Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/91238/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/91238/B Applicant : Ms Finnola Martin Proposal : Replacement dwelling on the site of an existing timber framed cottage Site Address : Briardale Belle Vue Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1UH
Planning Officer: Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken : 16.01.2025 Site Visit : 16.01.2025 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 29.01.2025 __
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 dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the means of vehicular access and the parking area have been constructed in full accordance with the approved drawing number 2405/03C, including surfacing in a bound and permeable finish and installation of the drainage channel along the lane. The approved access and parking area shall thereafter be retained for access and parking purposes only.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and surface water drainage.
C 3. The external cladding hereby approved shall be installed and finished in one of the following colour finishes set out in the 'Cedral' cladding brochure submitted only, 'Platinum Grey C05', 'Silver Grey C51' or 'Tea Green C76' and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: in the interest of neighbouring amenity and having a lighter coloured finish to mitigate and reduce any oppressive darker coloured finish.
N 1. The applicant/owner is reminded of their legal obligations under the Wildlife Act 1990 in respect of protected species and nesting birds, and in any event that such a protected species or nest is found that advice is sought from DEFA Ecosystems team.
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/91238/B Page 2 of 8
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed works in the replacement of 'Briardale' are considered to have an acceptable visual and highway impact, and although having some potential overshadowing impacts this is not considered to be so adverse as to significant harm the overall enjoyment or living conditions of the adjoining neighbouring property as to warrant a refusal. The proposal is considered to meet Strategic Policies 1 and 2, Spatial Policy 2, General Policy 2 b,c,g, h and i, and Environment Policy 42 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and with general principles of the Residential Design Guide. Conditions in respect of highway matters will be added along with condition in respect of external cladding being any of the coloured options as submitted within the application and a note reminding of legal obligations of Wildlife Act 1990 for protected species and nesting birds.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following information:
o Agent letter re: ecosystems dated 2nd December 2024
o Agent letter re: datum, hedging, neighbours, cladding and highways dated 27th November 2024 o Drawing number 2405/03C o Drawing number 2405/02A o Cedral Cladding Brochure
o Podpoint data sheet o Architects Design Statement o Drawing number 2405/01
__
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o Peel Town Commissioners - No objections o Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - No objection subject to conditions which have been applied o Department of Infrastructure Drainage Division - No objections
__
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application relates to the existing semi-detached dwelling known as 'Briardale' located on a loop road off the main Ramsey Road, Peel. The loop road sits between St Patricks View and Mourne View Road and several dwellings are accessed from it.
1.2 The existing dwelling is single storey but with additional living space in the roof. The dwelling sits on a corner plot with the loop road running up the western side elevation and across the front elevation. The southern rear elevation has an existing single storey rear extension and a further conservatory. There is a small garden area wrapping the entire dwelling.
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/91238/B Page 3 of 8
1.3 'Briardale' appears to have once had a detached double garage associated with it, this appears to have been demolished and replaced with a garden room now falling within the boundary of adjacent property 'Cair Vie' under PA 19/00591/B. This leaving Briardale without any off road parking area more details of which are within 3.0 of this report.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed as part of this application is the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement with a new dwelling. The proposed dwelling is to comprise two keys parts; the main body of the dwelling is to be single storey matching the form, proportion and height of the adjoining neighbour (approx. 2.6m eaves and 5.3m central ridge), but with a new one and half storey extension on the western side running parallel to the lane running along the side boundary, this proposal creating a 'T' shape layout to the proposed dwelling.
2.2 The proposed one and half storey element is to sit away from the adjoining neighbour's boundary and is to project from the rear elevation by 2.35m and from the front elevation by 1.5m. The existing is to measure 4.59m wide and its overall height measuring approx. 4.3m high to eaves and 5.8m high to central ridge (approx. 500mm taller than the existing ridge).
2.3 Amended drawings were received following comments from the local commissioners re: parking and from the planning officer re: site levels and missing chimney stack details. Revised drawings were received clarifying the site levels and chimney matters (one being removed and one being retained). The proposal also amended to provide two parking spaces off the road and in tandem along the boundary with 'Cair Vie'.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The following applications are considered to be of some relevance in showing how the site has evolved overtime: o 12/00518/B for replacement windows to Cair Vie was submitted with plans showing a detached garage outside of the red line and belonging to Briardale. o 12/01539/B for installation of flue pipe to Cair Vie was also submitted with plans showing the garage outside of the red line and appearing to belong to Briardale. o 18/00314/B for erection of a larger conservatory for Cair Vie also had plans showing the garage outside of the red line and belonging to Briardale. o 19/00591/B was submitted with plans that indicated Briardale in a blue line as additional land owned by 'Cair Vie'. This application sought the demolition of the garage and its replacement with a garden room within the garden of 'Cair Vie'. The application was approved.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 Site Specific 4.1.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being predominantly residential use under the Peel Local Plan 1989. The site is not identified within a Conservation Area, nor is it within an area designated at risk of flooding. There are no mature trees or registered trees on site or in the immediate vicinity that could be affected by the proposal.
4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application; o Strategic Policy 1 - best use of existing sites o Strategic Policy 2 - new development in existing towns and villages o Strategic Policy 4 - protect and enhance landscape and nature conservation value o Strategic Policy 5 - new development (including individual buildings) designed to make a positive contribution o Paragraph 8.12.1 - general presumption in favour of extensions to existing property where would not have adverse impact on adjacent property or surrounding area o General Policy 2 - general design standards o Environment Policy 4 - protected species
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/91238/B Page 4 of 8
o Environment Policy 5 - exceptional circumstances to EP4 to minimise disturbance or provide mitigation o Environment Policy 42 - New development designed to take account of the particular character and identity of area o Community Policy 7 - designing out crime o Community Policy 11 - prevention of outbreak and spread of fire o Infrastructure Policy 5 - water conservation and management measures o Paragraph 4.3.11 of the Strategic Plan states, "Merely arguing that a new building cannot be seen in public views is not a justification for the relaxation of other policies relating to the location of new development".
4.3 Reference any relevant PPS or NPD o None
4.4 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.4.1 Legislation o none
4.4.2 Policy/Strategy/Guidance o Manual for Manx Roads o Residential Design Guide - Sections 3, 4, 7
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Peel Town Commissioners - comments (19/11/2024) suggesting a second parking space should be provided within the curtilage.
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do not oppose subject to condition (29/11/2024) - vehicular access and parking, boundary height, pedestrian access, and bin/cycle store to be provided as per approved plans and before occupation and retained thereafter. The parking area also bound and consolidated material and conditioned as such.
5.3 DOI Highways Drainage - satisfied as per revised drawings (28/11/2024).
5.4 DEFA Ecosystems - objection (29/11/2024) - lack of information in respect of bats and nesting birds. They indicate the dwelling being in poor state of repair and providing potential access points for bats in a location adjacent to scrub and trees and surveys are required to determined ecological impact. They quote British Standard Biodiversity - Code of Best Practise for Planning and Development "The presence or absence of protected species, and the extent to which they could be affected by the proposed development, should be established before planning permission is granted; otherwise all material considerations might not have been considered in making the decision. The use of planning conditions to secure ecological surveys after planning permission has been granted should therefore only be applied in exceptional circumstances, such as where original survey work will need to be repeated because the survey data might be out of date before commencement of development, etc.". In the event the application is approved despite their objections they suggest potential conditions requiring preliminary assessments for roosting bats and nesting birds and any subsequent surveys required after those assessments and any necessary mitigation.
5.5 Comments were also sought from Manx Utilities Authority but no response received as of 29/01/2025.
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/91238/B Page 5 of 8
i. Principle; (St1 and 2; Sp2) ii. Design and visual impact (Gp2 b, c, j; Ep42, RDG) iii. Design and neighbouring amenity impact (Gp2g and Ep42) iv. Highway Safety Impact (Gp2 h,i) v. Ecology Impact (Ep4, Ep5 and Gp2d) vi. Any other matters arising
6.2 (i) Principle 6.2.1 The land is designated for residential use, surrounded by other residential dwellings and within the settlement of Peel. Strategic and Spatial Policies seek to direct such development to existing town centre sites and making best and efficient use of them in line with St1, St 2 and Sp 2. The principle of a replacement dwelling is considered acceptable here and would not prejudice the site or adjoining land and is within the settlement boundary. The test of its success falls to the subsequent matters in respect of design and its visual and neighbouring amenity impact and highway safety impact.
6.3 (ii) Design and visual impact 6.3.1 There is a mix of dwelling sizes, styles and designs in this area and along the lane, and this mix allows for a degree of flexibility in the design a replacement dwelling here. There are also no strict or prescriptive design criteria set out in the local plan. Well-designed development should integrate successfully into their context and respect the site and surroundings in terms of their siting, layout, scale form, design and landscaping.
6.3.2 In the case of this application, the proposal seeks to best replicate the main body of the existing dwelling and matching the form and proportions of the adjoining neighbours roof, eaves and ridge height in trying to integrate the proposal. Where the change occurs is in the upwards and outwards extension creating a 'T' shape to the end of the new dwelling and introducing a new taller and deeper feature to the property being one and half storey tall and projecting beyond the front and rear elevations. This arrangement now sets the replacement dwelling somewhat apart from its adjoining neighbour and would be noticeably different compared to the existing situation, but given the mix of properties styles in the area is not considered to be out of keeping as to detract from the residential character of the area.
6.3.3 The one and half storey design and projections front and rear are not considered to be so overbearing on the existing house or on the neighbour as to create any adverse visual change or overbearing impacts on the streetscene, yes the works will result in a visual change to the site and area, but this is not considered to be harmful or negative to the overall appearance of the site or surrounding area as to warrant a concern or refusal. In this respect the proposals are considered to have acceptable visual impact in line with GP2 b,c, g, EP42 and the RDG.
6.4 (iii) Design and neighbouring amenity impact 6.4.1 The biggest element to consider was the increased height and projections of the 'T' shape extension above and beyond the existing arrangement and how this might impact the adjoining neighbour, and any other nearby neighbours.
6.4.2 Increased heights and increased projections to extensions can have potential to impact neighbours through overshadowing, overbearing or overlooking impacts and this can be exacerbated in close knit situations and works to terraced and semi-detached properties. Section 4.6.9 and 4.6.10 of RDG state "for terraced houses and narrower semi-detached properties, even single-storey extensions are unlikely to be supported where they project more than 3 metres from the back of the house" and "two storey rear extensions have the potential to produce the greatest impact upon the amenities of those in neighbouring dwellings (see Chapter 7.0). There may be concerns if a proposal is to extend a semi-detached or terraced property along or close to the joint boundary. Extensions, which could have an adverse effect
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/91238/B Page 6 of 8
on the ground-floor living rooms or kitchens of neighbouring properties (Primary Windows), are unlikely to be supported."
6.4.3 Factors to take into consideration as part of any assessment include the siting, orientation and relationship with the neighbours, distances between sites, window arrangements, heights and depths of proposals, dwellings and gardens, surrounding outlook and amenity space and any intervening structures or features.
6.4.4 In this case the one and half storey 'T' shape extension projects 1.5m at the front and 2.35m at the rear and within the 3m 'rule of thumb' of the RDG, but the increased height (eaves 1.4m taller than the main house and central ridge 0.5m taller than the main ridge) results in a more notable upwards massing increase. Given the orientation, this increase is likely to be most notable from the rear of the adjoining neighbour especially with the extension sitting on the south-western side and potentially within the later evening sun path.
6.4.5 There is a gap between the extension and the neighbours boundary fence and drawings indicate this gap to be 3.8m. The neighbours have a set of patio doors and a solid roof conservatory at the rear opening out into a reasonably sized garden area twice the width of the house and running behind their detached garage.
6.4.6 The proposed extension will be visible to the neighbours and will form part of the outlook from their rear elevation and garden area. The height and size and location is likely to result in some overshadowing to the neighbours patio doors and closest part of their garden at certain times of the year and later in the evenings. However, minded of the 3.8m gap between properties, the short 2.35m projection and the 1.5 storey height of the proposed extension, the intervening boundary fence and taking into consideration the open aspect of the neighbours rear garden, that the proposed works to Briardale are not considered to result in such a significant adverse or unacceptable impact on the living conditions or amenity of the neighbours to warrant a refusal in this case.
6.4.7 There are no first floor windows facing towards the adjoining neighbour. Where there are new first floor windows proposed, there is sufficient distance and intervening features that mitigate any unacceptable overlooking or privacy impact. There are no concerns in this respect.
6.4.8 Given the above conclusions the proposals are considered to have acceptable neighbouring amenity impact in line with GP2 b, g and with principles of the RDG.
6.5 (iv) Highway Safety Impact 6.5.1 Briardale already appears to have lost its garage and off road parking as part of a previous planning approval back in 2019, and so the creation of any off road parking is an improvement compared to the current saturation. The property is accessed via a small shared lane along which there is little or no room to accommodate parking on the lane unless within a passing place or narrowing or blocking through access. There are unrestricted parking spaces along the main Ramsey Road which could be used by occupants or visitors, nevertheless the proposal now seeks to provide two off road parking spaces in tandem and cycle storage provided. This responds to those comments from the local commissioners, and DOI Highway Services and Drainage divisions are both content with the proposals. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to meet with GP 2 h and I, and is to be conditioned seeking all highway matters be provided in full accordance with the submitted plans and retained thereafter.
6.6 (v) Ecology Impact 6.6.1 Paragraph 7.8.6 and Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan seek to best protect species and habitats of importance, stating that development will not be permitted if it adversely affects any proposed or other recognised site of conservation value including areas of ecological interest. Environment Policy 5 states that in exceptional circumstances where it is
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/91238/B Page 7 of 8
approved that appropriate conditions be put in place to best conserve or to minimise and mitigate any loss or disturbance.
6.6.2 In the case of this application we have comments from Ecosystems that highlight the condition of the existing dwelling's roof coupled with trees and scrub land in the nearby area having potential for bats and nesting birds, although they have not indicated any confirmed record of such. The site is not understood to be a recognised site of conservation value or of ecological interest nor an area proposed to be.
6.6.3 The Wildlife Act 1990 sets out its own legislation for protected species including bats and nesting birds and we must be mindful of this separate legislation in this case.
6.6.4 PD rights have not been revoked previously and changes to the property under that such as installation of roof-lights could be installed without the need for planning. Some degree of repair works also possible, and perhaps even the entire roof replaced without the need for planning subject to level of works, the definition of development and so long as it did not result in a material change to the external appearance. While some works could be done without the need for a planning application, this does not negate the applicant's responsibility under other legislation and so they would still need to be cognisant of the Wildlife Act 1990 in their undertaking, including any gardening or clearance works.
6.6.5 The existing dwelling is already within a built up settlement area. The site is not a recognised site of conservation value, is not recognised of any specific ecological interest nor is it proposed to be on any local plan or area plan, the site is also not within an ASSI, nature reserve or national trust land. There are features in the area, which may increase potential for bats and birds, but equally they may not. A separate response provided by the agent sets out that works might not be done straight away and so any survey now may become out of date by the time works are undertaken. They would seek advice and approach Manx Bat Group to undertake a survey and would have no issues in providing mitigation if required. They state that hedge cutting would be done outside of nesting bird season and the property is secure as to prevent access and no evidence of any previous nests and they would consider opportunity to install bird boxes if appropriate.
6.6.6 Minded of the separate legislation covering bats as a protected species and nesting birds, it is not considered necessary in this case to apply any condition seeking any survey being undertaken and submitted before the works start. Instead a note will be added to remind the applicant of their separate legal obligations under The Wildlife Act 1990.
6.7 (vi) Any other matters 6.7.1 The proposal is for the replacement of an existing dwelling, there are not expected to be any increased or adverse changes to fire spread or risk of criminal activity, and the impact on water conservation is not expected to be made any worse than the existing situation.
6.7.2 Matters in respect of construction will fall to the detailed building control application.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed works in the replacement of 'Briardale' are considered to have an acceptable visual and highway impact, and although having some potential overshadowing impacts this is not considered to be so adverse as to significant harm the overall enjoyment or living conditions of the adjoining neighbouring property as to warrant a refusal. The proposal is considered to meet Strategic Policies 1 and 2, Spatial Policy 2, GP2 b,c,g, h and i, and Environment Policy 42 of the IOM Strategic Plan and with principles of the RDG. Conditions in respect of highway matters will be added along with condition in respect of external cladding being any of the coloured options as submitted within the application and a note reminding of legal obligations of Wildlife Act 1990 for protected species and nesting birds.
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/91238/B Page 8 of 8
8.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 8.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
8.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
8.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
8.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.
8.5 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 the Right to Appeal.
__
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 06.02.2025
Determining Officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/ customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal