Loading document...
Application No.: 16/01116/B Applicant: Darren Robert Kerruish Proposal: External positioning of multi-fuel burner flue. (16/00169/B) Site Address: 26 St Runius Way Glen Vine Isle of Man IM4 4FG Case Officer : Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken: 27.10.2016 Site Visit: 27.10.2016 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 26 St Runius Way, Glen Vine an existing two storey detached property sited on the south-eastern side of the junction where St Runius Way meets Elm Bank. - 1.2 The property sits on a modest sized corner plot with a small strip of garden running along the northern boundary between the house and the highway leading to the rear garden which backs on to the rear garden of 5 Elm Bank. - 1.3 Number 26 is a modern property which is mostly rendered and painted magnolia in colour and with red brick detailing to the lower levels on the front elevation. - 1.4 The existing property has recently been extending (under approved PA 16/00169/B) to the rear with a single story extension 5m x 5.3m, the extension includes bi-fold doors on the south elevation, two roof lights on the south facing ridge and a picture window on the gable end. The application also gave approval for the installation of a multi-fuel stove and associated 1.4m flue within the north-eastern corner of the extension.
THE PROPOSAL A new drawing showing the amended height of the flue was requested by the Department during the assessment stage and was received on 03/11/2016.
2.1 The current planning application looks to relocate the multi-fuel stove to an alternative position within the house and as such the associated flue shall also need relocating. - 2.2 The multi-fuel stove is now proposed to be within the main dwelling house and the associated flue is to exit the building through the north facing gable wall and run up the side of the property. - 2.3 Proposed is a twin-wall insulated 190mm diameter flue to be finished in powdercoated magnolia up to eaves level to match the existing render and is then to change to matt black at roof height.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has been subject to one previous planning application PA 16/00169/B for the erection of a sun room extension to the rear of the property. This was granted full approval in April 2016.
16/01116/B Page 1 of 5
4.1 In terms of local plan policy the application site is located within an area zoned as "Predominantly Residential" under the Isle of Man 1982 Development Plan. Given the nature of the proposed works there is one policy of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 that is considered relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:
General Policy 2 states: "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:
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 The Department of Infrastructure commented on the application stating that "the proposal is to install a flue to the external wall of a dwelling. The flue does not impact the car parking provision. There is no highway interest in this application." (27/10/2017)
5.2 Marown Parish Commissioners have objected to the current application and stated that there was no clarity as to whether the current application was for the relocation of the flue or for an additional flue facility. They also stated that they believe the proposed flue to be "industrial in appearance and clearly visible from the street." The commissioners also noted that the works for the application had already commenced (20/10/2016). ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The current application looks to relocate the multi-fuel burner from previous approved PA 16/00169/B to a new location within the main dwelling house. The proposed works would involve the relocation of the associated flue to the north facing gable wall. The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application is whether or not the proposed works would impact the amenity of the neighbours and whether or not the flue would adversely impact the streetscene.
6.2 Prior to the formal submission of the planning application the applicant explained the reasons behind the relocation of the stove and flue. The applicant stated that the original location of the multi-fuel burner within the extension as approved on PA 16/00169/B would, as recommended by a certified installer, require a flue that was over 5m high and the need for the flue to be braced from the rear elevation of the main house. The applicant considered that this would be overbearing and unaesthetically pleasing to the property and would likely affect the surrounding neighbours.
6.3 In terms of visual impact the new proposed location for the flue on the north gable wall is not visible from the front elevation, however, as you move east along Elm Bank the north facing gable becomes more visible, although there is an existing mature tree and street lamp which obscure part of the side elevation and endorse an essence of verticality along the street.
6.3 When visiting site it was noted that a hole had been punctured into the side gable elevation. It was explained by the applicant that this was carried out after the submission of the application as to determine at what point the proposed flue was to exit the internal living space. The hole had since been temporarily filled until the determination of the application, and the applicant was made aware of the potential consequences of carrying out development works without prior planning approval. - 6.4 The punctured hole on the side elevation was also evidently higher than that stated on the original proposed drawings. The applicant stated that the flue was put higher for safety reasons as
16/01116/B Page 2 of 5
there is often small children playing in the back garden and they wanted to minimise any risk of potential injury. As such additional drawings were requested from the applicant to show the new higher position of the flue. It is considered that the new higher level takes on board elements of part (m) GP2 in terms of personal safety surrounding buildings.
6.5 In terms of size the proposed 190mm flue is considered to be standard of most domestic twin-wall multi-fuel stoves, in most instances the finish of which is stainless steel or black. The use of either in this instance would either result in a shiny and highly reflective surface or a colour which is completely contrasting to the existing external painted render. In order to minimise the visual impacts of the flue the applicant and installer has sourced and specified a flue that is to be powdercoated magnolia to match the existing render of the property and for the colour finish to change to matt black between eaves level and top of the flue. It is expected that the proposed colouring of the flue shall help to reduce any visual impacts from the streetscene and from adjacent property 6 Elm Bank. It is expected that the matt black will match with the dark colour of the existing roof and also the use of a coloured and matt finish will reduce the reflective properties of the flue. - 6.6 It is expected that the flue will be visible from adjacent property 6 Elm Bank and from the adjacent highway, however due to the proposed specifications for the flue and its material coloured finish, although it will be visible when looking closely at the property it is not expected to be so visible that it will cause an impact on the visual outlook or amenity of the neighbours or passers by. If the flue were to have been finished in stainless steel there may have been an industrial appearance as suggested by the Commissioners however given the proposed finished of the flue in this case it is expected that the flue shall uniformly match the external render of the property and be less distinguishable. - 6.7 Although the Commissioners have raised comments which are understandable, these concerns are not individually expressed by any of the neighbours and given the reasons above it is considered that in this instance the flue is not so out of keeping with the existing property to adversely impact the amenity of the local neighbours or to impact the visual appearance of the streetscene to an extent to warrant a refusal. Overall the proposed flue is deemed acceptable and complies with part (b), (c) and (g) of GP 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and takes personal safety into consideration in accordance to part (m) of GP2. RECOMMENDATION
7.1 For the reasons set out above the application is recommended for approval. PARTY STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
16/01116/B Page 3 of 5
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 16.11.2016 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
This approval relates to the Site and Location Plan, Existing and Proposed Ground Floor Plans and Existing Elevations all date stamped and received 27th September 2016, Proposed Elevations date stamped and received 03/11/2016 and email from the applicant dated 1st November 2016 at 15:20 stating the particulars and specification for the proposed flue.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 18.11.2016 Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer
16/01116/B Page 4 of 5
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown