Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/00514/B Page 1 of 14
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 20/00514/B Applicant : Mr Anthony & Mrs Marian Charnley Proposal Erection of a detached replacement dwelling with integral garage Site Address Skeddan Veg Fort Island Road Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TZ
Case Officer :
Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 17.07.2020
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. The air source heat pump hereby approved must not result in a noise that exceeds 42 dB LAeq 5 mins where "LAeq 5 mins" means the A-weighted equivalent continuous sound pressure level over 5 minutes when measured at 1 metre external to the centre point of any relevant door or window to any neighbouring building as measured perpendicular to the plane of that relevant door or window.
Reason: for the avoidance of doubt and to safeguard the amenities of neighbouring property.
N 1. The applicant/owner is to be reminded of separate legislation under the Wildlife Act 1990 and Noise Act 2006 covering matters relating to habitats and noise. The applicant/owner may wish to liaise at the appropriate times with DEFA Ecology/Biodiversity/Environmental Health seeking advice on works to be undertaken at the site.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is in accordance with the land use zoning of the Area Plan for the South 2013, and although not in strict accordance with Housing Policy 14, the proposed dwelling by reason of its size, design, layout, form, mass and material finish it is considered to have a acceptable visual impact on Derbyhaven's coastal character and an acceptable impact on the amenity of the neighbours. The proposal accords with Strategic Policies, 4 and 5, General Policy 2 and Energy Policy 4 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016, Landscape Proposal 26, Character Appraisal E11 and Appendix 4 of the Area Plan for the South 2013.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/00514/B Page 2 of 14
This approval relates to drawing numbers P10-01, P10-02, P10-03, P10-04, P10-05, P10-06, P10-07, P12-01, P12-02, P15-01, P15-02, P15-03, P15-04, P15-05 and P15-06, and Design Statement May 2020 all date stamped and received 19/05/2020.
__
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):
Balladoyle, Fort Island Road, Derbyhaven - as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2020). __
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AS THE REPLACEMENT DWELLING WOULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE OF FLOOR AREA OF MORE THAN 50% AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
INTRODUCTION 0.1 'Skeddan Veg' has been subject to three previous planning applications (referred to in more detail in 3.0 of this report) the most recent being for the erection of a replacement dwelling under 17/01312/B and 19/01024/B.
0.2 The earlier 2017 application was refused at officer level for reasons relating to the mass, design and finish of the dwelling and resulting loss of privacy. At appeal the Inspector considered that Housing Policy 14 was applicable to the assessment and consequently Housing Policy 14 was specifically referred to in the reasons for refusal for 17/01312/B. The Minister concurred with that recommendation and made his decision accordingly.
0.3 In 2019 a subsequent application for a replacement dwelling was submitted with an alternative design seeking to address the previous reasons for refusal of the 2017 appeal. The reporting officer referred to Housing Policy 14 in the assessment of application but concluded that it was not applicable given the residential designation of the application site on the Area Plan for the South 2013 and thus placed greater weight to General Policy 2. The assessment concluded that the proposed development was acceptable and the application was determined under delegated powers.
0.4 Following a complaint brought against the decision, made on the basis that Housing Policy 14 should have been applied, and also that the application should have been determined by Planning Committee in accordance with the relevant Standing Orders, the Department agreed the decision was made on an unsound basis and have sought to quash the decision by way of doleance proceedings.
0.5 Consideration of the petition of doleance has been stayed, in agreement with all parties and by the courts, pending the proper processing and determination of this application.
0.6 The current application proposes a scheme that replicates the 2019 application, with exception to the further addition of proposed renewable energy sources (solar panels and an air source heat pump).
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/00514/B Page 3 of 14
THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage Skeddan Veg, an existing dwelling situated on the western side of Fort Island Road in Derbyhaven. The dwelling is predominantly a bungalow with some first floor accommodation in the roof space, it has a ground footprint around 158sq m and a gross floor area around 203sq m (excluding its garage).
1.2 The existing dwelling sits at a ground level around 1.4m lower than the main road and occupies a plot about 0.13ha. The frontage stretches along 26m of the carridgeway and vehicle access is through a narrow walled entrance. Neighbouring dwellings are aligned parallel to the road while Skeddan Veg is built at an angle with its principal elevation facing south east towards St Michael's Isle and the dwelling is set back behind the frontline of each of the adjoining neighbouring dwellings. Properties along this southern section of Fort Island Road benefit from extensive open views over Derbyhaven Bay coastal bay and view over the golf course to the rear.
1.3 The dwelling has two outlet extensions on the south west elevation facing towards the rear garden of Balladoyle where the closest distance between the two properties is approx. 15m. The opposite side elevation faces north-east towards the side and rear of Ashley House where the closest distance between the two properties is approx. 17.5m.
PROPOSAL 2.1 The current application proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement with a new two storey dwelling. The proposed dwelling is to be larger than the existing but is to sit on a similar foot print albeit slightly closer to and more parallel with the road with its front building line part way between the rear of Ashley House and the front of Balladoyle creating a step along the road.
2.2 The proposed dwelling is to have a double pitch arrangement with a small flat roof link between each part. The gables of each will face forwards towards the main road and backwards towards the golf course. The double pitches are asymmetrical with slight differences in their length and width, the overall principal elevation facing the road will be approx. 17m wide and the side elevations between 13.5m - 14.5m long. The closest distance between the proposed dwelling and Balladoyle sits between 12m-14m, and the closest distance with the rear of Ashley House is approx. 11m and around 3.5m from their rear boundary wall.
2.3 The dwelling is to have an eaves level approx. 6m throughout and central ridges of 8.5m high, and the proposed dwelling is to sit 1m lower than the level of the main road with a finished ground floor level of 5.560.
2.4 The proposed dwelling is to be finished in a mix of materials; one pitch in dark timber cladding and Manx Stone and the other painted render with some featured dark timber and the roof slated throughout. The front elevation is to comprise an integral garage with a large picture window above, the main front door will sit within the link with a large window above, adjacent to which will be a two storey full height corner window and three smaller windows.
2.5 The nearest side elevation facing Balladoyle comprises three doors at ground level only providing access into the garage and utility and double doors accession an integrated garden store. The nearest side elevation facing Ashley House includes one high level window and a window serving a bathroom.
2.6 At the rear the dwelling comprises a stepped arrangement with the gable nearest Ashley House projecting slightly further into the rear garden. Throughout the rear there are large areas of glazing across both the ground and first floor, the gable nearest Balladoyle includes a recessed balcony area. The materials proposed at the rear are a continuation of those at the front.
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/00514/B Page 4 of 14
2.7 The current proposal replicates that submitted in 2019 with the further addition of an Air Source Heat Pump and solar panels across parts of the roof slope.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The application site has been subject to three previous planning applications, one in 1984 for the erection of a garden shed and greenhouse, and two more recently in 2017 and 2019 both for a replacement dwelling.
3.2 The 2017 application 17/01312/B was determined at appeal, the proposal sought to demolish the existing house and replace it with a new two storey dwelling finished with a mono-pitched roof, installed with a predominantly glazed frontage and including side elevation windows facing both Balladoyle and Ashley House. The dwelling was to have a footprint of 280sq m; and a gross floor area of about 369sq m. It was to be finished in a mix of timber, aluminium and zinc cladding materials. The application was refused at officer level and refused at appeal. The appeal reasons were concluded as:
"R1. The replacement dwelling is not considered to respect the site or the surroundings by reason of its mass, mono pitch roof and material finish. The proposal would result in an incongruous and unsympathetic feature in the streetscene, it would create visual harm and detract from the coastal character of the area and the scenic quality of the golf course and it would contribute to the visual amalgamation of roadside housing in Fort Island Road contrary General Policy 2(b), (c) and (e) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Landscape Proposal 26 and paragraph 3.23(v) of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016.
R2. The proposal will include large areas of glazing and will introduce first floor windows where there is none at present. This new range of overlooking and adverse impacts on privacy is further exacerbated by the fact that the site levels are to be increased and the distances between the proposal and the neighbours is to decrease. As such the proposal is contrary to General Policy 2(g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R3. As Derbyhaven is classed as 'a group of dwellings in the countryside' in Appendix 4 of the Area Plan for the South, the proposed development would entail the replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside. However, the proposed replacement house would be substantially different to the existing dwelling, Skeddan Veg, in terms of its size. In particular it would have a much larger footprint than the existing building, and its floor area would be more than 50% greater, contrary to Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016."
3.3 In 2019 under 19/01024/B an application was submitted for a replacement dwelling (its design matching the current proposal with exception to the solar panels and ASHP). The assessment section of the officer's report reached to 18 paragraphs in which the case officer considered the development against the residential land use designation of the site, its relationship with its neighbours and its setting within the context of Derbyhaven. Although the officer report suggests that HP14 is not applicable given its designation for residential purposes, the report sets out that regard was had to the principles in that policy particularly in finding a sensitive balance between both traditional and contemporary architecture which would be appropriate for the unique coastal character of Derbyhaven and meeting with the tests of Landscape Proposal 26 of the Area Plan for the South 20013 and General Policy 2 (b), (c) and (g).
3.4 The proposal was considered to have an acceptable impact and was approved 24/01/2020, however for the reasons as set out in the introduction of this report the decision for 19/01024/B has sought to be quashed.
PLANNING STATUS AND POLICY Area Plan for the South
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/00514/B Page 5 of 14
4.1 On the Area Plan for the South 2013 Skeddan Veg is within land designated as 'predominantly residential'.
4.2 Landscape Proposal 26: "The character of the compact group at Derbyhaven arises largely from the setting between the foreshore and the green space of the airport and the golf course. Since the buildings are of mixed age, form, and style, there is no need to adopt prescriptive guidelines for extensions, but it is important to maintain the general coastal character as viewed on the approach from Castletown and from the pleasant green areas adjoining the bay."
4.3 Derbyhaven sits within the Landscape Character area E11 that seeks, in terms of Langness, to resist any development that would detract from the unspoilt character and appearance of the rugged coast or from the sense of openness in the area; protect the tranquil, rural character of the area with its open views; sensitively locate new buildings and avoid the physical or visual amalgamation of roadside housing.
4.4 Para 4.10 of the Area Plan for the South sets out particular issues in the allocation of residential land and refers to paragraphs 8.8.1 - 8.8.3 of the Strategic Plan. These paragraphs give a commitment to assessing individual groups of houses in the countryside for their potential to incorporate additional dwellings. Derbyhaven is identified as a Group of Houses in the Countryside and therefore was selected for further study. The assessment concludes that the group of houses is not sustainable, there is little or no scope for infilling and that Derbyhaven is not far enough from Castletown for there to be a valid argument for local housing need and consequently additional dwellings are not proposed. The Area Plan indicates however that some areas have been shaded pink to reflect their residential character but clarifies that 'this shading does not imply that proposals for additional dwellings or other development will be supported; such applications will be judged on their merits.'
Strategic Plan:
4.5 The Strategic Plan 2016 contains a number of policies to which consideration shall be given. Strategic Policy 1 seeks to make best use of resources by optimising use of previously developed land, ensuring the efficient use of sites and being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure. Strategic Policy 2 and Housing Policy 4 directs new development to existing towns and villages (which Derbyhaven is not) and states that development will only be permitted in the countryside in exceptional circumstances. Strategic Policy 4 seeks that development must protect or enhance historic fabric, landscape quality, nature conservation value and not lead to unacceptable environmental pollution. Strategic Policy 5 seeks that new development, including individual buildings be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. Spatial Policy 5 sets out that new development will be located within the defined settlements and that development will only be permitted in the countryside in accorance with General Policy 3. Environment Policy 1 seeks to protect the countryside and its ecology for its own sake. The policy clarifies that for the purposes of that policy the countryside compises all land outside defined settlements or which is not designated for future development. Housing Policy 6 requires development of land zoned for residential development to be undertaken in accordance with any relevant brief, or if there is not a brief the design criterial in para 6.2 of the Plan (General Policy 2). Energy Policy 4 sets out that development involving alternative sources of energy supply will be judged against the environmental objectives and policies set out in the Plan.
4.6 Of particular importance is General Policy 2 which states:
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/00514/B Page 6 of 14
General Policy 2: 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: a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; 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; d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including watercourses; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; 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; j) can be provided with all necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
4.7 Although Spatial Policy 5 states that development in the countryside will only be permitted in accordance with General Policy 3, the applicability of GP3 is questionable since it refers to development outside of those areas which are zoned for development. Derbyhaven is zoned for development. Nevertheless the exceptions include the replacement of existing rural dwellings that are in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14.
4.8 Housing Policy 12 provides for a presumption in favour of replacement dwellings provided the existing dwelling is not abandoned and is not of architectural or historic interest and Housing Policy 13 refers to forming a new dwelling by re-using remaining fabric of a former building.
4.9 Housing Policy 14 is also of particular relevance. It states:
"Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area(1), which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2- 7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.
Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling 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."
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/00514/B Page 7 of 14
4.10 Consideration shall also be given to the Residential Design Guide 2019 which covers a number of matters relating to new development including 'New Housing' and 'Local Distinctiveness' as well as main considerations in 'Good Neighbourliness' including loss of light/overshadowing, impacts upon outlook and any overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy.
REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Malew Parish Commissioners - no objection (01/07/2020).
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do not oppose (09/06/2020) - there is suitable 'open' car parking for two vehicles, the integral garage is smaller than recommended but limited car parking or separate storage for bicycles and other items could be provided.
5.3 The owners of Balladoyle - Objection (26/06/2020) - Comments extend to 11 pages this report contains a summary only.
5.3.1 Reference is made to the outcome of the 2017 appeal and the application of Housing Policy 14, the comments also contain a number of photographs of the site and surrounding area. The proposal will adversely affect their living conditions in terms of outlook, privacy and light due to the much greater height and size of the proposed dwelling and its position closer to the road compared with the existing bungalow, there are a number of window facing Skeddan Veg including 2 in a lounge which are already impacted by the existing property. A number of windows across the same elevation including first floor will also have their outlook and views impacted due to the increased height and size compared with the existing dwelling.
5.3.2 The movement of the house closer to the road will have a negative impact on their front garden. The proposal results in a 77.7% increase above the existing way above the 50% allowed under HP14. The proposal between two Victorian properties would be incongruous and unsympathetic to the street scene and the size obtrusive in the landscape creating greater environmental impact.
5.3.3 Paragraphs 3.6.2 to 3.6.7 of the Design Statement are irrelevant, and the existing dwelling could be improved by introducing new insulation and renewable energy sources. The energy calculations fail to take into account demolition works, transport of materials to the site, construction processes and carbon footprint etc. Although argument could be made that a slight increase to global temperatures could be beneficial to the Island.
5.3.4 The proposal would impact the prominence of Balladoyle and would significantly reduce the visible gap affecting views of the sea.
5.3.5 If Planning Committee are minded to approve conditions relating to comments from DEFA Biodiversity on 19/01024/B should be included, contractors and vehicles not parking on grass verges, measures taken to avoid dust and debris, and any noisy work undertaken between 0900-1700 Monday to Friday.
ASSESSMENT
6.1 The policy considerations in respect of this site have been difficult to reconcile with the apparently opposing presumptions both in favour of development (GP2) and against new development (EnvP 1 et al). While para 6.1 of the Strategic Plan states that positive land use allocations will be made upon which decisions can be based and which is the case in this instance, such an allocation for residential development clashes the small settlement of Derbyhaven being recognised as a group of houses in the countryside. The identification of an area being a group of houses in the countryside appears to only be for the purpose of assessing
==== PAGE 8 ====
20/00514/B Page 8 of 14
whether additional dwellings would be acceptable rather than for any other purpose. The current application is a one for one replacement dwelling which is contained within the existing residential curtilage, the proposal will not result in any increased dwelling numbers in Derbyhaven and it will not result in any extensions to the established residential curtilage or boundary. Nevertheless the words 'in the countryside' reasonably led to the Inspector's conclusion that the site must be considered as such, and as such Housing Policy 14 is of relevance. This provides useful clarity that the provisions of that policy must be taken into account in determining the application.
6.2 The main issues to be considered as part of the application are: visual impact (HP14, GP2, StP5 et al); impact on neighbouring property (GP2); and environmental matters (GP2, StP4 et al).
Visual Impact
6.3 Housing Policy 14 firstly provides for the replacement of dwellings that are not substantially different in size or siting, unless that would result in an overall environmental improvement. The current proposal is limited by the size of the plot and while there is a slight repositioning closer to the road the overall footprint remains similar to the existing and the stepped positioning between the frontages of Ashley House and Balladoyle remains largely in keeping with the established line of built development along Fort Island Road. However, the proposed dwelling, at 77% larger, is greater than the 50% the policy indicates would be appropriate and is to be two storey. The proposal does not comply with this element of the policy.
6.4 The policy then indicates that exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact. It is considered that the proposal does comply with this aspect, and also uses materials such as stone and slate in its design. However the policy only suggests that consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where the existing dwelling is of poor form, and the one to replace it is traditional, or where by its design or siting there would be less visual impact.
6.5 It is clear the policy is intended to reduce visual impact in the countryside, and the suggestion that original materials are re-used implies that the dwelling to be replaced would have been Manx vernacular, which the existing building is not. Arguably the existing building is of poor form, being a relatively modern bungalow with extensions including a flat roof garage protruding from its front elevation, but the proposed is not traditional nor can it be argued the proposed building would have less visual impact.
6.6 The Inspector indicated in his report in respect of application 17/01312/B that the dwelling proposed at that time would be much larger and that there is no evidence to suggest that the increased footprint or floor area would be necessary to secure an environmental improvement and accordingly, it would be contrary to Housing Policy 14. The Inspector went onto comment that:
'51 In view of its height and mass, its modern design (featuring mono-pitched and flat roofs) and the proposed palette of construction materials (including extensive areas of glass, metal and timber cladding) I consider that the proposed replacement building would be a conspicuous feature in the local scene. It could be regarded as adding an element of architectural interest to Derbyhaven, although opinions on that point may well differ.
52 However, the replacement dwelling would extend across a wider part of the appeal site than the existing building, and would partially obstruct a view of the sea across this land from the public footpath on the golf course. In my judgement, this would detract from the coastal character of the area, and the scenic quality of the golf course, contrary to Landscape Proposal
==== PAGE 9 ====
20/00514/B Page 9 of 14
26 of the Area Plan, and General Policy 2(c) and (e) of the Strategic Plan. For the same reason, I consider that the scale and layout of the proposed building would fail to respect its surroundings, contrary to General Policy 2(b) of the Strategic Plan. The proposed development would also contribute to the visual amalgamation of roadside housing in Fort Island Road, contrary to paragraph 3.23(v) of the Area Plan.
6.7 In terms of re-considering a design for the site, the applicants have been cognisant of the comments made by the Inspector and the context of the area. The applicants have fully engaged with the process to design a building with a far reduced mass than the previous application. The proposal may not fully comply with Housing Policy 14, but its location within a settlement, surrounded by much two storey buildings, dictates a different approach. The context of the site is a material consideration as it is the character and appearance of the area that the policy is intended to protect. In a comparable situation at Shore Road, Bay ny Carrickey the Inspector for a replacement dwelling (from a single storey to two storeys) on that site commented:
"33. I do not, however, see much value - rather potential harm - in seeking to contrive a proposal so that it accords to the letter with HP14 but fails to recognise and enhance its coastal setting. HP14 is expressly an aspect of the assessment of replacement dwellings in the countryside, whereas here I consider that in line with the aims for the Bay in the Area Plan greater emphasis should be accorded to design quality having particular regard to this coastal location. 36. I consider that [names]..give undue emphasis to analysing to what extent the proposal accords or otherwise with HP14. Also, I too see no objection to two storeys, quite the reverse...a prominent well designed building at this corner would be very much more in keeping than a bungalow with the pattern of existing and emerging housing on this stretch of Shore Road."
6.8 This indicates that it is sometimes appropriate to set aside a relevant policy if material considerations such as the context of the site dictates. Often is the case that views on design fall to personal opinion. While some may agree a modern design approach offers a unique and welcomed change to the area, others may object at the harm such a contrast brings to the general character and appearance and to those traditional properties found nearby. Therefore in establishing a professional judgement on the development, it is crucial that we conduct a contextual analysis against the immediate locality and building styles with consideration to GP2, HP14 and LP26.
6.9 Landscape Proposal 26 indicates that buildings in Derbyhaven are of mixed age, form, and style and from a contextual analysis of the area and streetscene this is evident (and as demonstrated through photographs on drawing numbers P10-07 and P12-02). The range of design styles varies between vernacular Manx cottages and barns, traditional Manx cottages both terraced and detached, detached Victorian dwellings, Spanish style villas with large glazing and balconies, a 1970's mansard roof apartment block and more recently a two storey courtyard dwelling complex.
6.10 It would be reasonable to state that this coastal character is fairly unique, with both positive and negative qualities found in the area. While some traditional properties retain their original form, proportion and materials, others have undergone some alterations or extension that has altered their original quality. The dwellings south of Skeddan Veg, with exception to Balladoyle, are non-traditional, and these non-traditional dwellings sit close to each other side by side filling almost the full width of their plots and amenity space is to the fronts and rear. Balladoyle and Skeddan Veg occupy larger plots with bigger distances between their side elevations and the neighbours.
6.11 Skeddan Veg in its current form appears a slight anomaly in the streetscene being set furthest back from the road and angled differently from its neighbours. The dwelling is non-
==== PAGE 10 ====
20/00514/B Page 10 of 14
traditional and includes flat roof structures to front and its lower ground level and single storey design also set it apart from its neighbours which are all two storeys and sit level with the road.
6.12 The Strategic Plan at para 4.3.8 states that 'the design of new development can make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. Recent development has often been criticised for its similarity to developments across the Island and elsewhere - 'anywhere' architecture. At the same time some criticise current practice to retain traditional or vernacular designs. As is often the case the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. All too often proposals for new developments have not taken into account a proper analysis of their context in terms of siting, layout, scale, materials and other factors'.
6.13 The proposed replacement dwelling is of a bespoke modern design incorporating traditional materials that takes advantage of its coastal view while intending not to draw any negative attention or views within the immediate and predominantly residential surroundings.
6.14 The proposed dwelling will be wider and taller than the existing dwelling but will maintain gaps between each of its neighbours elevations with distances being between 8m - 10m wide and the overall height of the dwelling will present a step between Ashley House and Balladoyle, with the eaves of the proposal measuring midway to the first floor windows of Balladoyle and the central ridge will sit approx. 1m taller than the eaves of Balladoyle. Balladoyle remains the tallest building in the streetscene.
6.15 While it is accepted that the proposal will be wider and taller than the existing dwelling, it is considered that the double pitch arrangement of the proposed dwelling coupled with the gaps between the dwelling and its neighbours will limit a visual amalgamation of the streetscene although when travelling into Derbyhaven the established line of dwellings along both sides of the junction already present a limited view and where by the replacement dwelling at this specific site amongst that existing cluster is not expected to make so adverse beyond the current situation as to cause any significant or adverse harm.
6.16 Strategic Policies 3, 4 and 5, EP 42 and character appraisal E11 require development to respect and maintain the general character and identity of the area. In this case, the properties in the locality are a mixed age, form, and style and while a dwelling in strict accordance with Planning Circular 3/91 may not look out of keeping, the wording of HP14 coupled with the specific context of the area present a degree of flexibility in what approach to design could be considered in this specific case.
6.17 The proposed replacement dwelling emanates traditional coastal qualities found in Derbyhaven but in its own right remains unique. While not in accordance with Planning Circular 3/91 and beyond the 50% floor area threshold of HP14, it is considered that the siting of the proposal and its design solution at this specific site presents an acceptable modern day approach to a traditional dwelling that respects the sensitive and sympathetic coastal location and without resulting in any adverse visual harm to the wider landscape character of Derbyhaven or without harm to the residential character of the streetscene. The proposed dwelling is arguably more in keeping with the scale and form of the surrounding properties than the existing and as such represents an improvement.
Amenity Impact
6.18 The neighbours at Balladoyle object to the impact of the development on their living conditions, outlook, privacy and light due to the increase in height of the built form and its position closer to the road. They suggest that there are a number of windows facing Skeddan Veg including 2 in a lounge, one from another lounge, as well as two in a kitchen and dining area. On the first floor they indicate that there is a window facing Skeddan Veg in their master bedroom at the front of the house and another bedroom near the back of the house and the family bathroom. They indicate that in the case of the other bedroom the window is the only
==== PAGE 11 ====
20/00514/B Page 11 of 14
one in the room and there would be a negative impact of the view. They indicate that a similar situation arises in the case of the family bathroom which deliberately is not fitted with obscure glass in order the maximise the light. The objectors also state that the movement of the building closer to the road will have a negative effect on their privacy in the land at the front of the house.
6.19 While the previous application had a number of corner windows that partially faced the sea and partially faced Balladoyle, the proposed application contains only a door to a garage, a door to a utility room and a garden store on the ground floor and no windows on either the ground or first floor of the elevation that faces Balladoyle (exept for some high level roof lights). There is to be a balcony facing the rear but this is enclosed on the sides which limits any overlooking. The new proposal overcomes the objection in respect of the loss of privacy.
6.20 In terms of loss of outlook and light, the revised proposal is sited further from Balladoyle and is now 12m to 14m away, this together with the pitch roof allows for greater light and outlook from Balladoyle such that the impact is considered acceptable, particularly bearing in mind that Balladoyle's principal elevation faces the sea, rather than the application site.
6.21 In respect of the concern regarding the negative impact on privacy on the land in the front of their house, this area is also open and subject to potential overlooking from any number of public using the road as well as neighbouring properties.
6.22 In respect of the property to the north, the proposed design only provides for a bathroom window at ground floor level and high level roof lights at first floor.
Environmental Matters
6.23 The proposal includes the introduction of solar panels to the roof and an air source heat pump towards the rear, the inclusion of which would help towards an improved energy efficiency of the dwelling once constructed. Weight in respect of the solar panels can be given to the Permitted Development Order 2012 (PDO) which allows for their installation on completion of the dwelling without prior planning approval being required. However at the time of writing there is no provision for the installation of air source heat pumps, as such they require separate assessment. However a revised Development Order permitting air source heat pumps is due for consideration by Tynwald during the week commencing 20 July 2020 and consequently this may be permitted development by the time the application is considered. The criteria for the heat pumps was taken from similar UK legislation where reference is made to the need for the noise from the air source heat pump to not exceed 42 dB LAeq 5 mins. Specification provided by the agent including calculations indicates that the selected ASHP will be 40.3 dBA which would be lower than the 42dBA of the guidelines.
Habitats
6.24 DEFA Biodiversity commented on the previous 2019 application and although they have not commented on the current application for completeness the points they raised will be covered as part of this application, specifically as the owners of Balladoyle have requested a number of conditions as part of any approval, one of which relates to habitats.
6.25 The site is close to, but is not within the ASSI, Bird Sanctuary or the Area of Ecological Importance - Draft, the site is within a zone of established and designated residential use. In terms of impact on nesting birds and local habitats as a whole the site and surrounding area is already subject to a high level of activity through coming and going of residents, recreational users (dog walkers, bird watches etc), users of the golf course and any other persons doing water sports or recreational activities etc. The proposal here for a continued residential use of the site is not expected to result in any new impacts on the area above or beyond the existing dwelling, and any matters relating to the construction works cannot be controlled through the
==== PAGE 12 ====
20/00514/B Page 12 of 14
planning process, but can through legislation such as the Noise Act 2006. Similarly, any works which may result in an impact on protected species would be covered under the Wildlife Act 1990. Conditions would not be reasonable in this respect although a note reminding the applicant of relevant legislation could be considered.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The principle of a replacement dwelling here is acceptable and has been considered acceptable by a previous Inspector. Although the proposal, given its size and design does not strictly comply with Housing Policy 14, what is proposed is a design that complements the positive features found in the local area and one which is reflective and sympathetic to the sensitive coastal character of Derbyhaven. The proposal otherwise complies with the General Policy 2 (a,b,c,g,k) of the Strategic Plan and Landscape Proposal 26 of the Area Plan for the South.
7.2 Although acknowledged as having an increased visual impact beyond the existing single storey dwelling, this impact is not considered to result in any unacceptable amalgamation or visual harm to the general residential character of this particular stretch of the streetscene and is not expected to result in any visual impact on the wider surrounding landscape or on the setting of Derbyhaven. The proposal is considered to comply with Strategic Policies 3, 4 and 5, Housing Policy 14, General Policy 2 (a,b,c,e,g), Appendix 4 and character appraisal E11.
7.3 The design of the dwelling by reason of its siting, layout (including position of fenestration and recessed balconies), mass and the open aspect of Derbyhaven with views over the bay and golf course, the proposal is not expected to result in any adverse harm on general outlook amenity from neighbouring dwellings nor to present any significant impact in terms of privacy of any habitable room. The dwelling is provided with sufficient off road parking and manoeuvring to ensure no highway safety issues arise beyond the existing dwelling. The proposal complies with General Policy 2 (b,c,g,h,i) and the principles of the Residential Design Guide 2019 (Local Distinctiveness and Good neighbourliness).
7.4 The installation of solar panels of the roof and an air source heat pump towards the rear of the dwelling will seek to contribute towards the sustainability and energy efficiency of the dwelling, their installation is not considered to result in any adverse visual harm to the landscape nor to result in any amenity impacts on the neighbours as a result of noise generated from the ASHP in line with calculations provided being 40.3dBA and lower than 42dBA. In this respect the proposal complies with Energy Policy 4, General Policy 2 (c,g,n) and Housing Policy 14.
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
==== PAGE 13 ====
20/00514/B Page 13 of 14
o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status
8.3 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 confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 27.07.2020
Signed : L KINRADE 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.
==== PAGE 14 ====
20/00514/B Page 14 of 14
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 27.07.2020
Application No. : 20/00514/B Applicant : Mr Anthony & Mrs Marian Charnley Proposal : Erection of a detached replacement dwelling with integral garage Site Address : Skeddan Veg Fort Island Road Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TZ
Planning Officer : Miss Lucy Kinrade
Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
New comments received from the owners of Balladoyle (dated 23/07/2020) were verbally updated to the planning committee. The case officer updated the members as to the amendment to the Permitted Development legislation including the installation of an air source heat pump subject to conditions. In this respect a further condition was recommended to be added restricting the noise levels of the air source heat pump to a decibel level no greater than the Permitted Development Order.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal