Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/91087/B Page 1 of 5
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/91087/B Applicant : Malcolm Blackburn Proposal : Alterations to bungalow under construction approved under PA 22/01460/B (retrospective) Site Address : Plot North East Of Cass A Lergy Douglas Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 1AT
Planning Officer: Peiran Shen Photo Taken : Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level :
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 05.12.2024 __
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. Obscure glazing (Pilkington level 5 or equivalent) shall be installed within 6 month of the date of the approval in the following window(s) and shall be maintained as such thereafter;
South Elevation - Window on the gable, as shown on drawing no. 02 Rev D, which has been received on 4th October 2024.
Reason: In the interests of neighbouring residential amenities.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The principle is acceptable based on the previous approval. The proposal is considered to have no adverse impact on the character of the house and the area and neighbouring amenities. It is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide 2021.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the documents, cover letter, Solar Panel details, Air Source Heat Pump details, noise assessment, photos and drawing no. 01, 01 Rev B, 02, 02 Rev D, which have been received on 4th October 2024. __
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/91087/B Page 2 of 5
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
DoI Highway Services - No objection __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is a plot northeast of Cass A Lhergy, Douglas Road, Kirk Michael. A single- storey detached house is being built on the site. The main structure and most works on elevations have been completed.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 This application seeks retrospective approval for the erection of a house. The proposal is generally the same as the previous approval (details in section 3) except for the following: o slight increase in the red line boundary (12.6 square metres) o slight relocation of the siting of the house o slight increase in the footage of the house (4 square meters) o installation of an air source heat pump (ASHP) o installation of solar panels on the roof o modification, installation, and removal of windows (including rooflights) and doors.
2.2 The ASHP is located on the northeast elevation of the house. The sound power level of the air source heat pump provided by the product specifications submitted is 58 dB. The noise assessment position is related to a ground-floor bedroom window of Cronk Waterson. The measured distance from the heat pump to the assessment position is 27m.
2.3 Solar panels are installed at the southeast elevation.
2.4 Compared to the previous approval, a window is above the eave level on the northwest and southeast elevations. There is also a window on the northeast elevation.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Change of use of part of field 234268 to residential and construction of new bungalow was APPROVED at APPEAL under PA 22/01460/B.
3.2 Minor Change to PA 22/01460/B for the installation of two gable windows and four roof lights (retrospective) was REFUSED.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY Site Specific 4.1 The site is not within an area designated for development in the Kirk Michael Local Plan, meaning it is considered part of the countryside.
4.2 The site is within an area designated as predominantly residential in the Drafted Area Plan for the North and West. The drafted area plans have been recommended for adoption by the Inspectors on 7th November 2024. At this stage, the drafted area plan still carries little weight as a material consideration.
4.3 The site is within an area designated as Areas of High Landscape or Costal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's).
Strategic Plan
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/91087/B Page 3 of 5
4.4 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 (IOMSP) contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o Strategic Policy 1, 2, 5 o Spatial Policy 3, 5 o General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) (h) (i) o General Policy 3 (f) o Environment Policy 1 o Environment Policy 2 o Environment Policy 22 o Environment Policy 42 o Housing Policy 4, 7 o Transport Policy 7 o Appendix 7.6
4.5 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan has no assumption in favour of new development. In decision-making, approval should usually not be granted where a planning application conflicts with the Plan.
4.5 Spatial Policy 5 states that developments should only occur in defined settlements unless they comply with exceptions in General Policy 3.
4.6 General Policy 3 sets out exceptions that may be acceptable for developments outside of areas designated for development. Subsection (f) sets out one of these exceptions as "buildings and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry". The key word here is "essential". In decision-making, this means that just because a building is for agriculture or forestry purposes does not imply automatic approval.
4.7 Environment Policy 1 echoes Spatial Policy 5 and General Policy 3. It defines the countryside as areas outside existing settlements or not designated for development (as mentioned in 4.1). It shows that development adversely affecting the countryside will almost always be prohibited. It also states that the countryside is protected "for its own sake". In decision-making, this means there is an assumption against development in the countryside.
4.8 General Policy 2 (b) (c) and (g) set out design requirements for development, of which they should respect the character of the site itself and its immediate and not-so-immediate surroundings.
4.9 General Policy 2 (g) and (h) set out that amenities enjoyed by the site and the site around it should be protected or preserved.
4.10 General Policy 2 (h) and (i) also set out that the proposal should satisfy the safety, efficiency and accessibility requirements, including parking provision, of all highway users whenever possible.
PPS and NPD 4.13 No planning policy statement or national policy directive is considered materially relevant to this application.
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS Strategy and Guidance 5.1 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) contains the following guidance that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: o Chapter 5 Architectural Details o Chapter 6 The Wider Site o Chapter 7 Impact on Neighbouring Properties
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/91087/B Page 4 of 5
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Michael Commissioners has not commented at the time of the report (11.11.2024).
6.2 DoI Highway Services states there is no highway interest in this application (18.10.2024).
7.0 ASSESSMENT Principle of the Proposal 7.1 The proposal is to erect a house in the countryside, which does not comply with the exceptions in General Policy 3. There is an existing approval for the erection of a house on the site. However, the current proposal also extended the red line boundary compared to the previous approval, domesticating an extra 12 square metres of the countryside. Nevertheless, the differences are considered insufficient for reassessing its principle. In other words, given the previous approval, the principle of the house is considered acceptable.
Elements of Assessment 7.2 The key considerations of this application are its impact on the house itself, the character and streetscene of the area, and the amenities of the neighbours.
7.3 Given the proposal is similar to what was approved, this assessment will only focus on the impact of the difference between the two proposals.
Character and Streetscene of the Area 7.4 The change in siting and mass of the house is small enough compared to the approved house. Therefore, these changes are considered to have no adverse impact on the character and streetscene of the area.
7.5 The changes in openings are considered to have no adverse impact on the character and streetscene of the area.
7.6 The ASHP and solar panels are not readily visible to the public and are considered to have no adverse impact on the character and streetscene of the area.
Neighbouring Amenities 7.7 Given 7.4, it is considered that the proposal has no additional overshadowing or overbearing impact.
7.8 While there are additional openings near the roof level.
Air Source Heat Pump 7.9 The proposed ASHP promotes the reduction in consumption of fossil fuels and, therefore, positively contributes to Strategic Policy 5 and should be encouraged. The ASHP generally has higher energy efficiency than typical modern boilers and, therefore, fits General Policy 2 (n).
7.10 According to Environment Policy 23, adding noise is a material consideration. The units would be located on the rear elevation and would be approx. 6m away from the closest window. Accordingly, the proposal may have some impact on neighbouring property.
7.11 Regarding its noise impact, the assessment is conducted under MCS 020 Planning Standards for permitted development installations of wind turbines and air source heat pumps on domestic premises. The Steering Group of the Microgeneration Certification Scheme has approved this standard, which was prepared by MCS, Defra (UK), DECC (UK) and DCLG (UK). It is a compulsory standard for ASHP to be considered as Permitted Development in the UK. The standard set a 42dB or under at the assessment position as an acceptable noise level compared to a background noise level of 40 dB.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/91087/B Page 5 of 5
7.12 Under the assessment, the noise level of the proposed ASHP is 42 dB. Therefore, the noise impact of the ASHP is considered to be within an acceptable level.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The principle is acceptable based on the previous approval. The proposal is considered to have no adverse impact on the character of the house, the area, or the neighbouring amenities. Therefore, it is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guide 2021 and is recommended for an approval.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 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).
9.2 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.
9.3 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.
9.4 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. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Acting Head of Development Management 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: 05.12.2024
Determining officer
Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan Acting Head of Development Management
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