DEC Officer Report

Applicant: Mr Gary Lamb Proposal Sun room extension, demolition of out-riggers, renovation of a barn/garage into family accommodation, and renovation of the main house Site Address The Old House - Reef House College Green Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1BE Case Officer : Mr Paul Visigah Site Visit: Expected Decision Level Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 02.05.2023

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
• C 3. During the construction period, there must be no discharge of surface water to the adjoining Langness Bay Marine Nature Reserve (MNR).

Reason: To ensure that the protected site is not adversely affected by the discharge of harmful materials, such as concrete or washings.

N 1. FOR YOUR INFORMATION Please be aware that a ban on the installation of fossil fuel heating systems in any new building(s) and or extension(s), will come into force on 1st January 2025.

You therefore are encouraged to ensure that your proposed development includes alternatives to fossil fuel heating systems if you believe that such works will not be completed by that date.

To this end, if you propose an alternative, such as air source or ground source heat pump(s), or any other heating system that would require planning approval, the details of this should be addressed now. This may require you to resubmit your planning application to accommodate the alternative permitted heating system proposed.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Overall, it is considered that the proposals do not have a detrimental impact upon the character of the existing dwelling or locality within which it is located, with the proposal considered to conform to the basis of General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 3 (b), and Environment Policy 42. No adverse impact has been identified as likely with respect of the impacts on neighbouring or public amenity, and highway safety such that the proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2, Transport Policy 7 and Community Policy 10 of the IOMSP, and the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide 2021.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This decision relates to the documents and plans date stamped and received 1 December 2022, Amended Plans/documents received 15 February 2023, Additional document received 23 March 2023, Correspondence received 13 January 2023, and Email received 13 April 2023.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

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

Seascape, 14 Douglas Street, Castletown; 15 Douglas Street, Castletown;

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

Resident of No 20 was discussed and the members agreed to follow the Case Officer's recommendation to decline status for the reasons as original recommended.

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

Penrhyn, 16 Douglas Street, Castletown; 17 Douglas Street, Castletown;

• 19 Douglas Street, Castletown;
• 20 Douglas Street, Castletown;
• 21 Douglas Street, Castletown;

as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

Manx Utilities Authority Drainage ________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND THERE ARE MORE THAN 4 OBJECTIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

0.0 PREAMBLE - 0.1 This application was considered by the Committee on 22nd May 2023 and deferred for a site visit. - 0.2 The Sit visit was carried out on Friday 26th May 2023. - 0.3 During the site visit, the neighbours raised concerns with the potential for the development to impacts on public views to the sea as it had been stated at the previous planning Committee meeting the loss of view was not a planning consideration. In order to evaluate the concerns observations were made from both public walkways along the stretch of the site. The height of the plantings within the site was also measured to determine the potential for intervening mediums to impact on views towards the sea. - 0.4 The extent of the castellation wall was also demonstrated on site to ascertain if there would be adverse impacts on public views of the sea as a result of the castellation wall extension. - 0.5 The remainder of this report is unchanged. However, the details of the height intervening medium measured from the public thoroughfare will be confirmed via verbal update to the Committee. - 0.6 Following the deferment of the determination of the application pending a site visit by the Planning Committee, the Owners/occupiers of 20 Douglas Street have written in (23 May

2023) indicating why they should be granted interested person status against the recommendation of the Planning Officer to not grant them IPS. The objector has argued that they have provided the required information and satisfied the necessary grounds, and referred to the relevant Issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy, and explained how the development would impact on the lawful use of the land we occupy/own & in relation to the Relevant Issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy as is required by 2D. However, it would be important to note that whilst the representation meets parts (A), (B) and (C) of section 2.0 of the Operational Policy, it does not comply fully with part (D) as although the objector mentions some impacts that could result from the development, the representation does not explain how the proposed development could impact (positively or negatively) on the lawful use of the land referred to in (A) above in relation to the issues set out in (C) above. It should be noted that loss of view and impact on property values are not a material planning issue and hold no weight in the determination of a planning application. As such, it is still recommended that IPS should not be granted in this case.

0.7 In referring to the sun room extension and extension/elevation of the castellated wall on the seaward side of the property which is the only element of the development that is relevant in this case (as the garage and gate are not subjects of the current application), the objector states that these elements of the proposal "will adversely affect the public views of the sea, the townscape and amenity of the local residents and the public", and in no way explain how their

property would be impacted. On flooding they also do not explain how the development would result in flooding of their property at No. 20 Douglas Street. As well, the representations do not explain how the proposed development would impact on them in terms of highway safety impacts or outlook. As such, the representations fail part D of the policy.

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Old House - Reef House, which is a large detached dwelling within large grounds situated on the southern side of College Green, Castletown. This detached dwelling sits noticeably at the junction between Bowling Green Road and College Green, with its vehicular entrance accessed via Douglas Street, Castletown. - 1.2 The existing house is a three storey dwelling which has three chimney stacks on its roof plane; two on the gables and one almost mid-way within the roof plane. The existing roof is finished in slate tiles, while the predominant window material is timber. There are decorative mouldings which contribute to the external appearance of the dwelling. Currently, the dwelling has two main entrance doors which project from the front elevation of the dwelling as flat roofed porches. There is a balcony set over the entrance porch to the left of the front elevation. - 1.3 A Manx stone wall about 1.8m high when viewed from the adjoining highway runs along the entire stretch of the site boundary opening up at the existing vehicular entrance which measures about 2.7m wide, pedestrian access gates and an existing garage/workshop on the northern boundary.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning approval is sought for sun room extension, demolition of out-riggers, renovation of a barn/garage into family accommodation, and renovation of the main house. - 2.2 The proposed works would comprise the following elements:

• 2.2.1 Sun Room Extension:

• a. Erection of a sun room extension on the south (side) elevation of the dwelling and at the rear of the kitchen that would project 5.4m from the rear of the side of the dwelling, be 10.8m long, and 3.8m from the ground level to the top of its flat roof (2.9m from the floor level to top).
• b. A new wrap round terrace would be created around the extension that would project from the south elevation by 3.4m and east elevation by 2.3m. Glazed frameless balustrades would form the barrier at the edge of the terrace.
• c. There would also be glazed frameless safety glass balustrades 1.1m high on the edges of the balcony that would be created over the sun room extension.

• 2.2.2 Demolition of rear outrigger: a. The multiple rear outriggers on the east elevation of the dwelling (both two storey and single storey) would be removed and a new flat roofed single storey extension with fully glazed external walls would be installed on this elevation.
• 2.2.3 Renovation of barn/garage into family accommodation:

• a. The garage doors would be replaced with new windows to match the existing windows on the dwelling on the street side.
• b. The existing windows on the first floor North elevation to be removed and new windows would be introduced.
• c. Existing roof lights on the barn are to be removed and new roof lights installed over the roof plane.
• d. Introduce new windows and bifold doors on the rear (south elevation) of barn.
• e. The new layout would offer a family room on the ground floor, while the first floor would have a bedroom with ensuite and an open plan kitchen, sitting/dining area.

• 2.2.4 Renovation of main house:

• a. Installing replacement windows and doors, lowering window cills to create doors, replacing doors with windows, and removing windows with new windows with better proportions and symmetry installed in their place. The replacement and new windows on the principal elevations would be panted timber framed double glazed sliding sash windows, while the other windows would be painter timber or UPVC or aluminium framed units.
• b. Removing existing roof lights and installing new Velux roof lights.
• c. Installing new clay chimney pots on all the chimney stacks.
• d. Replacing timber gate on south elevation with new timber gate.
• e. Extending castellation on the side of the dwelling by 6.5m and raising the height by 450mm.
• f. Removing existing porch to the right of the front elevation and installing a new window to match adjacent window on this elevation.

2.3 No trees on site would be impacted by the development. - 2.4 The applicants have provided a Planning Statement which sets out the history of the site and its transition from single to two dwellings and the need to re-establish it as a single family dwelling; the need to re-establish the original single entrance to the dwellings and the reasons that reinforce the decision to keep the entrance porch to the left of the front elevation; and justification to cease the use of the existing garage for parking. This statement also states that the design of the proposal has been sensitively considered and will complement the traditional appearance of the dwelling. - 2.5 The applicants have also provided an Assessment of Percolation Test Report prepared by BB Consulting and dated 20 March 2023 in response to request for the test to be provided by Manx Utilities Drainage. This report concludes that: Based on the results of the testing and desktop assessment, the underlying strata is suitable for the use of a soakaway. - 2.6 The garage which is referred to in all the representations from neighbours has been removed from the current proposals for the site and as such any reference to the garage and its impacts on the area is not relevant in the current case.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Residential on the Area Plan for the South, and the site lies outside Castletown's Conservation Area. The site is not within a registered tree area and there are no registered trees on site. The site is also not prone to flood risks, although its entire southern boundary adjoins an area of High Tidal Flood Risk Zone. The southern boundary of the site is adjacent to the Langness Bay Marine Nature Reserve (MNR). As such, the following planning policies from the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are considered relevant; - 3.2 General Policy 2 (GP2) (in part) Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;

• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;

3.3 Strategic Policy 1: Development should make the best use of resources by:

• (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and underused land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials;
• (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and
• (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.

3.4 Strategic Policy 3: Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by: (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character. - 3.5 Environment Policy 42 (In part): 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. - 3.6 Transport Policy 7: The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. "Typical Residential: 2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling". - 3.7 Strategic Policy 4 (In part): Proposals for development must:

• (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and
• (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance

3.8 Environment Policy 4 protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites). - 3.9 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant in the assessment of the proposal are; Infrastructure Policy 5, Community Policy 11, Community Policy 7 and Community Policy 10.

- 4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Whilst not adopted planning policy, DEFA's Residential Design Guidance is a material consideration in the assessment of this application as, "It is intended to apply to any residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions". Sections 2.0 on sustainable construction and 7.0 which deal with impact on neighbouring properties are considered relevant to the current scheme. - 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 There is no previous application for the site considered materially relevant to this application. - 6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that proposal does not raise significant road safety or highway network functionality issues, and as such they do not oppose the application (9 December 2022).

• 6.1.2 Following review of amended plans submitted by the applicants, they have stated that they welcome the installation of cycle parking storage and an EVCP, and continues to not oppose the proposal. (17 February 2023).

6.2 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Drainage have stated that allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. They advise the applicant to be aware of and demonstrate compliance with the above clauses (23 February 2023).

6.2.1 In response, the applicants have stated that the ground surface within the curtilage of the property is made of loose gravel and is fully permeable so surface water would percolate into the ground and would not runoff onto the highway. They also refer DOI Highways Drainage to drawing 1868.02 P-04 Rev B submitted under PA 22/01440/B which shows a linear drainage channel across the entrance to the highway so should there be any surface water this will be drained by the channel (13 April 2023).

6.3 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team has made the following comments regarding the application (6 January 2023):

• o They state that they have no bat or bird concerns with these proposals.
• o They note that although Reef House is an old property, having viewed it, they believe the potential for nesting birds and roosting bats is low and therefore no ecological assessments are required.
• o They advise the applicant and all workers on site to be vigilant throughout the works, and if bats or birds, or evidence of their presence, is found the works must stop immediately, if safe to do so, and a member of the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team (651577) contacted for advice on how to proceed.
• o They note that the property is next to Langness Bay Marine Nature Reserve (MNR), so the applicant must ensure that the work site is kept tidy so that there is no potential for accidental pollution of the MNR, although they note that the wall surrounding the property should provide a good barrier.

6.4 DEFA Registered Buildings Officer has made the following comments regarding the application (6 February 2023):

• o The building has been recently assessed for potential registration, and although not meeting the criteria, the building is considered to be of some local historic interest and architectural quality.
• o The property, due to its position, form, scale and massing makes a positive contribution to the townscape.
• o He notes that the two porches provide balance to the principal elevation and also context to the property having been two dwellings. The loss of the porch on the seaward dwelling with result in an unbalanced elevation. Whilst he understand the reasoning behind its loss and not wishing to provide confusion as to the location of the principal entrance, it is considered that more thought should be taken in terms of the retention of both porches and their possible inclusion in the reworked dwelling.
• o The property's principal façade currently features timber sash one over one windows that probably date from the time of the façade embellishments in the early 20th century. The applicant is advised that the retention of these windows in both environmental and aesthetic terms would be beneficial. He suggests that the existing windows to be renovated rather than replaced with UPVC units that would reduce the aesthetic merits of this historic façade.
• o He considers that the siting and scale of the proposed garage has the potential to affect adversely the character of the surrounding townscape, and suggest that further options for the garage's position and size are considered to reduce the impact on the existing townscape.
• o He notes the inclusion of a glazed balustrade at first floor level above the level of the seaward castellated wall and advises the applicant to give careful consideration to the detailing
• of this element given the exposed position and potential to be visible on the property's principal elevation.

6.5 Manx Utilities Drainage have stated that the planning application the form states that SW will be discharged into a new soakaway. As such, Manx Utilities will need to see a copy of the percolation test before they are able to support the application (17 March 2023).

6.4 Castletown Commissioners have made the following comments regarding the application (7 February 2023/20 February 2023):

• o They state that they are fully supportive of the proposed renovation works to the dwelling, however they have grave concerns regarding the siting of the proposed garage, both with respect to its location, massing and potential effect on drainage from the site in the event
• of coastal overtopping.
• o They state that the flood risk maps only show high level detail, however images submitted by adjacent residents suggest that this a matter that requires clarification from the applicant.
• o They state that whilst they are broadly supportive of the wider plans, as application 22/01463/B can only be taken in its entirety, they feel that they have no option other than to OBJECT to the plan in its current form.

6.5 The owners/occupiers of the following properties have made written representations on the application:

• o Seascape, 14 Douglas Street, Castletown;
• o 15 Douglas Street, Castletown;
• o Penrhyn, 16 Douglas Street, Castletown;
• o 17 Douglas Street, Castletown;
• o 19 Douglas Street, Castletown;
• o 20 Douglas Street, Castletown;
• o 21 Douglas Street, Castletown;

• 6.5.1 They object to the application on the following grounds:

• Garage would adversely affect the flood management of Douglas Street and the flow of storm water. o Reference is made to the impact of proposed garage on character of the area and impact on private views, although the garage element has been removed from the application. o Flooding of the area and potential for flood damage to proposed garage which is not part of the scheme. o Reference is made to the impact of the widening of the gateway which is not a part of the current proposal. o Loss of green space and impacts on natural ecosystems on the site. o The need to retain the existing garage/barn for use as garage in its current position. o Impact on property values; o Loss of private and public views as a result of garage. o The development area is prone to flooding. o Impacts of the flanking wall castellation wall on the appearance of the area. o The sun-room extension and extension/elevation of the castellated wall on the seaward side of the property will adversely affect the public views of the sea, and the townscape. o The sun-room extension and extension/elevation of the castellated wall on the seaward side Would have adverse impacts on the amenity of the local residents. o Impacts of sunroom extension on privacy of the occupants of 15 Douglas Street. o The castellated wall will result in overbearing impacts and impact on outlook from property on 14 Douglas Street.

• 6.5.2 In response to the comments from the neighbours, the applicants have made the following comments in their correspondence dated 12 January 2023:

• o The site is not in the high-risk tidal flood zone, and this is clear on the DoI Flood Risk Viewer website.
• o The seawall along the property seaward boundary prevents tidal flooding.

• o Flooding as shown in some of the old photographs provided is not a regular occurrence but there are occasions when there is overtopping. This is true of the application site and the full length of Douglas Road from the application site to the junction with Bridge Street.
• o The extent of overtopping is dependent on a number of factors which include tide status (spring/neap etc), and wind strength, direction etc.
• o The site being generally below the level of the highway and enclosed for the most part by the boundary wall, retains the overtopping water within the property.
• o The applicant is aware of the need to mitigate incoming overtopping water and therefore the garden design will include ground surfaces being in gravel or soft landscaping.
• o The raising of the flanking wall castellation is only 450mm and its lengthening is by only

• 6.5m onto a façade of 27.4m - this is not significant in terms of the visual mass of the existing house facade.

• At a distance of ranging between 34m to 50m from the neighbouring properties means the castellated wall cannot be said to have an adverse impact on the amount of light to the houses on Douglas Street. o The wall uplift is only 450mm so it barely affects views over the wall - but note the loss of a view is not a material planning consideration, and this is made clear on the gov.im website where on the Material Planning Considerations page 'Loss of View' is listed as a Non-Material Planning consideration - issues that are not relevant to the decision.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this planning application are:

• a. The principle of converting the garage to ancillary accommodation;
• b. The visual impact of the proposed alterations and extension on the existing dwelling itself;
• c. The Impacts on the surrounding Street scene and locality;
• d. Impact on neighbouring amenity;
• e. The impact on the adjacent highway; and
• f. Flood risk concerns;

7.2 The impact on the existing dwelling (GP2, STP 3, & RDG)

• 7.2.1 In assessing the impacts of the proposed works on the existing dwelling, it is considered the works would largely be in keeping with the character and appearance the dwelling and serve to improve the overall appearance of the dwelling.
• 7.2.2 The design of the side extension to add the sunroom and terrace over, although introducing new elements in the form of glazed balustrades would be fitting additions to the existing dwelling as they would be considerably concealed by the castellation walls which are key features of the existing dwelling. The finish of the glazed balustrades in plain glass, and without frames would also ensure their inclusion does not dominate the views to the dwelling when viewed from sections of surrounding highway where views would be attainable.
• 7.2.3 The extension of the castellation walls would also be an acceptable form of development as they would be finished to match the existing castellation walls, thus mirroring the design and finishing of the main dwelling and ensuring that the changes tie in with the appearance of the existing dwelling.
• 7.2.4 The introduction of the single storey glazed infill to replace the existing rear outriggers will be a positive element of the proposal given that the height, material, styles and external finishing would enable the extension fit seamlessly with the existing dwelling, without obscuring the main features of the rear elevation.
• 7.2.5 In the case of the replacement windows and doors, addition of new window fenestrations and the re-alignment and alteration of existing window fenestrations, it is considered that these alterations respect the appearance and finish of the existing dwelling, with the new window symmetry for the new fenestrations also serving as improvements on the

• original. More so, the replacement windows on the principal elevations would be made of traditional materials (timber), and would be finished to reflect the appearance of the existing (including the glazing arrangement), in addition to improving the energy saving capacity of the windows and as such would comply with the requirements of General Policy 2. Likewise, the proposed new windows, replacing the existing garage doors in terms of their proportion, form, scale and design are in keeping with the property and therefore considered to be an acceptable forms of development in this respect.
• 7.2.6 With regard to the works to replace some of the roof lights on the roof plane and introduce new roof lights, it is considered that there will be no detrimental visual impacts upon the existing dwelling as the new Velux rooflights would be in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling, as they would offer the traditional appearance and as such will be positive and therefore an enhancement. Similarly, the reintroduction of the traditional clay chimney pots would ensure that the traditional appearance of reinforced on the roof appearance.
• 7.2.7 Overall, the proposed alterations and extensions would tie in with the main dwelling; thus conforming to GP 2(b, c, and g), and the RDG 2021.

7.3 The Impacts on the surrounding Street scene and locality (GP2, STP 3, EP 42)

• 7.3.1 In assessing the impact of the proposed development on the surrounding area, it is considered that the changes that are particularly noticeable from the surrounding street scene are the window and door changes on the front elevation, the addition of the clay chimney pots and roof lights, the extension of the castellation walls and addition of first floor terrace on the rear elevation, as well as the changes to the front elevation of the existing garage/barn. Whilst these changes would be noticeable from the street scene, they would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the existing dwelling as the materials, design and finishing of the alterations would respect the key features of the existing dwelling. Therefore, the proposed changes are judged to be acceptable and not averse to the character of the street scene and locality to which the property belongs.
• 7.3.2 Granting the element of the proposal to include the glazed balcony at the side (south elevation) is a modern addition to the dwelling, the material and design of the balustrades have been carefully chosen to ensure they remain subordinate to the castellation walls that define this part of the property. Besides, it is not uncommon to have glazed balconies on the sea facing elevations of properties on the Island. Therefore, it is considered that this element of the scheme is acceptable and compliant with the requirements of General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan.

7.4 Impact on neighbouring amenity (GP2 & RDG 2021):

• 7.4.1 With regard to the impact of the development on the neighbouring properties and general public amenity, it is worth noting that the proposed extensions are single storey and located to the side elevation and rear elevations, and at sections of the dwelling where there no be no direct impacts on neighbouring amenity in terms of overlooking, overbearing impacts or overshadowing.
• 7.4.2 The extension of the castellation walls although increasing in height by 450mm are also not judged to result in adverse impacts on neighbouring amenity given its location on the side of the dwelling which is away from the road or neighbours, its orientation which would keep it tucked behind the existing dwelling when viewed from large sections of the adjoining highway and the nature of the existing boundary treatment on the site boundary which is a boundary wall about 1.8m high. Whilst there may be views from first floor rooms in the neighbouring properties across the highway and on Douglas Road, these views are private views. Besides, the design and finish would not detract from the overall appearance of the existing dwelling, with the changes read within the existing residential context of the site. As such, it is not considered that this change would impacts on private or public amenities in the locality.

• 7.4.3 Whilst some of the neighbours on Douglas Street have opined that the changes to the castellation walls would impact on outlook from their property, and that the first floor terrace would result in overbearing impacts, the proposed castellation wall extension and first floor terrace would be positioned about 37.9m from the nearest property on Douglas Street (No. 20), and on the south elevation of the existing dwelling where it would be largely screened by the existing three storey mass of the main dwelling. As such, it is not considered that there would be impacts on outlook or overbearing impacts in the current case.
• 7.4.4 It has been noted that the new first floor terrace on the south elevation of the dwelling would offer some views into the rear garden of the neighbouring property 'Rope Walk'. However, there is existing mutual overlooking of rear gardens from both properties with Rope Walk having a large rear balcony with views over the rear garden of the application site. As such, it is considered that any overlooking impacts in this case would be mutual.
• 7.5 Flood Risk Challenges

• 7.5.1 General Policy 2(i) and Environment Policy 13 assert that development which is prone to unreasonable risk or unacceptable risk from flooding (either on or off-site), will not be permitted. With the current application, there would be no changes to the site levels which would increase the vulnerabilities beyond that which is present and the property is such that the ground floor spaces are at a minimum level 500mm above the ground level, with the land level sloping away from the property.
• 7.5.2 It would be important to note that the floor level of the sunroom extension which would be at a position with potential for impacts from coastal overtopping is positioned about 950mm above the site level and as such is less likely to be impacted by flooding of the site form overtopping. It would also be positioned about 16.6m from the sea wall at the rear of the property which is a significant distance relative to the other properties on this side of Castletown which have their rear elevation set considerably closer to the sea.
• 7.5.3 The comments made by the neighbours and the Castletown Commissioners that a proposed garage would impact on flooding in the area is noted. However, the scheme has been reviewed with the garage removed from the current scheme being assessed. As such, any reference to the garage and its impacts is not materially relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application.
• 7.5.4 Moreover, the site lies outwit a flood prone area as detailed on the Isle of Man Indicative Flood Maps which guides the Flood Risk Management Team on matters related to flooding.

7.6 Impact on Highway (GP 2 h&i, & CP 10)

• 7.6.1 In terms of impacts on highway safety, it is considered that the conversion of the existing garage/barn would not result in adverse impacts on on-street parking in the area as the site has sufficient space to accommodate the parking requirements for the property. Besides, the existing garage offer poor visibility when accessing the main highway. Therefore, the loss of the garage would be acceptable in this case.
• 7.6.2 It is also important to note that DOI Highways considers that the proposal does not raise significant road safety or highway network functionality issues, and as such d not oppose the scheme; a factor that points to the acceptability of the proposal in terms of parking and highway safety.
• 7.6.3 The design of the scheme would also not impede access to fire vehicles into the site, should they be required.

• 7.6.4 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the development would not result in adverse highway safety impacts and would meet the requirements of General Policy 2 (h & i), and Community Policy 10.

- 7.7 OTHER MATTERS

• 7.7.1 Site Drainage: 7.7.1.1 The neighbours have made assertions that the development of the site, particularly the introduction of a new triple garage on site (which is no longer included in the proposal) would impact on flooding in the area. However, it would be vital to note that the site is set lower than the surrounding area and as such would not increase flooding for the area as it does not drain out onto the adjacent street. It is also important to note that the scheme has been supported by percolation tests which show that the proposed soak away to manage surface water drainage from the site would be achievable for the site. As such, it is not considered that drainage from the site would result in increased flooding of the area.
• 7.7.2 The matters related to property values, protection of private views, and widening of driveway, bear no weight as material planning considerations and as such cannot be considered in the assessment of this planning application.
• 7.7.3 With respect to references made regarding garage elements within this scheme, no garage is included within the revised scheme. As such, any reference to the garage or potential impacts within representations is irrelevant in this case.

7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 It is considered that the proposals do not have a detrimental impact upon the character of the existing dwelling or locality within which it is located, with the proposal considered to conform to the basis of General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 3 (b), and Environment Policy 42. No adverse impact has been identified as likely with respect of the impacts on neighbouring or public amenity, and highway safety such that the proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2, Transport Policy 7 and Community Policy 10 of the IOMSP, and the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide 2021.

9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

9.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status.

9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 19.06.2023 Signed : P VISIGAH Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional informative note (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report). Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 19.06.2023

Application No

22/01463/B

Applicant Mr Gary Lamb Proposal Sun room extension, demolition of out-riggers, renovation of a barn/garage into family accommodation, and renovation of the main house Site Address The Old House - Reef House College Green Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1BE Planning Officer Presenting Officer Mr Paul Visigah

As above

Addendum to the Officer Report The planning application was originally presented to Planning Committee at its meeting held on 22nd May 2023. Determination was deferred by the members in order to conduct a site visit which was carried out on Friday 26th May 2023.

The Planning Committee considered the application at its meeting on 19th June 2023, and agreed with the recommendation to approve the application subject to three conditions and a note on boiler ban to soon take effect.

The Committee also accepted the officer recommendation that the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they meet the requirements stipulated in the Operational Policy on Interested Person Status:

Seascape, 14 Douglas Street, Castletown; 15 Douglas Street, Castletown;

The other neighbouring properties that made comments on the application were not granted Interested Person Status.