Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
25/90102/B Page 1 of 8
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 25/90102/B Applicant : Mr Julian Wood Proposal : Changes to wall and roof materials, change to site layout, addition of dormer, removal of one vehicular access (amendment to 23/00739/B) (retrospective) Site Address : Land Of Former Ballatiki Shore Road Ballaugh Isle Of Man IM7 5AZ
Planning Officer: Russell Williams Photo Taken : 04.04.2025 Site Visit : 04.04.2025 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 04.04.2025 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development shall be completed in accordance with the materials as indicated on approved drwg no. 04B and confirmed within the submitted Covering Letter.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area
C 2. The visibility splay(s) identified on drwg. no. 03B shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050 mm in height above adjoining carriageway level.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling, and no garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling 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.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The amendments to the approved scheme are considered to be acceptable and will not adversely impact upon visual amenity or highway safety. The window to window relationship between the proposed dormer window and craft room at Sunsets is such that there would be no direct sightlines or loss of privacy arising from its construction. The development will not, therefore, give rise to any significant and unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of privacy
==== PAGE 2 ====
25/90102/B Page 2 of 8
to the occupiers of Sunsets. The development therefore accords with General Policy 2 and Housing Policy 14 of the IMSP and advice within the Residential Design Guide.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following drawings and documents received 29 January 2025:
01 Location Plan 02 Existing Site Plan 03B Proposed Site Plan and Sight Lines 04B Proposed Plans, Elevations and Sections 05A Existing and Proposed Floor Plans Overlaid 06A Building Setting Out Drawing 07 As Built Gable Detail and Pedestrian Access Images 08 Stilz Duo Classic Lift Specification
__
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal:
DOI Highway Services - No objection
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given the Right to Appeal as they have submitted an objection that meets the specified criteria:
Sunsets, Ballaugh Road __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE
1.1 The application site comprised until recently the residential curtilage of Ballatiki which was a single storey detached dwelling (demolished in 2021) located on the north-eastern side of Shore Road and northwest of The Cronk.
1.2 Shore Road consists of a variety of dwellings to its eastern side. The Shore Road is a dead end leading to Ballaugh Beach.
1.3 The neighbouring property of Ballakinnag House to the east of the application site, which is a two storey detached dwelling, is within the same ownership.
1.4 Works on the construction of the previously approved replacement dwelling have commenced and the building is largely complete and watertight. The dormer window, for which permission is now sought, has already been constructed and the change of materials also implemented.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The application essentially seeks Full planning permission for a replacement dwelling, with amended design to that approved under application 23/00739/B.
2.2 The amended application is made partly retrospectively and the proposed amendments comprise the following:
==== PAGE 3 ====
25/90102/B Page 3 of 8
1. Change of wall material from Marshalls Darlstone to Cromwell Rustic Faced Ash (lighter grey) 2. Change wall cladding from Stone grey to Slate Grey (darker) 3. Change roof finish from steel standing seam to Spanish Slate with lead flashing 4. Repositioning of dwelling on plot - slight rotation in orientation to run parallel with boundary to northwest 5. Addition of gabled dormer to northwest elevation with window serving a bedroom 6. Closing up of original vehicular access, retained as pedestrian access with new walling.
2.3 The development has commenced under the previous approval, although those drawings have not been complied with.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY
3.1 The application site is identified in the 1982 Development Plan as 'white land' within the countryside that is not zoned for development. The site is not within a Conservation Area but falls within an Area of High Landscape Value.
3.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;
Strategic Policy 1 Efficient use of land and resources 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages 5 Design and visual impact
Spatial Policy 5 Development only in countryside in accordance with General Policy 3
General Policy 2 General Development Considerations 3 Exceptions to development in the countryside
Environment Policy 1 Protection of the countryside 2 Protection of Areas of High Landscape Value
Housing Policy 4 Exceptions to allowing new housing in the countryside 1 2 Replacement dwellings in the countryside 14 Siting, size and design of replacement dwellings in the countryside
Transport Policy 4 Highways safety 7 Parking provision
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 The Residential Design Guide is a material consideration.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY
5.1 The following two planning applications are most pertinent to the determination of the application:
==== PAGE 4 ====
25/90102/B Page 4 of 8
22/01404/B - Erection of a dwelling to replace former dwelling, Ballatiki - Permitted 31/1/23 - Third Party Appeal Allowed and decision overturned to refusal.
23/00739/B - Erection of dwelling to replace former dwelling "Ballatiki" - Permitted 23/8/23.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS
6.1 The following Statutory Consultees have been consulted and their responses can be summarised as follows:
Ballaugh Parish Commissioners - No comments received.
DOI Highway Services - No interest registered.
6.2 1 letter of objection has been received from neighbouring residents with the following key points being raised: o This proposal has previously been refused at appeal - due to the impact of the proposed dormer window upon the privacy of neighbouring dwelling; o The applicant has constructed the dwelling with the dormer window included despite the refusal and is a breach of planning; o The new property, with dormer window, clearly overlooks the neighbours property including sitting room, craft room and terrace; o The breach (dormer) is within 20m of the sitting room and craft room windows. The RDG advises a minimum of 20m between habitable windows; o Justification for the dormer relates to the inclusion of the lift, which was raised at both appeal hearings; the issue has been a consideration since day one and is unlikely to have become apparent during construction; o The conclusions of the Planning Inspector on the first appeal cannot be ignored and the dormer window cannot be permitted.
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1 The key considerations in the determination of the application are:
o Principle of development o Impact upon visual amenity from change in materials o Impact upon highway safety from closing up of original access o Impact upon residential amenity from repositioning of dwelling and inclusion of dormer window
PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT
7.2 The application site benefits from an extant planning permission for a replacement dwelling. This application seeks to make material amendments to that scheme, as described at 2.2 above.
7.3 The scheme approved under 23/00739/B has been implemented but the build has not complied with the approved plans, though Enforcement action could be taken requiring the developer to retrofit the building and remove those features that vary from the approved plans.
7.4 Notwithstanding, it has been previously found that the principle of a replacement dwelling on the application site is acceptable and compliant with Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1. There has been no material change in circumstance since the previous application was approved, save for the implementation of that scheme. The principle of development is therefore acceptable.
==== PAGE 5 ====
25/90102/B Page 5 of 8
IMPACT UPON VISUAL AMENITY FROM CHANGE IN MATERIALS
7.5 The application seeks approval for changes to the stone and cladding to the walls and roof material. The proposals will see a slightly lighter stone retained to the wall than permitted and a darker composite cladding also retained. The roof will change from standing seem sheets to Spanish slate.
7.6 The alterations to the materials are generally very modest and do not represent significant departures from the previously approved scheme.
7.7 The change in the appearance of the dwellinghouse do not give rise to any visual harm to either the building, street scene or wider setting of the site and the proposals are therefore acceptable and in accordance with General Policy 2, Environment Policies 1 and 2 and Housing Policy 14.
IMPACT UPON HIGHWAY SAFETY FROM CLOSING UP OF ORIGINAL ACCESS
7.8 The application proposes the closing up of the original vehicular access to the site, which will leave the new dwelling with one vehicular access and a pedestrian entrance in place of the original access, with a path leading to the dwelling.
7.9 The proposed walling and pillars does not interfere with the retained access and visibility splays, which will remain a safe and convenient access for use by future occupants.
7.10 Highway Services do not raise any objection to the proposal and generally, having one access serving the new dwelling will be safer than two. Having regard to these matters the proposed development is considered to comply with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4.
IMPACT UPON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY FROM REPOSITIONING OF DWELLING AND INCLUSION OF DORMER WINDOW
7.11 The replacement dwelling has been built in a slightly adjusted position and includes a gabled dormer window to the northwest elevation which faces towards the neighbouring property to the northwest, known as 'Sunsets'. The application seeks permission to retain the siting and dormer window.
7.12 Regarding siting, the change in position is minor and results in the dwelling now being positioned approximately 2.85m from the boundary compared to the previously refused scheme that included the dormer window, where the dwelling was sited 1.52m from the northwest boundary.
7.13 Key to the consideration of the dormer window and its retention is the impact of the window and its view and outlook towards Sunsets. The previous application, 22/01404/B, had a very similar design with a dormer window serving the same bedroom. Despite the earlier application being approved by the Department, a Third Party appeal was lodged. The Inspector, in considering the impact of the development, found the inclusion of the dormer window to have an adverse impact upon the privacy and associated living conditions of the occupiers of Sunsets. The harm was associated to a window to the front of the building serving a craft room within Sunsets. The level of harm was considered to be substantial and the appeal was allowed, with the original decision overturned and permission refused.
7.14 The deliberations of the previous Planning Inspector, in regard to the dormer window and its impact upon neighbouring living conditions, are set out in paragraphs 62-68 of Appeal AP23/0011, decision dated 24/5/2023.
==== PAGE 6 ====
25/90102/B Page 6 of 8
7.15 The dormer window is unauthorised and, if approved, would revert the approved scheme back to that previously refused. The dormer window looks directly into and across the front garden of Sunsets though this is not considered to cause an unreasonable level of harm. The concern is the impact upon privacy to the neighbouring craft room and window to window distances. Objection has been received from neighbouring occupants regarding the loss of privacy and other concerns as set out earlier in the report.
7.16 In respect of the impact of the proposed dormer window upon privacy/overlooking of the craft room to Sunsets, the Inspector stated "However, as evidenced and agreed at the Hearing, when a measurement is taken to the nearest west facing window (serving the craft room) the measurement is below 20 metres. When looking out from that room using the larger west facing window, it is clear to me that the new dwelling and dormer window would be in view. Whilst I accept the dormer window would serve a bedroom, where occupiers may spend less time looking out of it, there would nevertheless be views directly into a habitable room of Sunsets from less than 20 metres away. Having stood in that room I am in no doubt that such overlooking would lead to unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupiers of Sunsets"
7.17 The applicant has made a number of statements to justify the need for the dormer window, in particular headroom, construction and the need to include a lift within the building.
7.18 Paragraph 66 of the 2022 Appeal Decision is relevant, and the Inspector assessed that "as evidenced and agreed at the Hearing, when a measurement is taken to the nearest west facing window (serving the craft room) the measurement is below 20 metres. When looking out from that room using the larger west facing window, it is clear to me that the new dwelling and dormer window would be in view. Whilst I accept the dormer window would serve a bedroom, where occupiers may spend less time looking out of it, there would nevertheless be views directly into a habitable room of Sunsets from less than 20 metres away. Having stood in that room I am in no doubt that such overlooking would lead to unacceptable harm to the living conditions of occupiers of Sunsets."
7.19 With the dormer window now constructed, a site visit to the application site has been made and Officers have inspected the outlook and views available from the now constructed dormer and modest window that has been installed. When entering the bedroom through off the main hallway views out of the dormer and window look directly out to the coastline. It is not possible to see either the neighbouring dwelling or its front gardens from the doorway.
7.20 When stood at the window in question and looking directly outwards, it is possible to view the front garden of Sunsets and a glimpse of the frontage to the neighbouring dwelling is available. As opposed to the Inspectors assessment, it can now be seen that there is no direct window to window view available between the unauthorised dormer window and the west facing craft room window to Sunsets, or any other window for that matter.
7.21 Regarding the window to window relationship with the neighbouring craft room, the applicant has stated that the distance between the two has been independently surveyed twice and that both measurements exceed the 20m distance set out in the Residential Design Guide, with the measurements being 20.2m and 20.78m. When scaling from the submitted plans the distance is very marginal, but it stands to reason that with the dwelling now sited approximately 1.3m further from the boundary than in 2022, the distance will be at or around the 20.0m. It is worth noting that the measurements are taken at 2D and do not account for the change in elevation between the first floor bedroom window and ground floor craft room window, so the measurement will be greater than that scaled off the proposed drawing.
7.22 Be that as it may, given the fine margin in the distance between the windows and 20m set out in the RDG, it is appropriate to apply reasonable planning judgement in assessing any harm to the privacy and amenity of Sunsets and its residents.
==== PAGE 7 ====
25/90102/B Page 7 of 8
7.23 The only way in which a view towards the craft room window of Sunsets can be achieved is by leaning into the window and deliberately seeking to look down and across at an approximate angle of 45 degree towards Sunsets. Such an act is highly unlikely to occur as occupants will naturally make the most of the view towards the coastline and ocean rather than down and towards the neighbouring dwelling.
7.24 The previous appeal decision is a material consideration given the comparison drawn between the originally refused scheme and that now being considered. Whilst it is acknowledged that significant harm was (theoretically) identified previously, the construction of the dormer window has allowed a clear assessment to be made as to whether direct window to window views will occur. As assessed at 7.19 and 7.20 above, no direct views have been created at a distance below 20m and it would only be possible to look towards the west facing craft room window of Sunsets in a deliberate manner and one that is highly unlikely to happen. The distance between windows is also marginal but having regard to the indirect and obscured sightlines involved, the impact upon the privacy of Sunsets is no longer assessed as being significant and would be very limited indeed.
8.0 CONCLUSION
8.1 Having regard to the above matters, the amendments to the approved scheme are considered to be acceptable and the window to window relationship between the proposed dormer window and craft room at Sunsets is such that there would be no direct sightlines or loss of privacy arising from its construction. The development will not, therefore, give rise to any significant and unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of privacy to the occupiers of Sunsets. The development therefore accords with General Policy 2 and Houisng Policy 14 of the IMSP and advice within the Residential Design Guide. It is therefore recommended that planning permission be approved.
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.
9.5 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.
==== PAGE 8 ====
25/90102/B Page 8 of 8
__
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: 15.04.2025
Determining Officer Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
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