SOC Planning Officer SOC

Please reply to the signatory

Our Ref:

Tel: (01624) 685950

Email: [email protected]

Russell Williams Principal Planning Officer Mr. A. Johnstone Planning Appeals Secretary

Cabinet Office

Government Offices

Buck's Road

Douglas

IM1 3PN

Date 31 January 2025 Dear Mr Johnstone, PA No: 23/01345/B Proposal: Approval in principle for the construction of new housing Address: 60 Victoria Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4HQ Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application.

The application was determined by the Planning Committee on 9 December 2024. This statement relies upon the Planning Officer's original report which is online and forms part of the planning file and the minutes from the Planning Committee meeting which are provided at the end of this statement.

The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:

1. Appendix 1 – Statement of Case

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

Yours sincerely,

Appendix 1 – Statement of Case

STATEMENT OF THE

Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate

Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to: Approval in principle for the construction of new housing 60 Victoria Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4HQ

PA Reference: 23/01345/A

Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Russell Williams Principal Planning Officer

1.0 Appeal against approval for PA 23/01345/A

The reasons for refusal were:

• R 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.
• R 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.
• R 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.

2.0 Legal and Policy Position

In accordance with Section 10 of the Town Country Planning Act the application has been considered;

S(10)(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval…, the Department shall have regard to —

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

Whilst there is a statutory duty to have regard to the above, it is recognised that weight to be afforded is a matter for the decision maker.

That being said, it shall be noted that the Development Plan does not have primacy as it does in the UK.

However, the Strategic Plan has been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base, public consultation and inquiry and are adopted by Tynwald.

3.0 Response to Reasons for Appeal

This report addresses the issues raised in the reasons for appeal directly. For a full assessment of the initial application please refer to the original Officer’s Report of Planning Committee, which would have been supplied with the initial documentation, and the minutes from the Planning Committee meeting.

Having reviewed the submitted Reasons for Appeal Document, it appears that the Appellant has set their case out by responding to each of the three reasons for refusal in order. This Statement of Case shall therefore follow suit.

FOLLOWING SECTION ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES DIRECTLY

• Reason for refusal 1

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

The Appellant raises the following concerns:

• 1. The layout submitted is indicative only and that the reason for refusal does not take this into account.
• 2. Amenity space complies with residential design guide and site is large enough
• 3. Layout and Design were excluded from consideration at this stage.

• 1. The Officer Report to Committee acknowledges throughout that the submitted site layout plan is for indicative purposes only. This is stated at paragraphs 2.4, 7.15, 7.21, 7.27, 7.28, 7.29, 7.32 and 7.34.
• 2. It is acknowledged that 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 is, when compared to the prevailing density of development and prevailing character of the built environment, cramped and this is at odds with the character of the townscape to which this important greenspace makes a positive contribution towards.
• 3. 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. This is clearly stated at paragraph 7.8 of the Officer Report and was reiterated to Members of the Planning Committee during the meeting.

• Reason for refusal 2

The proposal is also contrary to General Policy 2 b in that it does not respect thesiteand its surroundings in terms of layout, form, design and the landscaping of thebuildings and the

spaces around them. Furthermore, it would result in the loss ofimportant green open space to a cramped form of development, at odds with visualamenityin the area.

The key points raised by the Appellant are:

• 1. The layout is indicative
• 2. Amenity space exceeds residential design guidelines
• 3. The area is a large open space of grass and has been left open for many years
• 4. The site can be developed without impacting upon existing residents and houses
• 5. This is not an important green open space and is not cramped. Layout and Design is excluded.

• 1. This has already been acknowledged as being the case, but regard can still be had to the principle of built development of a site.
• 2. This point is not contested but is not referenced in the reason for refusal.
• 3. This agreed.
• 4. Paragraphs 7.25-7.29 of the Officer Report assess the potential impact of development upon residential amenity. No objection has been raised regarding the impact of development upon residential amenity.
• 5. The Department disagree and consider the Appeal site, which forms part of a larger green open space within the urban environment, an important green space. This matter is discussed at paragraphs 7.8-7.18 of the Officer Report. Most pertinently, Environment Policy 42 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.

Reason for refusal 3

The application fails to demonstrate how the principle of a safe vehicular access canbe 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 accesswith visibility restricted at the junction with the public highway such that the safety ofroad users would be harmed should the development proceed. The proposal thereforefails to comply with General Policy 2 (h) (i) and Transport Policy 4, 7of the StrategicPlan and would result in an unacceptable harmful impact upon highway safety.

The Appellant raises the following points:

• 1. Access is excluded from consideration although the indicative scheme demonstrates how vehicles can traverse the lane
• 2. The existing garage shows that the access lane is already used by vehicles
• 3. Detailed design could be undertaken to address concerns
• 4. The application was not for 4 dwellings – the layout is indicative only

• 1. It is acknowledged within the Officer Report that access is not a matter for which detailed approval has been sought. 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. In this instance, and as set out in the Officer Report paragraph 7.22, that 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 applicant. 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.
• 2. 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 indicate don 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.
• 3. For the reasons set out in the Officer Report, Highway Services consultation response and paragraph 1 above, the Department disagrees and does not consider it possible to design a safe access to the site, due to land required for visibility splays.
• 4. 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.

4.0 Potential Conditions

In the event that the Inspector is minded to recommend approval it is recommended that the conditions as set out in the original approval are utilised by the Inspector.

• 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. Surface water drainage scheme
• vi. Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and Designer's Response
• vii. Swept path analysis (waste collection vehicle). 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 Foul drainage design in accordance with Manx Sewers for Adoption (MSFA)
• o Surface water drainage design in accordance with 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. 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 and tree planting plans. 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 2012 (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.