SOC DEFA Planning Officer Appeal Statement

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

Please reply to the signatory Our Ref: 24/00029/B Mr. A. Johnstone, Planning Appeals Secretary, Cabinet Office, Government Offices, Buck’s Road, Douglas, IM1 3PN. Senior Planning Officer

25th June 2024

Dear Mr Johnstone,

PA No: 24/00029/B Proposal: Erection of a detached triple garage with garden wall/gate. Address: The Old House - Reef House, College Green/Douglas Street,

Castletown, Isle Of Man, IM9 1BE

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

The statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report which was determined by the Planning Committee on 7th May 2024, which is online and on the planning file. The Planning Committee Minutes which details the basis for decisions on the application is also online, although the relevant extract forms an appendage to this appeal statement.

The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:

• 1. Appendix 1 – Statement of Case
• 2. Planning Committee Minute Extract for 7th May 2024.

Yours sincerely,

redacted

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

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

Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to:

Erection of a detached triple garage with garden wall/gate. The Old House - Reef House, College Green/Douglas Street, Castletown, Isle of Man, IM9 1BE PA Reference: 24/00029/B Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Senior Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah, B.Tech (Hons), MSc, RTP, MRTPI

• 1.0 Appeal against approval for PA 24/00029/B
• 1.1 The appeal is brought on the basis that the appellant, the owners/occupiers of 20 Douglas Street, Castletown, which is adjacent to the application site at The Old House - Reef House, College Green/Douglas Street, Castletown, under PA 23/00029/B considers that:

• a. The orientation, scale and massing of proposed detached garage would result in adverse visual impacts on the existing dwelling at the site.
• b. Coastal Overtopping and associated flooding impacts on neighbouring properties. No reference to how this would impact their property.
• c. Officer report does not address the objections and evidence presented by the appellants and owners of neighbouring properties.
• d. The proposal would result in adverse impacts on public amenity. No reference is made to the particular public amenity that would be impacted.
• e. Potential Impacts on adjacent highway.
• f. Procedural Matters

• 2.0 Legal and Policy Position In accordance with S10 of the Town Country Planning Act the application has been considered; S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection

(3), the Department shall have regard to —

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

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

That being said, it shall be noted that the Development Plan and other Adopted Policies do not have primacy as they do in the UK. The Isle of Man is also different from the UK as there

is no presumption in favour of development as set out in the NPPF, and there is no 5-year land supply requirement.

In this application, the most weight has been given to the Strategic Plan, the Area Plan for the South, as well as the Flood Risk Management Act (2013), as they have been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process, and are adopted by Tynwald.

Other material considerations referred to in the officer report include Residential Design Guide (RDG) which followed targeted consultation and adoption by the Minister and has therefore been afforded greater weight, along with the IOM The Manual for Manx Roads (V2.0) which seeks to ensure the highway network enhances accessibility to goods and services and encourage a diversity of transport modes, ensure the highway network provides for safe interactions between transport modes, whilst also seeking to maintain a safe, inclusive and serviceable highway network.

• 3.0 Response to Reasons for Appeal This report addresses those issues directly, for a full assessment of the initial application please refer to the original Officer’s Report which would have been supplied with the initial documentation. There appear to be five issues raised by the appellants. The issues include:

• i. Orientation, scale, and massing;
• ii. Coastal Overtopping and associated flooding;
• iii. Failure of Officer Report to address Concerns of neighbours;
• iv. Impacts on public amenity;
• v. Highway Matters;
• vi. Procedural matters: Matters related to the Planning Committee Procedures.

• 3.1 The Following Section Addresses Those Issues Directly
• 3.2 Concern with Orientation, scale, and massing of proposed garage.

• 3.2.1 The appellants have argued that the orientation, scale and massing of proposed detached garage would result in adverse visual impacts on the existing dwelling at the site.

• However, it must be noted that these matters have been adequately addressed within Section 7.2 of the Officer report where the proposed development was assessed against the site context in terms of its form, scale, massing, overall design and material finish, and considered acceptable for the reasons stated in the report, particularly as the new building was of a size proportionate to the main dwelling, whilst also bearing key features evident in the main dwelling. The scheme was also assessed against the context of the immediate street scene, and not judged to be averse to the character of the area.
• 3.2.2 The reference made to the use of the existing garage on site is noted. However, the garage has been the subject of another approval under PA 22/01463/B which enabled the garage to be utilised as additional accommodation on site. As such, it is not the matter for this application to re-evaluate the acceptability of the principle of that development which has already been approved and not the subject of the current application.
• 3.2.3 The comments which border on the provided plans and drawings not showing a ridge level other than overall height is also noted. But then again, it must be stated that an existing site plan was provided which showed the spot height for the area (at 5.6m above MSL), and this was considered acceptable as the final ridge level can be calculated from this detail shown on Drawing No. EX-01 Rev A. Besides, the site area where the building is proposed is flat in its current, with the scheme not proposing to alter the site level (See application form), as such the information provided was considered appropriate to enable thorough assessment of the scheme proposed (with regard to overall height). Therefore, any reference to the scheme not providing details of ridge height is not based on a thorough knowledge of the plans and drawings, or details inherent in the submitted documents.
• 3.2.4 The reference made to the position of the garage in relation to the front of the existing dwelling, and size of the garage exceeding the size of most triple garages have also been noted, but it must be emphasised that there are no limitations provided in any policy or guiding document as to where garages should be located in relation to existing dwellings, particularly

• as the existing dwelling in neither registered or situated within a conservation area. More so, the design of the proposed garage takes cue from the existing dwelling and is not judged to be at variance with the design, appearance, and form of the existing dwelling on site. Whilst there is reference to garage sizes within the Manual for Manx Road, these are minimum standards, and there is nothing that precludes a property owner from increasing the sizes above the minimum standards to cater for their vehicle needs and space provisions within the

garage. Further to the above, the size of the site area is such that a larger garage than that currently proposed could be easily integrated on site. As such, it is not considered that the comments related to the garage size takes proper cognisance of the distinct character of the application site, which is in no way similar to the medium and small sized plots which are predominant in the immediate vicinity.

• 3.3 Coastal Overtopping and associated flooding

• 3.3.1 The appellants make reference to coastal overtopping and associated flooding impacts, whilst siting a previous (major) flood occurrence in 2014 (10 years ago). This assertion, however does not take into cognisance the fact that the main document guiding flood related impacts for development on the island is the IOM Indicative Flood Map, as it is the main basis upon which applications for new development are ether required to provide flood risk assessments or not.
• 3.3.2 Perhaps, it would be vital to state that the policy test (as stipulated in EP 10 and EP

13) is whether proposals would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or offsite. As such, even if the site was within a flood risk zone (which the extant flood maps do not class the property to be within), the key issue would be whether the proposal creates flood concerns which cannot be easily mitigated or if mitigation detailed within Flood Risk Assessment are considered to be inappropriate/insufficient to address potential flood concerns.

• 3.3.3 It must also be emphasized that the potential flood concerns with the development have been assessed within the Officer report, where the basis for recommendations on the application in relation to flood matters where clearly articulated. It would also be vital to note

• at this point that the new building would be erected over an area of hardstanding on site, which already does not allow percolation, such that the scheme would not increase the areas of hardstanding on site over and beyond that currently attainable on site. Likewise, the proposal would break up other areas of hardstanding on site with new areas of soft landscaping created on site in their place. As such, the overall scheme would reduce the impermeable areas on site, with the potential to increase areas of percolation on site over the existing situation (given that the landscaping works approved under PA 22/01463/B has not been implemented on site).

• 3.3.4 Further to the above, the DOI Flood Risk Management Team who are the relevant flood professionals, and who provide advice on flood related matters were consulted on the application on two occasions (24.01.2024 and 30.04.2024), and at no point did they raise objections to the application or request for the submission of a Flood Risk Assessment, as they would do in any case where they consider that a new development would create flood impacts or be the subject of significant flood concerns.
• 3.3.5 Additionally, reference made by the appellants in relation to potential flood concerns have been generalised with no clear articulation of how the flood matters affect their property. They have also not provided any evidence that diminishes the fact that the main source of flood risk to Douglas Street exists beyond the application property. As well, their assertion that water escapes from the property through its entrance into Douglas street does not in any way reinforce the position that the development would exacerbate flood concerns in the area, as this is also the case with most of the properties here which have site levels set higher than the street level.

• 3.4 Failure of Officer Report to address Concerns of neighbours.

• 3.2.1 The appellants have argued that the officer report has failed to address the objections and evidence presented by neighbours. However, it would be vital to note that the matters that concern impact on neighbours have been clearly discussed within the officer report, with Sections 7.4, 7.5 and 7.7 of the Officer report assessing the potential impacts on neighbours, and provide the basis for the recommendation for approval. As such, no further comments would be made at this point in relation to impacts on neighbours.

• 3.5 Impacts on public amenity

• 3.5.1 With regard to potential impacts on public amenity, it would be vital to refer to Paragraphs 7.7.1 and 7.7.2 of the Officer report which clearly assessed impacts on public views. The Officer report was also clear that any impacts on public views held no weight as a material planning consideration, such that this was not be assessed as part of the proposal. Further to the above, the appellants have not explained how the scheme would impact on public amenity or referred to the impacted elements of public amenity, beside the loss of view when using the adjoining public footpath which was assessed in the Officer Report. As such, no further comments would be made at this stage in terms of potential impacts on public amenity.

• 3.6 Highway matters

• 3.6.1 With regard to comments made by the appellants that the development would impact on highway, it should be noted that DOI Highways was also consulted severally on the application, with this statutory consultee raising no concerns with the proposal. DOI Highways was also present at the Planning Committee meeting and raised no concerns with the scheme. Besides, the appellants have not provided supporting information which informs their position to reject the professional advice offered by DOI Highways. As such, any concerns related to highway impacts are not considered significant in this case.

3.7 Procedural Matters:

• 3.7.1 Matters related to the Planning Committee Procedures.

• 3.6.1.1 These are procedural matters which border on how the Planning Committee was conducted and as such are not a matter for the appeal inspector to comment on.
• 3.7.1.2 Given the nature of these matters, which are also outside the remit of the Planning Officer, given that they relate to Planning Committee procedures and mode of operation which is defined by the Planning Committee Standing Orders, and coordinated by the Chair of the Planning Committee, no further comments would be made on these matters.

• 3.7.1.3 Should the appellants require clarity on how to address concerns with Planning Committee procedures, they can contact the planning office for guidance on how to address such matters, or make complaints on Planning Committee procedures.
• 4.0 Conclusion

• 4.1 This statement seeks to address the initial reasons for appeal articulated in the Appellant’s Appeal Request. Additional statement(s) would be provided as rebuttal(s) further to the appellant’s providing additional statement(s) on the issues highlighted in their appeal request, should they refer to matters that have not been addressed in the Officer Report or this appeal statement.

Appendix 2

Extract from Planning Committee Minutes of 7th May 2024

Item 5.5<br><br>The Old House - Reef<br><br>House College Green / Douglas Street Castletown Isle Of Man 1M9 IBE<br><br>PA24/00029 B	Erection of a detached triple garage with garden wall / gate<br><br>Applicant : Mr Gary Lamb Case Officer : Paul Visigah Recommendation : Permitted

The Case Officer reported on the matter and summarised the key issues as set out in the report and with reference to the visual presentation. The Officer also reiterated that flooding was a key contention with the proposal and whilst the concerns were noted, given the coastal overtopping that exists on this part of Castletown, the site was not zoned as being prone to flood risks on the Islands indicative flood map.

The Highway Services representative confirmed there was nothing further to add to their report.

The owner/occupier of 20 Douglas Street spoke against the proposal. The points raised were as follows:-

• - Welcomed the renovation of Reef House
• - The orientation, scale, mass and footprint of the proposed garage was unacceptable

and unreasonable

• - Existing garages on site which could be adapted to suit
• - Wish the Planning Committee to consider all the submitted objections
• - Felt the Applicant has not taken the objection into consideration, with no discussions

having taken place betheen them and the neighbours

• - Concerns regarding climate change with particular regard to flooding, coastal

overtopping and coastal propen./ damage

• - Dispute that the area does not flood. The site is adjacent to the Flood Control Map

which principally addresses river and tidal inundation rather than coastal overtopping Have submitted photographic evidence with my representation in illustration of same The developer admitted that the principal source of water on Douglas Street was further down, which confirmed that it was not the only source

• - Floodwater due to coastal overtopping from the development was a risk to

neighbouring properties

• - The developer referred to the percolation test and to slot drainage at the gate, but

these only addressed rainwater and not coastal overtopping

• - Consultations with Flood Management Services might not have taken the

detrimental effect on the neighbouring properties into account

• - The acceptable risk referred to by the Case Officer does not include the potential

risk to neighbouring properties from potential flooding

• - The level of the garage as proposed would be intended to mitigate flood risk
• - In combination with the proposed garage, the paved terrace and conservatory to

the rear may offer flood protection to Reef House but cause flood displacement offsite Neighbours have confirmed that flood water does flow off the site

• - The development falls foul of General Policy 20, Environmental Policy 13, the

Residential Design Guide and the Flood Risk Management Act 2013

• - Request Interested Person Status in the case

In response to question from the Members, the Case Officer confirmed that DOI Flood Risk Management comment only on applications where there was felt to be a risk of flooding, and that the Local Authority had not submitted comments with regard to this proposal. He further confirmed that the proposed garage was to be sited on the existing area of hardstanding.

The Agent spoke in support of the proposal. The points raised were as follows:-

• - The property was purchased in 2022 as a forever home, and it was his client's

intention to bring back to life one of the most beautiful properties in Castletown whilst also bringing it up to modern living standards

• - The garage had been redesigned in response to previous feedback from neighbours

and the Case Officer and designed to integrate with the existing house. These changes were

• - The garden store was removed from the garage building reducing its size and

footprint

• - The roof is now a duo-hipped roof to reduce the visual impact
• - Moved towards the road and house but with sufficient space to include a personnel

door between the house and garage, resulting in the garage rear wall being further from the sea wall

• - The garage front façade was to align with the end of the Sun Room South Elevation

resulting in shortening of the flanking castellated wall in that location

• - The castellated flanking wall was returned along part of the face of the front façade

of the garage so that no part of castellated wall would be obscured by the garage, which now had a more harmonious relationship with the front façade of the main house To reinforce the close relationship with the house the castellated flanking was returned part way along the façade of the garage, Giving a string visual connection with the main house

• - Objections referred to an increased risk of flooding due to the erection of a garage.

As previously communicated in PA 22/01463/B, percolation tests performed by a qualified party demonstrated that there was sufficient soak away to deal with the occasional overtopping at Reef House, with the topography of the site being that it was lower than the adjacent street.

• - The suggestion that building the proposed garage would increase flood risk and

damage to the properties along Douglas Street was incorrect. Recent consultation with DOI Flood Risk Management highlighted the highest overtopping risk along Queens Street which existed beyond Reef House where the beach shingle rests against the sea wall. At no point has there been such deposits outside of Reef House Drive. DOI Flood Risk Management have not objected to this proposal.

• - There have been claims that the public view would be impacted by the erection of

a garage. Pedestrians on Douglas Street would not have a view of the sea, Langness or the beach as such view was already interrupted by Reef House's surrounding wall, vegetation and the sea wall. When the renovation and building work is complete, the gardens will be renovated with the introduction of new seaside vegetation, the overall area is to be soft landscaped and porous to aid drainage, the boundary wall will be renovated and the existing hedging replaced with formal hedging. There would be no material impact to the public as a result of this renovation

• - We have worked together with the Registered Buildings Officer and the Case Officer

to ensure the tasteful renovation of Reef House and intend to use local contracting firms to carry out the work

In response to a question from the Members, the Agent confirmed that this element of the development was submitted as a separate application on advice received from the Case Officer, who felt it was more appropriate to submit this element separately as it was likely to be more contentious,

In response to a question from the Members, the Case Officer confirmed that the area of the garage was 73sqm with the ridge height being 5.4m, and the height to the eaves being 3.2m. The height of the boundary wall was about 1.8m with hedging along sections of the boundary rising to between 2.3 to 2.7m, and the undeveloped area of the site was 2188sqm although this would be reduced to 2115sqm when the garage building is erected.

In response to a question from the Members regarding the height of the building, the Agent confirmed that the height was affected by the castellations, and that the corbels which had further resulted in raising the height of the building had been included in response to advice received from the Registered Buildings Officer.

The Members expressed that they felt the proposal would not detrimentally impact neighbouring properties with regard to flooding, with such flood water more likely to be contained and dispersed by Reef House. They confirmed that their only concerns with regard to the proposal was the potential for gravel to be washed onto the roadway.

In response to this concern from the Members, the Agent confirmed that the drive was (which was the subject of a previous approval) is proposed to be of permeable gravel with the 5m of the drive way to the highway being of tarmacadam to prevent the gravel from being brought onto the roadway.

Decision

The Committee unanimously accepted the recommendation of the Case Officer and the application was approved subject to the following 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.

Reason for approval:

Overall, it is considered that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact upon the character of the existing dwelling or locality within which it is located, and no adverse impacts have been identified as likely with respect of the impacts on neighbouring or public amenity, and highway safety. The proposal is, therefore, considered to comply with General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 3 (b), and Environment Policy 42, and Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan, and the principles promoted by the Residential Design Guide 2021.

Interested Person Status

It was decided 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):

• 20 Douglas Street, Castletown;

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

It was decided 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):

Seascape, 14 Douglas Street, Castletown; 15 Douglas Street, Castletown; 16 and 17 Douglas Street, Castletown;

• 18 Douglas Street, Castletown;
• 19 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.