157162

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 17/00240/B
                                 Page  1  of  9

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 17/00240/B Applicant : Dr Janette & Mr Chris Gledhill Proposal : Variation of condition application to remove condition 3 of PA 16/00780/B, relating to the installation of sliding sash windows Site Address : Crofton (formerly Tighnabruaich) Pooilvaaish Road Castletown Isle of Man IM9 4PJ

Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 21.03.2017 Site Visit : 21.03.2017 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a dwelling to be known as 'Crofton', which has planning approval to be constructed in place of the former dwelling 'Tighnabruaich'.

1.2 Tighnabruaich, which has recently been demolished, was a detached dwelling of traditional Manx vernacular, situated north of the winding Pooilvaaish Road roughly 500m south of that road's westernmost unction with the A5 coast road. It was situated in its own grounds, some 60m from the highway, and although it had been much-altered in the past its traditional countryside vernacular origins remained evident. That said, though, the dwelling had fallen into some disrepair and, while its form was neatly proportioned, the fabric of the building had certainly seen better days. It is unclear when the property was last lived in, though at the time its replacement was approved it certainly did not appear to have been abandoned.

1.2 While the dwelling was in an isolated position, there is a single other dwelling adjacent, known as 'Spindrift'. This is not of a traditional vernacular but is uniquely designed. There are other isolated dwellings and pairs of dwellings in the area, as well as the Pooil Vaaish farm and quarry, but the area is very much characterised by its openness and its coastal location.

2.0 PLANNING HISTORY

2.1 Some members of the Planning Committee may recall granted approval to PA 16/00780/B, which sought and gained approval for a replacement dwelling. This followed an earlier approval issued for a dwelling of essentially identical design but without the basement rooms along with some concomitant lightwells - PA 15/01346/B. Both these applications remain extant but the relevant one in this case is the 2016 approval.

2.2 In view of the nature of the current application, which is set out at Section 3 below, it is worth noting in full the case officer's assessment of the application as well as the conditions attached.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 17/00240/B
                                 Page  2  of  9

2.3 The assessment reads as follows:

"The nature of the proposal means that, as is so often the case with applications seeking approval for replacement dwellings in the countryside, its acceptability will turn on the site-specific impacts of what is proposed having regard to the nature and character of the application site.

"The character of the site has been laid out in this report already. The site is visible from the A5 and also Pooilvaaish Road, and so care must be taken with respect to changes to the site in the context of the coastal openness that defines the rural nature of the area. Views of the site are more readily obtained from the less regularly used Pooilvaaish Road.

"In this context, the loss of the existing dwelling is unfortunate but its replacement with (at least in part) something with fairly traditional elements is considered to be acceptable. What remains for consideration is the proportionally large, contemporary element proposed to the side of the principal elevation, and how this affects the visual impact of the proposed dwelling overall. It is to be remembered that the proposed dwelling is less than 50% larger than that which exists.

"It is considered that the proposed dwelling's frontage is the most important and key one for consideration: while it could be argued that the Pooilvaaish Road is far less used and therefore less important, this would be to ignore the fact that the dwelling will only be seen from the more heavily used A5 in flashes and only the roof and upper floor will be particularly visible from here, whereas it would be visible for quite a significant stretch of Pooilvaaish Road and for a much longer period of time as well since vehicle speeds along here are necessarily much lower. This road also doubles as the Raad ny Foillan footpath, as mentioned in Landscape Strategy E9 above (even if the key views identified are in fact towards the sea).

"With this in mind, the overall design approach has resulted in what is considered to be an appropriate negotiated middle ground. The dwelling is by no means wholly traditional, and yet its principal feature at the important frontage will be that of Manx countryside vernacular. While the other, smaller elements will sit alongside this, and potentially be quite visually distracting (particularly in the case of the side 'extension'), they will not completely undermine the design.

"The use of a variety of fenestration approaches could be said to be a little disordered, but there are clear vertical and horizontal proportions that run through the elevations, and, while these might not be to everyone's tastes, they are also not haphazard to any harmful degree.

"The basement level cannot really be seen. The necessary lightwells are small and unobtrusive and such as they could be seen would not be of concern. The addition to the overall floorspace will be roughly 50sqm. While HP14 does make reference to a 50% increase in floorspace as being the expected maximum in cases such as this, it is a matter of form, scale, proportion and visual impact that the figure is designed to address rather than specify a particular mathematical justification for support or objection to an application. There is a slight possibility that lighting the rooms below may give a limited and complementary 'uplighting' effect on the lowest parts of the dwelling. In this case, then, the difference in visual impact is likely to be ever so slightly positive - if indeed any such change would be noticeable at all.

"As such, it is considered that the approach to merge both Housing Policies 14 and 15 has been somewhat successful, and while there would have been many preferable ways to approach the scheme, that which is now before the Committee is not considered to be so at odds with Housing Policy 14 in particular as to warrant its refusal. Similarly, it is considered that while the proposal does comprise new development in the area, it is of a scale relative to the existing such as to mean it could not be considered contrary to Landscape Proposal 9 in the Area Plan for the South.

"While a 20m distance would normally be sought between principal windows in dwellings, this 'rule of thumb' applies primarily in more built-up areas where overlooking and loss of privacy can be more readily achieved. In more sparsely developed areas such as this, greater distances might be

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 17/00240/B
                                 Page  3  of  9

more appropriate to apply, but the neighbouring Spindrift occupies a large and open plot and the next-nearest dwelling is roughly 125m distant. A statement to the effect that the proposal would result in a loss of privacy and a resulting reduction in the right to a private and family life to a degree sufficient to warrant the application's refusal would be really rather difficult to sustain at appeal.

"The proposal raises no highway safety issues since there is already an existing access onto the public highway, though the condition recommended previously by Highway Services is logical even if reference to a garage needs to be removed as one is not proposed. It might also be worth removing permitted development rights with respect to the erection of a garage on the site, which is quite tight and any new standalone structure of the size of a garage would ideally be assessed through the planning process.

"For similar reasons, and noting the Committee's views on this point previously, a condition removing permitted development rights with respect to extensions is also recommended."

2.4 The conditions read as follows:

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.

C 2. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling the car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the Strategic Plan's car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.

C 3. For the avoidance of doubt, all those windows shown with a transom (which is 21 no. in total) on Drawing number 1B (date-stamped as having been received 7th July 2016) shall be vertical sliding sashes and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the dwelling hereby approved.

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 garages shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved other than that expressly authorised by this approval without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the appearance of the surrounding area.

C 5. 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(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                                 17/00240/B
                                 Page  4  of  9

3.0 THE PROPOSAL

3.1 The application submitted seeks to remove Condition 3 attached to the most recent approval. This would in essence allow for the installation of windows that are not sliding sash. Additional drawings have been submitted that show the entire dwelling, but these were retained on the planning file for information and have not been circulated because they are solely a legal requirement rather than proposing anything different from that originally proposed under the application.

3.2 The applicant has included with the application a 5-page supporting document with appendices explaining why the proposal has been submitted and why they feel it should be found acceptable. In brief summary, the following points are made:

o We did not have any problems with the conditions from an aesthetic point of view and understand that the appearance of windows is important to the intended traditional character of some parts of the building; o The subsequent detailed design process highlights that sliding sash windows are not available to a standard of air-tightness that will allow us to employ a modern heat recovery system, which is an essential pre-requisite for the low-carbon heating and ventilation system for which the house has been designed; o The Building Control drawings demonstrate our significant commitment to achieve a high standard of insulation and airtightness; o The dwelling will be built in an exposed location with no shelter or windbreak; o We understand that airtightness has been a problem for neighbours, with water ingress also an issue, and sliding sash windows could provide additional difficulties; o It has been impossible to find a supplier who can guarantee sliding sash windows to the required specifications regarding airtightness and a thermal coefficient value of 0.9 or below; o Our application reflects on planning guidelines relating to the appearance of rural dwellings and also more recent guidance on sustainable development; o Circular 3/91, which is 25 years old, only states that windows should normally be sliding sash; o We have only found one supplier prepared to guarantee the performance of their glazing systems to our requirements for insulation / airtightness; o Alternative suppliers have all recommended casement-style windows for the 21 traditional style windows; o We are designing a property that will allow us to do away with a conventional boiler, and there is no doubt that the use of sliding sash windows will compromise the environmental performance of the building, which would comply with part (b) of Strategic Objective (Resources) and also paragraph 4.3.8 of the Strategic Plan; o To remove the need for a boiler we will be installing a Mechanical Heat Recovery and Ventilation System, which relies on an airtight design to function efficiently, and advice from the equipment supplier is that where opening windows are proposed the best option is casement and ideally as few opening windows as possible should be installed, and that supplier has been the most active for testing buildings on the Island for the last 10 years and have not yet tested a house with sliding sash windows that has a score under 3, and they would suggest avoiding sliding sash windows to ensure that the energy savings measures are the best they can possibly be; o Three window manufacture companies have been contacted but either no response has been received or they do not supply sliding sash windows; o Building Control have advised that sliding sash windows are likely to present durability concerns and may be inappropriate for such an exposed site [the email to this effect is included as an appendix]; o There is no precedent for installing or retaining sliding sash windows in the immediate vicinity, which is defined as being one kilometre in all directions from the application site; o The two closest properties of Spindrift and Sheerghlass and neither has sliding sash units, which is especially noted in the case of the latter as this is a new building replacing an older one;

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                                 17/00240/B
                                 Page  5  of  9

o We have been working with our suppliers to ensure that the casement windows used will retain as close as possible an appearance to sliding sash frames; o The cottage previously on the site did not have sliding sash windows, and our design, regardless of the opening mechanism, is much closer to the traditional layout as described in Circular 3/91, and this was noted by the Planning Committee when the application was approved; o The dwelling is set back more than 100m from the road and at distance the opening mechanism would be very difficult to discern - this is an especially important point since Circular 3/91 only "normally" expects sliding sash units and there is nothing normal about the environmental demands of the site; o The proposal should also be assessed against GD 2017 0002 (Programme for Government), which contains three specific mentions of the importance of supporting energy security, reducing carbon emissions and supporting people making homes more energy efficient; o The last point is difficult to ignore as we are making a six-figure investment in the energy performance of our new home, and the insistence on sliding sash windows would seriously compromise our objectives in this regard to the point that it would be unrealistic to go 'boiler-free' on this site; o In undertaking this, we are only looking for a rational evaluation of the arguments in light of the aspiration to achieve a significantly more sustainable home in line with national and international best practice.

4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

4.1 The site falls within an area of land not zoned for any particular kind of development on the Area Plan for the South. In view of the nature of the proposal, it is appropriate to be mindful of Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan as well as General Policy 2. Planning Circular 3/91 provides some useful guidance - more or less as outlined in the applicants' supporting statement - while Environment Policy 35 and Planning Circular 1/98 do not apply in this instance as the dwelling lies outwith a Conservation Area.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Highway Services of the DoI stated that the proposal had no highway implications on 28.03.2017.

5.2 Arbory Commissioners commented that they had no comments to make in comments dated 18.03.2017.

6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The proposal requires a balance to be struck between environmental sustainability and visual impact. It should be strongly borne in mind that the result of what is being proposed is essentially the same form of dwelling but without sliding sash windows, and so it should be considered now whether or not such a proposal would have been found to comply with Housing Policy 14 when the application was originally submitted.

6.2 In the first place, it is surprising that the issue of airtightness with respect to sliding sash windows was not considered at the earliest stages of the design process for the house. It is also true that the desire of the applicants to build as environmentally sustainable a dwelling as possible is both highly laudable and also their own choice. That they have chosen this site to undertake such a goal will make such an outcome much more difficult to achieve than if the dwelling was less exposed. However, this is the nature of the site and the dwelling they wish to construct. There is nothing within the application to indicate that the dwelling will be built to the highest environmental standard - generally considered to be the PassivHaus standard - and so the aspiration to create an airtight dwelling via the use of non-sliding sash windows reflects a desire to create a 'boiler-free' house rather than a necessary requirement for any particular environmental standard.

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                                 17/00240/B
                                 Page  6  of  9

6.3 Aside from the environmental sustainability points (and it should not be forgotten that this dwelling would not contribute to sustainable patterns of development in any meaningful social sense) is the applicant's very understandable argument that the dwelling's location far from what is a fairly little-used highway makes any visual harm limited. The fact that the site is not within a Conservation Area means that, were there a house currently on the site, its windows could be replaced without a planning application. This is inevitably what has happened in the area given the dearth of traditional windows on display, but equally serves to highlight how simple changes to fenestration in otherwise traditionally styled buildings can harmfully affect their appearance. That said, the fact remains that the site lies far outwith any Conservation Area, and the condition attached to the initial approval related to the importance of ensuring the traditional finish of the building rather than the contribution it would make to a Conservation Area.

6.4 Were the dwelling previously on the site of manifestly poor form, then there would have been a much clearer benefit to be gained from the replacement with the dwelling proposed at that time. However, Tighnabruaich was a fairly traditionally formed building that had been subjected to some unfortunate alterations and had also been neglected. Therefore, it was important that any dwelling proposed in its place followed as closely as possible the expectations set down in Housing Policy 14 and Planning Circular 3/91, and the approved dwelling was very much a stretch of Housing Policy 14 to reflect some of the wording of Housing Policy 15 / General Policy 2. The issued approval is judged to be very much in balance and any further toning down of the traditional elements of the building could be difficult for the scheme overall to successfully absorb. Accepting the applicants' argument could place the Department in a difficult situation in future should the argument be made that sliding sash windows are less energy efficient than alternatives. It is also true that, even though the dwelling is not particularly prominent, the vast majority of those people that do see it will be unaware that the dwelling is an environmentally sustainable one.

6.5 Taking all the above into account, it is considered that an approval issued to this application would need to be fundamentally clear that the acceptability of the proposal had regard to the specific circumstances of this case. Here, those circumstances comprise: (i) the exposed location of the dwelling, (ii) the stated and well-evidenced desire of the applicants to create an environmentally sustainable dwelling, (iii) the isolated location of the dwelling, (iv) the distance of the dwelling from nearby highways, and (v) the fact the dwelling is not within a Conservation Area. These collectively are considered to be exceptional circumstances that would warrant the application being considered favourably relative to the requirements of Housing Policies 14 and 15 and General Policy 2, and so on a very fine balance the proposal is recommended for approval.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; o Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 18.04.2017

Conditions and Notes for Approval:

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                                 17/00240/B
                                 Page  7  of  9

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before 4th October 2020.

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.

C 2. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling the car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the Strategic Plan's car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.

C 3. 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 garages shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved other than that expressly authorised by this approval without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the appearance of the surrounding area.

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(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.

The development relates to Drawings 3B, 4, 13, 11A, 13B and 14, all date stamped as having been received 28th February 2017, and also drawings 1D, 3A, 4 and 5, all date stamped as having been received 13th April 2017

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: 24.04.2017

Signed : E Riley Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

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 8 ====

                                                 17/00240/B
                                 Page  8  of  9

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 24.04.2017

Application No. :

17/00240/B Applicant : Dr Janette & Mr Chris Gledhill Proposal : Variation of condition application to remove condition 3 of PA 16/00780/B, relating to the installation of sliding sash windows Site Address : Crofton (formerly Tighnabruaich) Pooilvaaish Road Castletown Isle of Man IM9 4PJ

Presenting Officer : Mr Edmond Riley

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee felt that, although the application was acceptable, it nevertheless remains the case that the windows installed in the dwelling should still take a certain form. A drawing submitted with the application shows the windows the applicant wishes to install and Members requested that the windows installed match this drawing, and that this be required by a new condition. Accordingly, one such condition is recommended to be attached to the approval notice.

Conditions of Approval

C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before 4th October 2020.

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.

C 2. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling the car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the Strategic Plan's car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.

C 3. 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 garages shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved other than that expressly authorised by this approval without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the appearance of the surrounding area.

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(s) hereby approved, other than that

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                                 17/00240/B
                                 Page  9  of  9

expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.

C 5. The windows installed in the dwelling hereby approved shall match those shown on Drawing 13B, date-stamped as having been received 28th February 2017, and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the dwelling.

The development relates to Drawings 3B, 4, 13, 11A, 13B and 14, all date stamped as having been received 28th February 2017, and also drawings 1D, 3A, 4 and 5, all date stamped as having been received 13th April 2017