APPEAL: AP13/0115

PLANNING APPLICATION: 13/91040/B

Report on an Inquiry into a Planning Appeal

Inquiry: 23 January 2014

Site inspection: 20 January 2014

Appeal made by Brandywine Ltd against the refusal of a planning application for the erection of a dwelling with associated garages and vehicular access at Field 410891 adjacent to Surby Mount and Victoria Lodge, Surby Road, Surby, Port Erin.

Present:

• Mr C Mowle, Brandywine Ltd - the appellant
• Mr M Pearce, MP Associates - the appellant's agent
• Mrs G Kelly - Rushen Parish Commissioners
• Mr P Guns - Rushen Parish Commissioners
• Mr P Kneen, local resident
• Dr & Mrs M Ingram, local residents - objectors
• Mr S Burrows, local resident - objector
• Mr J Barton, local resident - objector
• Ms S Corlett, Planning Officer - Department of Infrastructure

Background information

1. Notwithstanding the discrepancies between the appeal statement and the planning application form, the appellant confirmed at the Inquiry that the application was being made for full planning approval.

2. As part of its appeal statement, Brandywine Ltd submitted amended plans that are considerably different to those that were refused by the Planning Authority. A large chimney stack, rooflights, high-level glazing and a single garage had all been deleted. I made it clear at the outset of the Inquiry that these amended plans could not form part of my assessment of this appeal. They are significantly different to those that were refused and, in any case, they arrived too late for everyone to have time to consider them properly before the Inquiry.

The site and its surroundings

3. The appeal site is part of a field that rises steeply up from Surby Road (B47) on the elevated northern outskirts of Surby village. The site is clearly visible from Surby Road, and also from distant stretches of Ballafesson Road and Church Road.

4. To the east of the appeal site is West View, a traditional Manx cottage; to the west is a more modern dwelling, Victoria Lodge; to the north is Surby Mount, a 2-storey house that is predominantly of traditional design. On the opposite side of the road, to the south of the site, is Thie ny Chibbyr, a dwelling formed from 3 old cottages.

The proposed development

5. Approval is sought for a large 2-storey dwelling, with accommodation in the roofspace. The dwelling, together with its double and single garages, would have an unusual semi-circular footprint. Pitched-roof walkways would link the garages on the

Appeal: AP13/0115

Planning Application: 13/91040/B

east side of the semi-circle to the main part of the dwelling. The dwelling's front elevation would be dominated by glass. In addition to a generous array of windows and rooflights, the central entrance hall and landing would have ground-to-roof glazing, and there would also be 2 large balconies with glazed screens. An external ground-to-roof chimney stack would dominate part of the front elevation. The dwelling's pitched roof would be clad in natural slates, and the walls would be creampainted render.

The case for the appellant

6. The surrounding area is dominated by modern-style dwellings; the proposed dwelling would not be the first.
7. The site is big enough to accommodate a large dwelling and garaging for 3 cars. It would be constructed in traditional materials of natural slate and rendered walls. Its pitched roof would be the same height as the roof of West View, the adjoining house to the east. It is accepted that the roof would be about 3.24 m higher than the roof of Victoria Lodge, the adjoining house to the west, but this is mainly due to differences in ground levels.
8. The dwelling has been designed to exploit the fabulous views down over Port Erin and Port St Mary. A Manx cottage design could not deliver the requirements of a site of this nature. The proposed dwelling is intended to be a "stand out" building.
9. The street scene drawing, criticised by local residents, is accurate. It has been produced in accordance with well-established draughting techniques.
10. The appellant would be happy to accept conditions on a planning approval that required the removal of the chimney stack, the rooflights, the high-level glazing and the single garage. These are small changes that could easily and properly be dealt with by condition.

The case for the Planning Authority

11. The site is recognised in paragraph 4.53 of the Southern Area Plan as being suitable for the erection of a single dwelling. A Development Brief is provided at paragraph 4.54. The Brief covers matters such as access, drainage, on-site parking, and design. So far as design is concerned, the Brief states "Any new dwelling must be designed with traditional features (pitched, slated roof, render and/or stone walling) reflecting the character of the older more vernacular properties in the vicinity".
12. Approval in principle has been granted for a dwelling on the site (PA13/00245), so the principle of a dwelling is accepted. However, the proposed dwelling does not meet the design requirements of the Development Brief to a sufficient extent. Notwithstanding its pitched slated roof and rendered walls, the dwelling's massing, width and semi-circular footprint are not in any way traditional. Moreover, its size and modern design features would be out of keeping, and would fail to reflect the character of the older more vernacular properties in the vicinity.
13. The proposed single garage would be so close to Surby Road that it would be overbearing for users of the highway and out of character with the street scene. The proposed first floor balcony on the dwelling's western elevation would overlook a sun terrace at Victoria Lodge. Furthermore, the height and width of the proposed dwelling would obstruct the outlook from Surby Mount, the dwelling to the rear.
14. Taking into account all the above matters, the application was refused for the following reason:

"The proposed dwelling, due to its size, height, design, massing, position, layout and its parking provision, is considered to be out of keeping with the area, as viewed both from close to the site from Surby Road and from further afield, and would have an adverse impact on existing trees on the eastern boundary and on the amenities of those in neighbouring properties Surby Mount and Victoria Lodge. The development therefore fails to accord with the development brief in the Southern Area Plan and particularly with the provisions of General Policy 2a, b, c and g of the Strategic Plan".

The case for the objectors

15. The Rushen Parish Commissioners consider that the modern design of the proposed dwelling is totally inappropriate for this area; a small rural hamlet consisting of cottages and mainly smallish houses. The proposed dwelling would be unlike any other property in the vicinity. It would have a lot of glass on its front elevation, including ground-level to roof-level glazing for the hall and landing. The rear and side elevations would result in unpleasant outlooks for those living behind the site at Surby Mount, and on either side of the site at West View and Victoria Lodge.
16. The dwelling's high roof and large semi-circular sweep across the site would be overbearing when viewed from all sides and from nearby roads. The Development Brief, and the conditions on the approval in principle, have been ignored. The Commissioners are also concerned about surface water drainage, and the accuracy of the appellant's street scene drawing.
17. The resident of West View, to the east of the site, is concerned about the proximity of the proposed garages to the trees on his side boundary. In his view, this could have a damaging effect on the trees' roots. Furthermore, the 2 west-facing first-floor rooms at West View, one of which is used as a study, would be deprived of late afternoon and evening light by the proximity and size of the proposed dwelling, particularly in winter. The design of the dwelling would fail to respect its surroundings. The relevant requirements of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (IoMSP) would not be met. Furthermore, the accuracy of the appellant's street scene drawing is questioned.
18. The residents of Thie ny Chibbyr, on the opposite side of Surby Road, would welcome some development on the site because it has been an eyesore for years. But the proposed dwelling would not be traditional, and would not fit into its surroundings because of its huge size and incongruous design. It would be a "stand out" house, in the wrong place. The accuracy of the appellant's street scene drawing is questioned.
19. The resident of Victoria Lodge, to the west of the site, is concerned that the balcony on the western side of the proposed dwelling would tower 6 m above the front garden of Victoria Lodge, only a few metres away from a sun terrace. Privacy would be reduced. The roof of the proposed house would be about 4 m higher than the roof of Victoria Lodge. Morning sun would no longer be able to reach Victoria Lodge's eastfacing windows. Two large pine trees on the boundary would be only about 7 m from the west side of the proposed dwelling. Groundworks close to the roots could result in damage or loss to these magnificent trees. The accuracy of the appellant's street scene drawing is also questioned. As an aside, it should be noted that the owners of Surby Mount, to the rear of the site, have been legally prevented from objecting to any future development on the appeal site. It is hard to imagine the trauma that they are experiencing at the thought of this excessively-scaled house, completely obliterating their view.

Assessment

20. I consider that the main issues in this appeal are, firstly, the effect of the proposed dwelling on the character and appearance of its surroundings; and, secondly, its impact on the living conditions of nearby residents.

The first issue - character and appearance

21. The Development Brief for this site requires, amongst other things, that "any new dwelling must be designed with traditional features reflecting the character of the older more vernacular properties in the vicinity". The proposed dwelling would have little in common with the dwellings that would surround it, most of which are old and built to a traditional design. The use of render and natural slate would be a gesture, but the dwelling's large size, substantial height, semi-circular footprint, excessive use of glass (including some on the roof), 2 large balconies and an incongruous external chimney stack would all fly in the face of the Development Brief. Non-compliance with the Development Brief would be contrary to General Policy 2(a) of the IoMSP.

22. Moreover, in my opinion, the dwelling would be unduly eye-catching when viewed from near and far. This is not only because of its large size and elevated position, but also because of the large amount of glass that, at certain times of the day, would glint in the sun. The dwelling would fail to respect its surroundings.

23. I also anticipate that the trees on the boundaries with Victoria Lodge and West View would be vulnerable to damage because of the proximity of the proposed dwelling and its garages to the trees' roots. To my mind, the loss of the trees would be unfortunate and unjustified, and would be harmful to the character of this part of the village.

24. General Policy 2(b) and (c) of the IoMSP require new development to respect its surroundings. In my view, the proposed dwelling would fail to do this. It would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of its surroundings.

The second issue - living conditions of nearby residents

25. The outlook from the front-facing windows of Surby Mount would be dominated by the rear elevation of the proposed dwelling stretching across the width of the site and only about 25m away. To my mind, this would be un-neighbourly. Furthermore, I consider that there is a strong likelihood that the first floor balcony on the west-facing elevation of the proposed dwelling would allow clear views down into Victoria Lodge's sun terrace. This, too, would be un-neighbourly. In addition, I am concerned that the size and height of the proposed dwelling would cause some overshadowing in the mornings at Victoria Lodge, and in the evenings at West View.

26. General Policy 2(g) seeks to protect the amenity of local residents. In my view, this objective would not be met. The proposed dwelling would have a materially harmful impact on the living conditions of nearby residents.

Conclusion

27. My conclusions on the 2 main issues lead me to the view that the proposed dwelling is unacceptable. The Planning Authority's decision to refuse the application should therefore be confirmed.

28. However, if the Minister were to take an opposite view, I have provided at the end of this Report a list of conditions that I recommend be attached to an approval. I have not included the conditions suggested by the appellant relating to the removal of the

Appeal: AP13/0115

Planning Application: 13/91040/B

chimney stack, the rooflights, the high-level glazing and the single garage. In my view, such conditions would have the effect of re-designing the house; something that is beyond the scope and purpose of conditions. In any event, the fundamental problems of size, massing and footprint would remain unresolved.

Recommendation

29. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed. If accepted, this recommendation would have the effect of upholding the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application.

Ruth V MacKenzie BA(Hons) MRTPI Independent Inspector 21 February 2014

Suggested conditions in the event that the Minister decides to grant approval

1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in full accordance with Drwg Nos 1123/PL01 and 1123/PL02 Rev B.
3. The access shall be constructed before any other development on the site takes place.
4. Before development starts, details of hard and soft landscaping and boundary treatments, including a timetable for their provision, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. All landscaping and boundary treatments shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Any tree or shrub that dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced during the next planting season with another of the same species and size.
5. Before development starts, protective fencing shall be erected around the canopy of all the existing trees along the boundaries of the site. The fencing shall not be removed until the development has been completed. The fenced areas shall be kept clear of any equipment, materials, debris and trenching, and existing ground levels shall be maintained.
6. Before development starts, samples of all external building materials, including glass, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall be built in the approved materials.
7. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012, or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modifications, no material alterations to the external appearance of the building shall be carried out and no extension, building, structure, enclosure, erection, hard surface, swimming or other pool shall be constructed or erected in or around the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved, and no windows or rooflights, other than those expressly authorised by this approval, shall be created, formed or installed without the prior written approval of the Planning Authority.