Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/00739/B Page 1 of 13
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 23/00739/B Applicant : Mr Julian Wood Proposal : Erection of dwelling to replace former dwelling "Ballatiki" Site Address : Land Of Former Ballatiki Shore Road Ballaugh Isle Of Man IM7 5AZ
Planning Officer: Mr Toby Cowell Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 14.08.2023 __
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 all hardsurfacing, 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. The visibility splay(s) identified on drwg. no. 03A shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050 mm in height above adjoining carriageway level.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 4. 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, and no garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department. Likewise,
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/00739/B Page 2 of 13
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
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. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable by providing a modern dwelling of a high standard of design, which would successfully assimilate into the wider streetscene without detriment to the character of the wider streetscene or landscape setting. The proposals comprise a more efficient use of the site than the previous dwelling in situ, whilst amounting to an environmental improvement through the use of modern buildings techniques, solar panels and an air source heat pump.
The development is considered to be provide suitable accommodation for future occupants, without detriment to the amenities of surrounding properties or giving rise to an adverse impact upon highway safety. The proposals are therefore deemed compliant with General Policies 2 and 3, Environment Policies 1 and 2, and Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the following drawings and documents referenced; 01, 02, 03 RevA, 04 RevA, 05 and Planning Statement, all received 22.06.23. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following 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:
Sunsets, Shore Road, Ballaugh
as they have 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 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 6(4):
Ballacanadia, The Cronk, Ballaugh Shore Cottage, The Cronk, Ballaugh Dundalk Cottage, The Cronk, Ballaugh Shee, Shore Road, Ballaugh The Gables, Shore Road, Ballaugh Dunlins, Shore Road, Ballaugh Thie Ollee, Bollyn Road, Ballaugh
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/00739/B Page 3 of 13
Far Horizon, Shore Road, Ballaugh Ballacanadia, Shore Road, Ballaugh Clearview, Shore Road, Ballaugh The Old School, Shore Road, Ballaugh Reflections, Shore Road, Ballaugh Ballaterson Moar, Station Road, Ballaugh Sleepy Hollow, The Cronk, Ballaugh
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. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL
0.0 PREMABLE 0.1 This application was originally approved by the Planning Committee on 07.08.23. Subsequent to the meeting and prior to the issue of the decision notice, it became apparent that an additional representation had been received from Sleepy Hollow, The Cronk, Ballaugh. This representation was not included in the original officer report or the IPS assessment, and therefore this application has been brought back to committee in the interests of due diligence. It is recommended that this property not be granted IPS. For the avoidance of doubt, there are no changes to the scheme itself as previously considered by the Committee.
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site comprised until recently the residential curtilage of Ballatiki which was a single storey detached dwelling (demolished in 2021) located on the north-eastern side of Shore Road and northwest of The Cronk. Shore Road consists of a variety of dwellings to its eastern side. The Shore Road is a dead end leading to Ballaugh Beach.
1.2 The neighbouring property of Ballakinnag House to the east of the application site, which is a two storey detached dwelling, is within the same ownership. A large garage/workshop has been constructed in the north-eastern corner of the former curtilage in accordance with a previous grant of planning permission.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a single detached 1.5 storey dwellinghouse comprising a total of 4 bedrooms within the curtilage occupied by the former dwelling of Ballatiki. The dwelling would effectively be 'dog-legged' as it runs adjacent to the site's north-western flank boundary and turns the corner to mirror the shape of the plot adjacent to the residential curtilage associated with the neighbouring property of 'Sunsets'.
2.2 The dwelling would include a conventional dual-pitched roof with a moderate overhang on the south-western elevation closest to the streetscene, with first-floor accommodation primarily facilitated through a series of rooflights. A small balcony is also shown on the south- western elevation overlooking the streetscene enclosed by glass balustrades.
2.3 The property would be finished in natural stone for the exterior at ground-floor level, slate grey coloured woodgrain cladding for each gable end within the apex and anthracite coloured standing seam roofing from Catnic.
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/00739/B Page 4 of 13
2.4 The existing vehicular access to the site would be retained and include the installation of a new drainage channel adjacent to the highway to collect any surface water run-off, with a parking area for vehicles directly behind adjacent to the dwelling's south-western elevation. An additional vehicular access will also be constructed leading to the garage/workshop in the site's north-east corner and run parallel to the flank elevation of Ballakinnag House. This access has already been granted planning permission in connection with PA20/00648/B for the garage/workshop.
2.5 The resultant site layout includes a turning head between the garage/workshop and north-eastern elevation of the proposed dwelling, with the remainder of the site to be laid to lawn. Furthermore, 2 no. soakaways are shown on the proposed site layout plan, one within the parking area and the other within the grassed area between the dwelling and the consented access leading to the garage/workshop. The latter soakaway would manage surface water run-off from the aforementioned access, with a new septic tank to be installed on site in a located to be agreed with Building Control should planning permission be forthcoming.
2.6 Following the recent refusal of planning permission subsequent to a successful third party appeal against the decision of the planning committee to grant planning permission for an almost identical scheme; the following changes have been made in light of the Inspector's comments:
Shifting of the dwelling by a further metre from the mutual flank boundary with the adjacent property of Sunsets to the north-west; resulting distance of 2.5m from the boundary.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Planning permission was recently granted by Planning Committee for a new dwelling on site to replace the previously demolished dwelling of Ballatiki (PA 22/01404/B). The decision of the committee was subsequently appealed by a third party and allowed, thereby reversing the committee's decision and refusing planning permission. The application was refused for the following reason:
"The development would lead to unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring property of Sunsets contrary to General Policy 2 of the IMSP."
In assessing the appeal scheme before him, the Inspector considered the proposals to be acceptable in all maters aside from the impact of the development upon the amenities of the adjacent property of Sunsets. In particular, the Inspector noted that the dormer window present on the new dwelling's south-western elevation would be sited less than 20m from a habitable room serving the adjacent property of Sunsets, and considered that such a relationship would lead to unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the adjacent property with respect to overlooking. No further issues were raised as to the appeal scheme in the Inspector's report, with all other matters considered to be acceptable; i.e. principle of development, character and design, highways and drainage matters.
3.2 A previous planning application PA20/00648/B and the subsequent Minor Changes application PA21/00193/MCH were granted for the "erection of detached garage/workshop with associated driveway and new vehicular access" and "Minor Changes application to PA20/00648/B involving relocation of approved garage (retrospective)."
3.3 It should be noted that between June and September 2021 the dwelling on the application site (Ballatiki) was demolished and the site was cleared. On this matter the applicants had stated:
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/00739/B Page 5 of 13
"1.4 Ballatiki was demolished between June and September, 2021 in accordance with 21/00011/BCD and the site is essentially part of the curtilage of Ballakinnag House (see below for the most recent application on the site for the replacement of Ballatiki with a summer house). Planning approval was granted for the garage/shed under 20/00648/B but this did not necessitate the demolition of Ballatiki. The dwelling was demolished on the basis that the application for the proposed outbuilding showed the access to the new building very close to the side of Ballatiki which required a landscaping scheme to protect the living conditions of both properties from the impacts of the use of the driveway. A re-built, repositioned dwelling could provide better levels of amenity for both its occupants and those in Ballakinnag House.
1.5 It was the applicant's intention to upgrade Ballatiki to modern standards of thermal and energy efficient however, on looking into this more closely, it appeared that to do that, it would be beneficial economically, visually and energy wise, to replace the bungalow rather than refurbish it. The applicant then considered replacing the bungalow with a summer house/garden room which was the subject of 21/00712/B. This application was withdrawn before it was determined after the applicant changed his mind and decided that the best arrangement for their family was to redevelop Ballatiki as a dwelling in which his son could live on moving back to the Island. The dwelling, Ballatiki was demolished in anticipation of either its replacement with a new dwelling or its replacement with the summer house. The applicant was not aware of the planning implications of removing the dwelling before gaining planning approval for a replacement dwelling."
3.4 Subsequent to the grant of planning permission for the garage/workshop, approval in principle was sought for the erection of a new dwelling to replace the former property of Balltiki under PA21/01234/A. Permission was granted at planning committee on the basis that, whilst the previous dwelling had been demolished, its demolition had been very recent and done without knowledge of the potential planning implications should the applicants sought to erect a new dwelling in its place. Furthermore, the case officer for the previous application noted that the site had accommodated a dwelling for a number of decades with its existing access and curtilage still in place. It was therefore considered, from a reasonable and rational standpoint, to accept that the principle of development was established.
3.5 The permission was however subject to a number of conditions, the following of which are considered to be of particular relevance in the determination of the present application:
"C 4. The new dwelling shall be:
designed to either be in accordance with Policies 2- 7 of Planning Circular 3/91 or of an innovative, modern design which is of high quality and does not result in adverse visual impact.
Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area and as any new/replacement dwelling on land not designated for development is required to comply with Housing Policy 14.
C 5. The dwelling hereby approved shall be no taller than 1.5 storey in height as set out in the e-mail of 21.01.22.
Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area."
3.6 In light of the above requirements, it is understood that the present application the subject of this report has been submitted on the basis of requiring 'full planning permission', as opposed to a corresponding 'reserved matters' application, due to its non-conformity with the
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/00739/B Page 6 of 13
above referenced condition 4. Specifically, the proposed dwelling would comprise a total floor area of 365sqm, which represents an increase of 86% over and above the floor area of the previous dwelling which stood at 196sqm. Likewise, the new dwelling would not be sited in the same position as the previous property in order to maximise the optimum location of solar panels to generate thermal energy.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site is identified in the 1982 Development Plan as 'white land' within the countryside that is not zoned for development. The site is not within a Conservation Area but falls within an Area of High Landscape Value
4.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;
Strategic Policy 1 Efficient use of land and resources 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact 11 Housing needs
Spatial Policy 5 Development only in countryside in accordance with General Policy 3
General Policy 2 General Development Considerations 3 Exceptions to development in the countryside
Environment Policy 1 Protection of the countryside 2 Protection of Areas of High Landscape Value
Housing Policy 4 Exceptions to allowing new housing in the countryside 12 Replacement dwellings in the countryside 14 Siting, size and design of replacement dwellings in the countryside
Transport Policy 4 Highways safety 7 Parking provision
Infrastructure Policy 5 Water conservation and management
Community Policy 7 Designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour 11 Prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire
4.5 Residential Design Guide (2021) This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Ballaugh Parish Commissioners - no objection. (13.07.23)
==== PAGE 7 ====
23/00739/B Page 7 of 13
5.2 Highways Services - The proposal is utilising the existing residential access to the site. There are no changes proposed to the access further to the inclusion of surface water drainage improvements.
A proposal for the same access arrangements was submitted for PA 22/01404/B, to which Highways had no objection. Similarly, Highways have no objection to the proposed access for this application. Internally, there is sufficient space to accommodate more than the Strategic Plan required two vehicular spaces. The applicant should consider the provision of an electric vehicle charging point in order to support the islands sustainable transport goals. Without the inclusion of a garage, there is no internal storage space and no storage area for bicycles. The plans should include a separate, secure and covered storage area for bicycles at a rate of one space per bedroom. The vehicular access and parking arrangements are acceptable to Highways.
However, Highways request the addition of a secure and covered storage area for bicycles at the above rate. (10.07.23)
The previous Highways response to the above application (dated 10/07/23) requested the addition of cycle storage to the required rate. The agent for the application has clarified to Highways that the shed to the north-east of the site is in fact associated with the dwelling and is acceptable for the storage of bicycles. Accordingly, Highways can now remove the request for further information and any objection, subject to all access arrangements to accord to Drawing No. 03 Rev A. The applicant is advised that a Section 109(A) Highway Agreement may be required. (13.07.23)
5.3 A total of 15 letters of representation have been received. 3 of the representations received either object to the scheme or raise concerns to the proposals, with a summary of their comments as follows:
Potential impact on highway safety as the road will likely require widening and hedgerows cut back to allow safe access and exit.
A further 12 letters of representation received support the proposals, with a summary of their comments as follows:
Development would be a means of sustaining applicant's long-term commitment to the area;
==== PAGE 8 ====
23/00739/B Page 8 of 13
There is zero reason to believe this property would look out of place.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are as follows:
6.2 PRINCIPLE 6.2.1 The site falls within the open countryside and an area not zoned for development within the 1982 Development Plan. There is a general presumption again development in the countryside with development to be focussed towards defined settlements in accordance with Spatial Policy 5. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with the exceptions outlined in General Policy 3, one of which includes 'the replacement of existing rural dwellings'.
6.2.2 Environment Policy 1 advises that the countryside will be protected for its own sake, and development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms. Environment Policy 2 adds that when considering development in Areas of High Landscape Value (AHLV's), the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration, unless it can be shown that the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape, or the location for the development is essential.
6.2.3 The proposals relate to the erection of a dwelling within the curtilage of the former dwelling of Ballatiki, which was demolished in 2021. Given the dwelling has already been demolished, the proposals do not amount to the erection of a replacement dwelling and therefore technically constitute a new dwelling in the countryside.
6.2.4 That being said, it was recognised by the case officer for the previous 'approval in principle' application that the property had only recently been demolished, and without an understanding by the applicants over the potential planning implications. Furthermore, the site still benefitted from a retained vehicular access with evidence of the recent residential use in site still in place. It was therefore considered reasonable to consider the proposals on the basis that they would in effect amount to a replacement dwelling, with the principle of development considered acceptable by the case officer and subsequently ratified by the planning committee.
6.2.5 Whilst the current proposals are not a 'reserved matters' application, the principle of development has been firmly established through the previous grant of planning permission in principle, which still remains live. The principle of development therefore remains acceptable in the context of the current application, subject to further consideration in relation to design, visual impact and impact of the development upon the amenities of surrounding properties.
6.2.6 It is further noteworthy that the Planning Inspector for the recently refused application concurred with this line of assessment, and made the following points of note:
"69. I have also considered whether or not the development should be considered as a replacement dwelling given the argument that the previous dwelling was demolished some time ago and no longer exists. Whilst such argument is not without merit it seems to me that the principle of a dwelling being developed on the site has been established. I say that given
==== PAGE 9 ====
23/00739/B Page 9 of 13
planning permission was granted for the reserved matters scheme in the knowledge that the previous dwelling had been demolished.
6.3 DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT 6.3.1 The proposed dwelling, in terms of its design, built vernacular and materials palette, would not amount to a 'traditional styled' dwelling in accordance with the principles set out in Planning Circular 3/91. Indeed, the design is considered to amount to a modern take upon traditional built vernacular through the use of an uncomplicated roof form and natural stone for much of the exterior, together with a series of solar panels on the south-east facing roofslope.
6.3.2 Whilst there is a clear preference for replacement dwellings in the countryside to consist of a more traditional form in line with the principles of Planning Circular 3/91, Housing Policy 14 does make provision for buildings of an innovative, modern design where this would be of high quality and not result in an adverse visual impact. Indeed, further allowance for a modern design approach was stipulated in condition 4 of the 'approval of principle'.
6.3.3 The dwelling previously in situ was noted to have been of a poor form and design, and indeed had been condemned from an electrical standpoint in 2019. The new dwelling as proposed is considered to amount to a far greater quality of design, whilst not resulting in an adverse visual impact upon the wider streetscene, or indeed appearing intrusive within the wider landscape setting to the south-west.
6.3.4 It is recognised that the dwelling would not occupy the same or similar footprint to the previous dwelling on site, as typically required by Housing Policy 14. This policy does however make an allowance for a change in siting and size where such proposals would result in an environmental improvement. The previous dwelling on site was clearly not a property which boasted strong energy efficiency credentials, with the current proposals incorporating a series of solar panels in the optimum location for thermal energy generation, together with an air source hear pump at the rear elevation of the property. The current proposals are considered to amount to a significant environmental improvement relative to the previous property on site. Moreover, the front (south-western) elevation of the property closest to the streetscene would be set in line with the adjacent property of Ballakinnag House, whilst affording a greater separation distance to the adjacent property than was evident in the case of the previous dwelling in situ; thereby improving the amenities of both resultant properties.
6.3.5 Turning to the issue of floor area, whilst it is recognised that the proposals would amount to an uplift in excess of 50% as required by Housing Policy 14 in relation to replacement dwellings in the countryside, this policy does make an allowance for larger properties where 'this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact.'
6.3.6 The current proposals, whilst not of a traditional style, are considered to amount to a significant visual improvement relative to the previous dwelling in situ which was of poor form and construction. Whilst the proposed dwelling would clearly appear more prominent in the context of the streetscene due to its siting and scale, the high standard of design and modern interpretation of traditional vernacular ensures the resultant dwelling would make a positive contribution to the visual amenities of the immediate streetscene. In particular, the development would add a greater degree of visual interest to compliment the adjacent (and
==== PAGE 10 ====
23/00739/B Page 10 of 13
more traditionally styled) property of Ballakinnag House, whilst ensuring greater continuity in terms of a more established front building line and relationship with the streetscene.
6.3.7 In light of the above, the proposed uplift in floor area in excess of 50%, together with a change in the property's siting relative to the previous dwelling, is considered to be acceptable in this instance by virtue of the property's high standard of design, positive visual impact and engagement with the immediate streetscene, together with its strong eco-credentials and thus an environmental improvement relative to the previous dwelling. The proposals are therefore considered to be acceptable from a design and visual impact perspective, in accordance with General Policy 2 (b) & (c), Environment Policies 1 and 2, and Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan 2016.
6.3.8 Again, it is noteworthy that the Inspector for the previously refused application considered the design of the proposed dwelling to be acceptable and such that it would not result in a detrimental impact upon the character of the immediate streetscene or wider landscape. In particular, the Inspector raised the following points of note:
"57. The proposed dwelling would not share the same footprint as the original dwelling, it would also be more than 50% larger and would be 1.5 storeys in height. In addition, it would not reflect the architecture or style of the previous bungalow or that of its immediate neighbours. Taken on their face those matters would seem to weigh against the development.
However, residential properties nearby are mixed in terms of size, architectural style, layout, heights and finish; there is no specific style to the locality. The proposal would be a modern addition to the street scene and that was recognised by the approval in principle as being acceptable. I see no reason to disagree; the dwelling would not come as surprise given its context within the street scene and it would mirror the building line to the south-east. There are also comparable dwellings in the Isle of Man countryside which have used modern finishes, unlike the dwellings they replaced, as evidenced by the applicant.
I recognise that no case is comparable, but the applicant has demonstrated that the re-use of existing stone and materials is not always possible or desirable. From the evidence before me I am satisfied that there would have been little by way of traditional materials in terms of stone and slate in any event. There is no dispute either that the previous dwelling was of poor, form design and repair.
Furthermore, HP14 makes provision for larger properties that would demonstrate innovative, modern design and where larger result in an overall environmental improvement. In this case alongside the design, which would be an improvement on what existed previously, the dwelling would also introduce environmental improvements beyond that which previously existed. The siting and orientation of the dwelling would ensure maximum gain for the solar panels and the dwelling would be thermally efficient. In that light I see no reason to disagree with the planning authority that the proposal would provide significant environmental improvement compared to the previous dwelling.
Overall, I find the proposal would accord with HP14 and would not be at odds with, or lead to unacceptable harm to, the character and appearance of the countryside location. Given that it would also be in accordance with GP2, EP1 and EP2 insofar as they seek good design and the protection of the countryside."
6.4 RESIDENTIAL AMENITY 6.4.1 In relation to the previously refused application, the revised proposals have removed the dormer window from the property's south-western elevation and further shifted the dwelling another metre from the mutual flank boundary with Sunsets to ensure the resultant separation distance would stand at 20m. The presence of the dormer window in question, together with its separation distance from the closest habitable window of Sunsets being less
==== PAGE 11 ====
23/00739/B Page 11 of 13
than 20m, were the only issues raised by the Inspector for the recently refused application with respect to neighbouring amenity impact. In Inspector made the following notable assessment:
"62. There is no dispute that the occupiers of Sunsets are most likely to be affected by the proposed dwelling. To that end it is accepted that the proposed dwelling, whilst sitting partly on the footprint of the former dwelling, would be closer to the mutual boundary. There is an inevitability therefore that any effect on living conditions is likely to be greater than which existed previously. In addition, I accept that the nearest habitable room of Sunsets is currently used for crafting and as a guest bedroom.
That room is served by three windows near to the proposed dwelling. Two smaller windows facing the mutual boundary, and the other larger window looking out to the road, and sea beyond. I heard at the Hearing that curtains had been drawn for long periods and the use of the room was minimal. Although, there is no dispute that the owner of Sunsets has to spend a good deal of time indoors. Nevertheless, whilst the matter of how the property is used currently falls to be considered. I must consider all future occupiers of the property and the effect of any overlooking on this habitable room.
The RDG sets out that the intensity of overlooking depends on a variety of factors, such as the use of the overlooking spot, the use of the area being overlooked, the typical duration of usage, and any mitigation methods. It also states that if a distance between properties is over 20 metres, overlooking is unlikely to be a concern. In this case it was agreed that the distance between the proposed first floor gable window and Sunsets' patio area and south facing window was more than 20 metres as identified on Drawing No 3. Therefore, in accordance with the RDG, there would be no unacceptable harm by way of overlooking.
I also accept that there would be no harm by way of overlooking from the rooflights which would serve ensuites and a stairwell. In addition, views to and from the smaller side windows of Sunsets are restricted given the size of windows and existing fence and vegetation serving the mutual boundary. It was also agreed that, given the configuration of the proposed south- west facing balcony, there would be no overlooking opportunity.
However, as evidenced and agreed at the Hearing, when a measurement is taken to the nearest west facing window (serving the craft room) the measurement is below 20 metres. When looking out from that room using the larger west facing window, it is clear to me that the new dwelling and dormer window would be in view. Whilst I accept the dormer window would serve a bedroom, where occupiers may spend less time looking out of it, there would nevertheless be views directly into a habitable room of Sunsets from less than 20 metres away. Having stood in that room I am in no doubt that such overlooking would lead to unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupiers of Sunsets.
Turning to the matter of daylight and sunlight. I accept, given the size of the proposed dwelling and its proximity to the boundary that there would be an effect upon light. However, given the orientation, existing vegetation, fencing and the height and form of roof sloping away from the mutual boundary the effect is likely to be minimal and would not result in unacceptable harm. I have also considered and accept that views of the Manx Hills may be compromised but such views are already hindered by fencing and vegetation, moreover, as set out by the planning authority, loss of a view carries no weight in such circumstances. However, these findings do not outweigh the harm I have found."
6.4.2 In light of the Inspector's assessment and following the changes to the previous scheme, it is considered that such matters highlighted in paragraph 66 of the Inspector's report shown above, have now been resolved and therefore have successfully overcome the Inspector's objections. Given the above, the proposals are considered to be acceptable from a residential amenity standpoint, in compliance with General Policy 2 (g).
==== PAGE 12 ====
23/00739/B Page 12 of 13
6.6 HIGHWAYS SAFETY AND PARKING 6.6.1 No objections have been raised by Highways Services over the current application, with no substantive changes proposed to the existing site access aside from the installation of a drainage channel. The additional access shown would principally serve the existing garage/workshop in the site's north-eastern corner, and has already been granted planning permission in any case. Sufficient space would also be evident within the site for in excess of 2 vehicles, in accordance with the adopted parking standards. The proposals are therefore compliant with Transport Policies 4 and 7. The proposals are therefore compliant with General Policy 2 (g) and (h).
6.7 OTHER MATTERS 6.7.1 No concerns are raised in relation to the design and layout from the perspective of criminal activity or the spread of fire. Whilst the development relates to the creation of a new dwelling at the site, it is not expected that the water usage associated with the development will be significant, and note that likely occupancy of the dwelling would be comparable to the previous dwelling in situ. With respect to drainage, it has been indicated that surface water run-off would be managed via soakaways and drainage channels, preventing any run-off onto the highway. Likewise, foul sewerage is noted on the application form as being disposed of via a septic tank, further details of which would be secured through the Building Regulations process in consultation with Building Control.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in principle by providing a modern dwelling of a high standard of design, which would successfully assimilate into the wider streetscene without detriment to the character of the wider streetscene or landscape setting. The proposals comprise a more efficient use of the site than the previous dwelling in situ, whilst amounting to an environmental improvement through the use of modern buildings techniques, solar panels and an air source heat pump.
7.2 The development is considered to be provide suitable accommodation for future occupants, without detriment to the amenities of surrounding properties or giving rise to an adverse impact upon highway safety. The proposals are therefore deemed compliant with General Policies 2 and 3, Environment Policies 1 and 2, and Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan, and recommended for approval.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 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.
8.2 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
==== PAGE 13 ====
23/00739/B Page 13 of 13
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body 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: 21.08.2023
Signed : J SINGLETON Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal