Planning Officer Report 12/01351/B

Planning Officer Report And Recommendations {{table:22790}} Case Officer: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer's Report

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS VIEWS RECEIVED FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY DIFFER TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING OFFICER.

The Site

1. The site represents the curtilage of Plot 1 Knock Rushen, Scarlett Road, Castletown which is an approved plot within a developing estate to the south west of Castletown centre. The estate comprises 41 new dwellings and the conversion of barns to further dwelling units. Plot 1 sits along the southern boundary of the site.
2. The plot has benefited from four approvals (09/01335/B, 10/00600/B and 11/01584/B, 12/00113/B) each with a similar designed and sized property (exception of 11/01584/B which was a dormer styled bungalow) but oriented differently. The first approval resulted in the dwelling facing in a northerly direction, whilst the second application faced an easterly direction.
3. The proposal now under consideration is very similar in design, size, orientation and footprint as two previously approved applications (10/00600/B and 12/00113/B).

Planning Status

1. The site lies within an area designated on the Castletown Local Plan of 1991 as Predominantly Residential. On the Modified draft Southern Area Plan the site is identified as Residential with an area of Public Open Space and a site of archaeological interest in the north western corner.
2. Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policy is relevant for consideration:-

"General Policy 2: 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:

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;

• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate, safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

"Environment Policy 22: Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution."

The Proposal

1. Now proposed is the erection of a dwelling with a detached garage similar to that already approved on the plot, with the footprint and siting is very similar to the previous approval (12/00113/B). What differs is the increase in the width of the rear proposed outlet, from 5 metres to 6.4 metres. This in turn increases the ridge height of the outlet from 9.1 metres to 10.7 metres. Also the proposal includes a basement which is new to this plot. It should be noted that the proposed dwelling finished floor levels remain the same as previously approved and the height of the dwelling is not proposed to be increased compared to the previous approval.

1. The submission also proposes the same rear single storey extension which has been granted approval previously. The proposal would have a width of 9.3 metres, a depth of 6.7 metres and a height of 3.2 metres. The proposal would have a flat roof to enable the roof to be used as a roof terrace. Around the terrace clear glass balustrades would be erected to a height of 1.1 metres along the south west elevation (rear). Along the northeast and southeast elevations of the terrace, it is proposed to erect a 1.5 metre high rendered wall with a 0.5 metre high solid cedar panel (overall height of 2 metres).

1. The scheme also proposes slight changes to the rear window fenestration of the gable ended rear outlet. This is due to the outlet being taller in height which enables space for the new proposed upper floor window which provides light and outlook for a new sitting area within the roof space.

1. The overall, size and height of the main dwelling house remains as previously approved.

Planning History

1. There have been a number of previous planning applications for the estate; however, site specifically the following application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:-

1. Erection of a detached dwelling with detached garage (Amendments to 10/00600/B) - 12/00113/B – APPROVED at appeal

1. Erection of a dwelling with detached garage (BUNGALOW) - 11/01584/B – APPROVED

1. Revised house position on previously approved plot - 10/00600/B – APPROVED

1. Residential development comprising of 41 dwellings and the conversion of existing barns into four dwellings (comprising amendments to PA 04/02083/B) - 09/01335/B – APPROVED

Representations

1. The Castletown Commissioners have objected to the application due to concerns over the depth of the proposed cinema, and the consequent shock, nuisance and damage that will be caused to residents and properties by drilling into solid limestone.

1. The Highway Division have no objection to the application.

1. The owners/occupants of Knock Rushen House, Scarlett, Castletown have objected to the application which can be summarised as; concerns of noise, vibration and damage to property due to the proposed construction of the basement and rock required to be removed; tree roots along boundary will be severely jeopardised by induced moisture shortage and physical damage from the excavation; concern that the height of the proposed dwelling would be the same as previously approved; concern of overlooking form the extra room within the roof; and proposal represents an undesirable size extension by stealth.

Assessment

1. In terms of design, size, proportion and massing the extensions & alterations proposed from the front elevation would not be overly apparent give their positions to the rear. A small section of the 2 metre high render wall/cedar screening around the 1st floor roof terrace could be partially apparent, although from the street scene the existing double garage which is forward of the dwelling (has been constructed) would screen the majority of views.

1. The height of the building in the street scene does not increase as the basement will be dug in into the existing ground level. This will result in an increase in built form when viewing the dwelling from the rear garden of the property, as the ground levels of the site, especially to the rear/side will be reduced to accommodate the basement. However this aspect of the development would not have any significant impact upon the street scene or neighbouring amenities.

1. The dwelling from Scarlet Road to the southwest of the site will be apparent, although due to the distance and landscaping in the area the ground floor and the rear single storey extension would be very well screened from public view from Scarlet Road. The 1st floor and 2nd floor, including the new upper window within the gable end outlet, of the property would be apparent but again the proposed window fenestrations would be acceptable and appropriate with the property and the visual amenities of the area.

1. The proposed changes do not adversely affect the character or appearance of the property nor do they affect the impact of the dwelling within the street scene.

1. In terms of the potential impacts upon neighbouring properties the main dwelling has already benefited from planning approval on this footprint and size. Consequently, this issue has previously been assessed and considered (recent appeal for application 12/00113/B) the proposal would not have a significant impact upon residential amenities.

1. Roof terraces can cause concern of overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy to neighbours. In this case Knock Rushen House to the southeast of the site would potential be the property most likely to be affected. However, to overcome this issue the applicants have proposed a 1.5 metre high render wall with 0.5 cedar boarding above, along the southeast boundary of the terrace to prevent any overlooking. The majority of trees along the boundary shared with Knock Rushen House are to be retained and a 2.2 metres high slated cedar fence in front of the existing wall is to be erected along part of the boundary wall. Furthermore, hedge planting along the existing boundary wall is to be planted to match existing in Knock Rushen House. It is considered all these features would prevent any substantial overlooking from either ground floor or first floor windows/terrace. It should be noted that this aspect of the development caused concern to the occupants of Knock Rushen House and was considered by the Planning Inspector. He considered the roof terrace to be acceptable and would not significant impact the neighbouring amenities and recommend the application be approved, which the Minister agreed too.

1. The occupants of Knock Rushen House have also raised concern of overlooking from the 2nd floor window within the south west elevation of the proposed dwelling. Due to the orientation and position of the proposed dwelling in relation to Knock Rushen House there will be no overlooking towards Knock Rushen House and only angled views of the rear garden of Knock Rushen House more than 22 metres away, which also would not have a significant impact upon the neighbouring amenities.

1. Consideration also needs to be taken in respect to the proposed basement, which would have a floor to ceiling height of 2.7 metres and extend the footprint. Whilst the basement itself would have neither impact upon neighbouring amenities nor the appearance of the street scene, concern has been raised by the required extraction works needed to create the basement (approximate volume ). The applicants have indicate that given the 5 foot drop across the site, after normal excavations required, a considerable void estimated to be around 6 feet deep would exist under the ground floor of the previously approved dwelling (12/00113/B). They indicate that; "the ground condition on plot 1 is such that there is at least 1 metre of soil before the rock is reached. Coupled with the fact that the existing ground level is sloping some 1.5 metres from the front of the house to the back of the house, this will mean that requirement for rock excavation is not the full depth of the basement. We anticipate the additional excavation work require to form the basement, drainage and service routes, could be carried out in approximately 3 days working within accepted normal working hours." With regard to the impact upon the boundary trees the applicants state; "The proposed house is positioned no closer to the existing trees than the house approved by PA 12/00113/B. The excavations for the basement walls will be in the same positions the excavations for the footings for the currently approved scheme. As the deeper part of the excavations will be in rock, these will not contain tree roots."

1. Regarding the excavations of the rock, as the whole area is on a limestone outcrop it is highly likely vibrations will occur to the neighbouring properties. Discussions with Officers in Building Control have indicated that their legislation would not cover the proposed works. Their advice is that the applicants would employ an independent Structural Surveyor to survey the neighbouring properties before any works are undertaken (Building Regulations cannot enforce a party to undertake this). If damage occurs after the works been undertaken then there is evidence through the pre-survey of what the structural situation was before. Then such issues are civil matters between the relevant parties. Discussions with the occupants of Knock Rushen House did indicate that they had paid for a survey to be undertaken before any works commenced on the Knock Rushen Estate. They also indicate that part of their northern

boundary wall shared with plot 1 did collapse and had to be rebuilt due to works within the Knock Rushen Estate.

1. Discussions with an Officer from the Environmental Protection Unit highlighted that vibrations would likely cause a nuisance to the neighbours in the area whilst the removal of the limestone rock was undertaken, although if the works were completed in a few days then they would not have a significant concern. He advised that conditions have been attached to approved quarry applications for vibration monitoring, although this was generally attached to quarry operations (including blasting) which are in place for a number of years, rather than a few days.

1. It is considered the amount of additional works required to remove the soil/rock would not be significant and whilst additional disturbance would likely be created during this short period of time, this would not result in a significant impacts upon residential amenities of the owners/occupants of Knock Rushen House or owners within the newly constructed properties within Knock Rushen in the medium/long term. It is also worth noting that the whole site lies on a limestone outcrop which is a soft stone which would likely be easy to extract with the use of a JCB with a hydraulic breaker pecker rock hammer attached and a digger with a toothed bucket to scrap and remove the stone from the site. It is this process which would take approximately the additional 3 days. The applicants have indicate that such extraction works were required elsewhere on the site to provide the require drainage provision and therefore they have experience of the rock type on this site and how best to extract and the time this would take.

1. Furthermore, for the reason indicated by the applicant it is considered the works would not impact the boundary trees. The previous approvals on this site attached a condition which required the trees shown as being retained must be adequately fenced off and protected from damage during the construction of the dwelling. Such fencing must be erected so as to protect the roots (generally directly underneath the drip line of the branches) and once erected, no material nor vehicles may be stored or parked within the protected area, nor excavations undertaken. With this condition attached, again it is considered this would ensure the protection and retention of the boundary trees.

Recommendation

1. Overall, it is considered the proposals would comply with the relevant policies of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan. In relation to the proposed extraction of rock to create the area for the basement, this would likely cause a short nuisance in terms of noise and vibrations. However, generally the construction of a building, or this case the extraction of limestone rock, is limited in the time it would take, therefore it is limited in the material weight that can be attached. Therefore for the reasons given it is recommended that the application be approved.

Party Status

1. It is considered that the following meet the criteria of Government Circular 1/06 and should be afforded interested party status:

Castletown Commissioners The owners/occupants of Knock Rushen House, Scarlett, Castletown

1. The Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division is now part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part. As such, the Highways and Traffic Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.

Recommendation

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals

C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

C 2. This approval relates to the erection of a detached dwelling with detached garage (amendments to PA 12/00113/B) as proposed in the submitted documents and drawings 930-01, 930-02 and 930-03 all received on 4th October 2012.

C 3. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwellings, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

C 4. No works may commence upon the construction of the penultimate dwelling within the estate until such times as the estate road has been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. The dwelling the subject of this permission may not be occupied until the estate road has been constructed and lit up to the junction with the adopted highway and to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.

C 5. The dwelling may not be occupied until the parking facilities and vehicular access has been completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority. Thereafter, the parking facilities must be retained unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

C 6. The windows in the approved dwelling must be installed as shown and described in the approved plans and may not be replaced, other than by windows identical to these, without the prior written permission of the Planning Authority.

C 7. The approved dwelling and garaging must be finished in accordance with the schedule of finishes approved under PA 04/02083 in response to condition 7 of that approval.

C 8.

Prior to the commencement of any works of excavation or the building of the approved dwelling, the trees shown as being retained must be adequately fenced off and protected from damage during the construction of the dwelling. Such fencing must be erected so as to protect the roots and the branches of the trees in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Once the protective fencing has been erected, no materials or vehicles may be store or parked within the protected area and no excavation works carried out unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

C 9.

The proposed screen of a wall and fence along the south east elevation of the terrace area shall be erected prior to occupation of the dwelling and thereafter retained in perpetuity unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Planning Authority.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005

Decision Made:

Committee Meeting Date: 26/11/12

Signed: _________________________ Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate

YES/NO

• remove C4 = replace with hours of

eject of Extraction of Stone.

• Note attached advising applicants to

employ - Statistical Service to Survey Kneek Ruslan House.