GP2 (c) and EP42.

• Comments on reason for refusal 3

The application fails to demonstrate how the principle of a safe vehicular access can be designed to serve the proposed residential use of the site by four dwellinghouses. The development would lead to an intensification in the use of a substandard access with visibility restricted at the junction with the public highway such that the safety of road users would be harmed should the development proceed. The proposal therefore fails to comply with General Policy 2 (h) (i) and Transport Policy 4, 7 of the Strategic Plan and would result in an unacceptable harmful impact upon highway safety

• 39. It is acknowledged that access is not a matter for which detailed approval has been sought. That notwithstanding, it is still appropriate to consider whether, in the event of planning permission being granted, safe access between the site and adopted highway can be achieved. The Highway Officer correctly identifies that the red line boundary of the application site does not extend up to and include the boundary with the adopted highway. As such, it would not be possible to secure improvements and alterations to the existing access, in order to create a new junction into the site, private access and driveway to serve the development. Similarly, visibility splays would be located outside the red line area, and such could not be controlled by condition, even at the detailed approval stage, as such would fall outside the red line area.

• 40. Therefore, the red line area of the application site does not include sufficient land to provide assurance that improvements to the existing access, particularly visibility splays and the new junction, can be secured by the appellant. It is the Departments view that this cannot be achieved, and so detailed approval is unlikely to be achievable for access within the limitations of the application site.
• 41. The existing garage and driveway serve 1 dwellinghouse. The proposed development would serve, the existing dwelling at 60 Victoria Road together with up to 4 dwellings as indicated on the submission documents and indicative site plan. The intensification in use is therefore a material consideration and the simple presence of the garage and driveway/access does not automatically indicate that detailed approval for access would be forthcoming.
• 42. For the highlighted reasons the Department does not agree that a detailed design could be undertaken to address concerns. Further it is not considered possible to design a safe access to the site, due to a lack of availability of land required for visibility splays.
• 43. The application seeks Approval in Principle for the construction of new housing on the application site. It is agreed that the development does not explicitly seek approval for 4no. dwellings. However, the indicative site plan clearly shows 4 dwellings on the site. The Agent’s Cover Letter dated 4 October 2023 states that “it is envisaged that 4 houses could be constructed on the land”. The application form also states that 11 parking spaces are proposed, which again indicates more than one dwelling being proposed at the detailed stage. Irrespective of the final number of dwellings proposed at the detailed design stage, the Department consider that on the basis of the information submitted, assessing the principle of access against a development of up to 4 dwellings is reasonable and justified.

Case for the Appellants13

• 44. This application was made in principle only. The means of access and all the detailed items were excluded from the application. The layout submitted is also indicative only. The footpath widens at the entrance and therefore the red line goes up to the back edge of pavement. The reasons for refusal all centre around matters of detail all of which were excluded. To prepare a full access scheme with the application, a transport assessment and road safety assessment would be required at considerable expense, hence the omission of access on the application form. Notwithstanding the above, the sightlines are 73m to the North and 103m Min. to the South when setback 2.4 from the Kerb line of the road. The road is 30mph, therefore, the required sightline is 43m in both directions x 2.4 setback. The sightlines are more than adequate to facilitate the access.
• 45.Notwithstanding that sight lines are available, the access is an existing garage with hardstanding which could accommodate cars at this level as part of a proposed development. The principle of car access is already established.
• 46.The planning report accepts at 7.7 that the “principle of development on the site is acceptable and compliant with the Strategic Plan and Area Plan Policies. Therefore, this satisfies the principle of development which is what was applied for. There is no remit to assess any other detail with this application. The planning

• 13 Source Statement of Case of the Appellant (dated 23 January 2025).

officer has assumed points of detail without appreciating that the layout provided was for indicative purposes only and should be assessed as such.

• Comments on reason for refusal 1

The size, shape and layout of the site together with the lack of suitable amenity space for occupiers indicate that the proposal is inappropriate back land development and overdevelopment of the site which would be harmful to the character of the townscape. As such it is considered contrary to General Policy 2c and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• 47. The layout submitted was for indicative purposes only. The reason for refusal does not take this into account. Notwithstanding this the amenity space shown indicatively is within the distances set out in the Residential Design Guide and therefore is compliant. A social housing unit requires a garden depth of 7m as a guide only, the depth of garden shown indicatively is 10m. The existing gardens to 58 and 60 remain unchanged at in excess of 10m.
• 48.The grassland area is not a principal part of the garden areas to these houses. The overall site depth is such that there is over 30m of distance between the rear of the existing houses and the proposed housing which demonstrates that this is a large site with ample space separation in accordance with the Residential Design Guide. The application was made in principle only with layout and design specifically excluded from the list on the planning application form.

• Comments on reason for refusal 2

The proposal is also contrary to General Policy 2 b in that it does not respect the site and its surroundings in terms of layout, form, design and the landscaping of the buildings and the spaces around them. Furthermore, it would result in the loss of important green open space to a cramped form of development, at odds with visual amenity in the area.

1. The layout is indicative only. The development of this area allows the existing houses to have amenity space which exceeds the residential design guidelines. The area here is a large expanse of grass which is rarely used as a private garden. It is not segregated and has been left open for many years. The site is more than capable of being developed in such a way as not to impact existing residents and houses. It is at a much lower level than the houses on Victoria Road and will not impede their view or amenity. The site is predominantly residential and is not accessible to the public. It is not cramped and including the existing house no. 60 is less than 10 houses to the acre. This is not an important green open space and is certainly not cramped. The application was specifically made in principle only with layout and design excluded.

• Comments on reason for refusal 3

The application fails to demonstrate how the principle of a safe vehicular access can be designed to serve the proposed residential use of the site by four dwellinghouses. The development would lead to an intensification in the use of a

substandard access with visibility restricted at the junction with the public highway such that the safety of road users would be harmed should the development proceed. The proposal therefore fails to comply with General Policy 2 (h) (i) and Transport Policy 4, 7 of the Strategic Plan and would result in an unacceptable harmful impact upon highway safety.

• 50.See the above previous comments regarding sightlines and access. Access was excluded from the application albeit that an indicative scheme is shown which demonstrates that vehicles could traverse the access lane without impacting on the existing properties. There is an existing garage and hardstanding at the entrance that could also be utilised for vehicles to park as per the existing situation and used in connection with the proposed houses. This also demonstrates that the location of the lane access is already utilised by vehicles onto the site. The application in principle would allow a much more detailed design to be undertaken to address any concerns that have been raised. The application was not for 4 dwelling houses as the layout was indicative only.

Other Parties

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

Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - In order for Highways to accept approval in principle for the application, it will need to be shown that safe access and egress can be achieved. Access is to be taken off Victoria Road via an existing vehicular access. Despite using an existing vehicular access, the development will bring substantial intensification of use. It will need to be demonstrated that a suitable visibility distance can be taken achieved from the access location. Visibility should be provided from a 2.4m setback distance from the centre of the access, taken to the nearside kerb line in both directions. The creation of four dwellings is below the threshold for Department of Infrastructure road adoption, therefore the road will remain private. Sufficient carriageway width for two-way traffic or single vehicle traffic with passing places must be provided. If the road is not proposed as shared surface, a separate 2m pedestrian corridor should be proposed. Further information was requested to establish whether the proposed location of access is acceptable in principle.

DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team do not object. Douglas Borough Council have considered the proposal but only raise the matters of bin storage, safeguarding of access by bin lorry, the access and driveway should be private, and installation of streetlights or open space should similarly be private. Owner/occupant 52 Victoria Road, Douglas

There is no need for further housing in this area. Redevelopment of properties in the area should be encouraged, which will help the area. The road is one of the busiest in Douglas. Where would additional residents park? Impact upon house and privacy with views by the dwellings being built. They would have a line of sight into our house.

Owner/occupant 56 Victoria Road, Douglas

Highway safety - The access point is on a dangerous bend where there have been accidents. Adding residential properties here and demolishing the garage and

parking spaces will exacerbate safety risks to pedestrians and drivers. Topographical challenges - The land is significantly lower than the services in the road which poses challenges, especially sewage. Pumping sewage would be impractical and lead to environment and logistical issues. Restrictive covenant (non-planning matter) - The land is subject to a private restriction preventing it being built on. Access limitations and impact - The access is at odds with a right of access that benefits residents. Detrimental Impact - Development would impact upon quality of life of neighbouring residents, increasing noise, causing loss of privacy, outlook and negatively impacting upon enjoyment of gardens.

Owner/occupant 33 Raad Roagan, Peel

Loss of green space and impact upon ecology. Adverse impact upon mature trees and RPA Tarmacing gardens will increase impermeable surfaces increasing flooding; run off will be diverted to drains that may already be under pressure from heavy rain. Access is onto a dangerous part of road and will increase the risk of accidents. Adverse impact upon privacy and tranquillity of remaining gardens, especially nos 54 and 56.

Owner/occupant 73 Saddle Mews, Douglas

The access would result in more vehicles entering a busy main road on a bend. These gardens were never intended to be built upon - there is a covenant. The houses were built by my Grandmothers family on an old market garden site and only made possible by shoring up land. Building a road between the levels would cause subsidence. The lane behind the wall at the rear of the gardens has been closed for some time now and I'm worried that the additional weight of housing could cause subsidence affecting the bottom of my property.

Owner/occupant 4 Elm Tree House & 2 The Hollows

Concern over ground stability and impact to the rear of Seaview Hotel, in Empress Drive. Should any subsidence occur due to excess water runoff, there could be a threat of injury or death to persons inside the property. Excess water runoff could occur following heavy rain down the driveway; a lack of natural drainage, potential failure of any electrical pump. Concern over the long-term impact upon the sycamore trees. Bin store offers potential visual harm and to attract vermin. Increase in noise to neighbouring residents and Seaview Hotel. Lack of parking for 60 Victoria Road leading to extra parking on the carriageway and bus route.

Sterling Property Management Company Limited - Elm Tree House, Douglas

The land is not zoned for any development. Whilst we have no objection to the principle of such a development - as immediate neighbours we would expect reassurances that any development will not impact on the privacy or access to The Hollows site. Concern over access as indicatively demonstrated not being safe to serve the site. The driveway will be laid to a very steep gradient. Is it practical to have the access adjacent to that serving the 10 dwellings at The

Hollows and Marathon Court Nursing Home? No reference to parking for 60 Victoria Road being provided. The bin store to the side of the existing dwelling - how will residents access their bins and recycling? Haul it up the access road? No drainage details are provided. Pumping effluent could be noisy or will septic tanks and soakaways be used? Additional surface water runoff from hard surfaced driveways a concern. Concern over impact upon trees along our boundary - turning areas and buildings seem to coincide with the canopy and root protection areas. Damage to trees and the boundary wall could occur.

Assessment by the Inspector

• 52. The appellant’s case rests on the contention that when considering an application in-principle the only thing that should be looked at is whether the development of the appeal site is acceptable and compliant with the Strategic Plan and Area Plan Policies.
• 53. As already indicated the appeal site is identified as being mixed use within the APE14. The site lies outside of Douglas town centre, but mixed use generally comprises a variety of different but compatible uses. Residential uses are included in the list of new uses which may be taken in as mixed uses, although uses which are not compatible with residential development generally are not supported within the areas of mixed uses15.
• 54. It is reasonable to conclude that the appeal proposal as a proposed undefined residential development could fall into the category of a mixed use which would benefit from some support in the general relevant proposal of the APE.
• 55. However, this matter alone does not lead to a conclusion of compliance with the adopted policies of the development plan, in particular, those of the Strategic Plan as a whole.
• 56. In paragraph 2 above, I have set out how I intend to proceed in my consideration of the appeal proposal leading to a recommendation to the Minister as decision-maker. Nothing in the appellant’s case has suggested to me that I should proceed otherwise.
• 57. Consequently, having considered the issue of the proposal being development in-principle, the next main issue is the impact of the proposal on the character and appearance of the immediate locality.
• 58. Victoria Road does include a mix of development, but in the vicinity of the appeal site it is predominantly residential in character. Properties vary in age, design and density but are generally closely spaced with a concentration of frontage, linear development. The group of semi-detached houses, of which No 60 forms part is no exception. These frontage homes benefit from substantial, undivided rear gardens which present an open, backland green space. From Victoria Road, in public views, this feature is not immediately discernible. It is only in the private views from the back of the frontage homes that the open space is apparent. Residents of the dwellings at The Hollows, to the east, would also have an awareness of the undeveloped nature of this area of land.

• 14 APE Proposals Map 4 – Douglas.
• 15 APE Section 9.10 paragraphs 9.11.1 & 9.11.2.

• 59. However, whether the space is publicly visible or not does not diminish the important characterising nature of the linear development of Victoria Road. The appeal proposal, in whatever form of residential development it takes16, would go against the grain of existing development and represent inappropriate backland development which would harm significantly the prevailing character and appearance of this part of Victoria Road. This would be contrary to IMSP Policies GP2 (b), (c), EP42 and SP3.
• 60. I have taken into account that the mix of townhouses and apartments at the neighbouring site of The Hollows does include development which steps down the slope behind the large frontage house. However, this development is somewhat self-contained and set behind a walled frontage where the main house visually dominates and contributes to the overriding linear characteristic of the development, along this part of Victoria Road. In my view this does not set a precedent for piecemeal, backland development elsewhere.
• 61. The impact on highway safety of the proposal must also be considered as a main issue. No 60 Victoria Road has a detached side garage with a direct access onto the street, including two existing parking spaces, but without the benefit of on-site turning facilities
• 62. Access was excluded from the application details. However, from my observations at the site visit, as well as from the indicative plans showing means of access to the appeal site, in the circumstances of the application site outlined in red on the Location Plan, the only practical means of vehicular access to the backland site would be by demolishing the garage and inserting an access road running down the steep slope to the side of No 60.
• 63. The existing access lies at a point on Victoria Road just as the road bends to the left and continues up hill. In addition, on the right-hand side of the access is the frontage garden wall and pillars of The Hollows, which are in excess of some 1.5 metres in height. At the site visit I was able to experience driving out in forward gear from the existing parking area in front of the garage of No 60 onto Victoria Road. Visibility to the left, in practical terms, taking into account the cars parked on-street downhill towards Douglas, was reasonable. However, when emerging out onto the road visibility was notably impaired by the pillars and wall of The Hollows when looking to the right. This was to a point of edging out sufficient for the driver to see oncoming traffic from the right, resulting in the front of the car being out onto the highway. This is an existing situation which the residents of No 60 have to negotiate on a daily basis, no doubt.
• 64. However, what is proposed is an intensification of the use of this access point. The application form makes it clear there could be 11 vehicles using the access, where at present there is only those associated with the existing residents of No

1. The appeal site does not include the wall or pillars of The Hollows, and the existing access does not extend out to the adopted highway boundary according to the red-line application site plan. Therefore, it is difficult to understand, with the limited information available, how visibility might be improved to accommodate a more intense development than that which currently exists.

• 16 It is not necessary to know matters such as layout, design, scale and density to reach a view on the impact of residential development on the character and appearance of a locality.
• 17 It is reasonable to take this level of implied intensification of use, in terms of likely traffic generated by the proposal, it being included on the application forms.

Even if the development was only for one unit on the backland site, the access would still have to serve the residents of No 60 as well, thereby representing an intensification of use.

• 65. The Highway Services was also concerned regarding the design of the side access way from Victoria Road to the backland site. New homes to the rear of No 60 would result in more comings and goings of normal domestic vehicular movements, not forgetting deliveries and the like. Due to the steep slope down from the road to the green space behind, there could be a serious issue of vehicles having to manoeuvre to accommodate oncoming cars which could result in vehicles having to wait on Victoria Road to allow others to emerge from the backland development. This could result in the free flow of traffic along Victoria Road being impeded. The appellant did suggest that it may be possible to design the access road with passing places to allow vehicles to pass one another. This may be so although the steep nature of the route of the access road could make this problematic.
• 66. The appellant has made it clear that the preparation of a full access scheme, transport assessment and road safety assessment would have involved considerable expense which was why access was omitted from the application18. I have already indicated it is reasonable to consider the general parameters of the proposed development in the context of the existing urban development and the restraints of the appeal site.
• 67. Highway Services required further information to be submitted to show that safe access and egress can be achieved and that a suitable visibility distance can be achieved from the access location. No firm evidence in this regard has come forward. Therefore, based on the evidence before me, including the expert evidence of the Highway Services, as well as my own experience of using the existing access, I judge that the proposed development, even in a situation of an unknown number of units on the appeal site, would result in an intensification of use of an already substandard access onto Victoria Road, which would result in an unacceptable harmful effect on road safety and to the free flow of traffic along Victoria Road and the immediate vicinity. Therefore, the terms of IMSP Policies GP2(h), (i) and TP4 would be unacceptably compromised. IMSP paragraph 7.34.1 also sets out that backland development would only be acceptable if satisfactory access can be achieved. That would not be so in this case.
• 68. Neighbouring residents have raised concerns in relation to the change in the nature of the use of the open space behind Nos 60 and 58 and how this might impact on their living conditions in respect of noise and disturbance and to a lesser degree privacy.
• 69. Dealing with the impact on existing residents’ privacy first, I agree new homes of a number unknown would be set behind the existing frontage properties. However, a sympathetic layout taking into account possible intrusion into the privacy of neighbours in the rear garden areas would be likely to overcome concerns in this regard.
• 70. However, in respect of the impact of the nature of the use of the backland site in respect of generating noise and disturbance for existing residents, this is not so easily dealt with. At present the appeal site to the rear of the frontage houses

• 18 Appellant’s Statement of Case within the Introduction.

is open green space used as gardens which stretch undivided behind the frontage semis. I presume at times the space is used for normal domestic recreational purposes such as children playing, family gatherings, Bar-be-ques and similar. This is to be expected in an established urban area.

• 71. What is now proposed is something very different. New dwellings would be constructed behind the existing houses. This would include car parking, manoeuvring space, as well as the general comings and goings of domestic life for the future residents of the new homes. At present such movements are concentrated to the front of the homes on Victoria Road. The appeal proposal would introduce the noise of vehicles moving and parking immediately behind private rear gardens, including slamming doors and the general hubbub of residents using the front area for domestic tasks. The degree of harm in this regard would depend on the number of units, a single unit being less intrusive than four or more19.
• 72. Therefore, I do agree with the neighbouring residents that harm to their living conditions, particularly in respect of noise and disturbance, could ensue from the development of the site for residential purposes, thereby having the potential to compromise the terms of IMSP GP2 (g). However, at this stage the level of harm would be difficult to quantify without further details of the scheme in respect of design and layout. Therefore, were the appeal to be allowed careful consideration needs to be given of how the terms of IMSP Policy GP2 (G) might bite when the scheme is designed, considered and assessed. Consequently, at present there is insufficient evidence to warrant dismissing the appeal on this ground.
• 73.The rear boundary of the appeal site, delignated by an ivy-covered wall, forms the common boundary with the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area. It has particular visual prominence when viewed looking up from Empress Drive where the five storey hotels and guest houses of this part of the Promenade Conservation Area sit down below the ground level of the appeal site.
• 74. Section 18 (4) of the Town and County Planning Act 1999 requires the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of any impacted Conservation Area. IMSP Policy EP36 sets out that where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area.
• 75. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the impact of the appeal proposal on views out of the Conservation Area. This is difficult to properly assess without knowing what the layout and design of the proposed scheme would be. A development above two storey, set close to the rear boundary wall would be likely to be visible from within the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area. However, at this stage without the detail of the scheme I do not consider this matter to be determinative but would need to be a factor in formulating a design and layout should the appeal be allowed.
• 76. Neighbouring residents have mentioned a restrictive covenant which applies to the development of the backland green space. I have little information about this but for the avoidance of doubt this is entirely a civil matter which does not

• 19 In the case of apartments.

require consideration in this planning decision. It is a matter which would need to be considered and enforced by others. The allowing of this appeal would not negate the terms of the covenant but is not a matter for this decision-maker.

Conclusion

• 77. Therefore, for the reasons set out above I agree with the Planning Authority that the appeal proposal amounts to an inappropriate backland development which would unacceptably harm the prevailing character and appearance of this part of Victoria Road. This would be contrary to IMSP Policies GP2 (b), (c), EP42 and SP3. Further, it would result in an intensification of use of an already poor access onto Victoria Road, which would result in an unacceptable effect on road safety and to the free flow of traffic along Victoria Road and the immediate vicinity. Therefore, the terms of IMSP Policies GP2(h), (i) and TP4 would be unacceptably compromised. In this way compliance with the Strategic Plan and Area Plan Policies is not achieved.
• 78. The sum total of the harms identified, even in the case of an unknown quantum of development, is sufficient to warrant the dismissal of this appeal.

Recommendation

• 79.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. The first reason for refusal has been reworked to take into account the conclusions within the report.
• 80. 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 B below. They are based on the conditions suggested by the Planning Authority as part of their Statement of Case and were discussed at the Inquiry.

Reason

• 81. The impact of the appeal proposal, albeit in principle, considered in the context of the general parameters of the proposed development in the existing urban location, and the restraints of the appeal site, would unacceptably harm the prevailing character and appearance of this part of Victoria Road, as well as resulting in an unacceptable effect on road safety and to the free flow of traffic along Victoria Road and the immediate vicinity. In this way the terms, policies and objectives of the IMSP and the APE would be unacceptably comprised.

Frances Mahoney MRTPI IHBC

Independent Inspector

22th June 2025

Annex AReasons for Refusal

• 1) The proposed residential development, in principle, whilst falling into the category of a mixed use as set out in the proposals of the Area Plan for the East, would, at whatever intensity proposed, represent inappropriate backland development, out of character with the immediate townscape of the surroundings, resulting in an unacceptably level of harm contrary to General Policy 2 (b), (c), Environment Policy 42 and Strategic Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• 2) The proposed development fails to demonstrate how the principle of a safe vehicular access can be designed to serve the proposed residential use at whatever level of intensification which may come forward. The development would lead to an intensification in the use of a substandard access with visibility restricted at the junction with the public highway, such that the safety of road users, along with the impeding of the free flow of traffic along Victoria Road and in the immediate vicinity, would be unacceptably harmed should the development proceed. The proposal, therefore, fails to comply with General Policy 2 (h), (i) and Transport Policies 4, 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

Annex BSchedule of Conditions

• 1) Approval of the details of siting, design, external appearance of the building[s], internal layout, means of access, parking, turning areas, surface water/foul drainage, landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Department in writing before any development is commenced. Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019.
• 2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Department before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved. Reason: To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
• 3) Any future Reserved Matters application shall also include the following highways details:

• i. Access and connection arrangements to the public road(s)

• ii. Visibility Splays
• iii. Parking provision in accordance with the adopted standards and criteria
• iv. Waste bin storage in accordance with local authority standards
• v. Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and Designer's Response
• vi. Swept path analysis (waste collection vehicle)
• vii. Details of the changes in ground levels to accommodate the modified access, new driveway, provision of passing places. These details shall include initial and finished ground levels with sections. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

• 4) The application for reserved matters shall provide the following details and/or demonstrate compliance with the following:

• o Surface water drainage design in accordance with Manx Sewers for Adoption (MSFA)
• o Any surface water attenuation shall be designed to 1:100 year plus climate change
• o Full details of the surface water attenuation system if required.

Reason: In order that the necessary infrastructure is provided to meet the needs of future residents in the interests of residential and environmental amenity.

• 5) The application for reserved matters shall provide full details of how the proposed development will connect to the public sewage system. The design shall be in accordance with MSFA. The system shall be fully installed prior to the first dwelling being brought into use. No development may commence until such time as there is sufficient capacity in the public sewage system to accommodate the additional flows.

Reason: In order that the necessary infrastructure is provided to meet the needs of future residents in the interests of residential and environmental amenity.

• 6) Any application(s) for reserved matters shall be accompanied by:

• o An Arboricultural Impact Assessment, tree removal and tree protection plans.
• o Soft and hard landscaping (including details of the boundary treatments and tree planting plans. 0 Scheme of illumination for the new driveway, car parking area and frontages

of the new dwellings. Only that which has been agreed shall be installed within the site boundaries.

Reason: To identify, map and safeguard components of habitats and wider ecological networks and to protect priority species and identify and pursue opportunities for securing measurable net gains for biodiversity in accordance with the provisions of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

• 7) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area

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

Location Plan - Dwg no 22/3175/PL10. For indicative purposes only

The location plan, existing & proposed site plans & site sections - Dwg no 22/3175/PL02.