Loading document...
Site Visit: Monday 17th March 2014
The appeal site, currently undergoing groundworks, is a parcel of land facing north onto Close Famman. It backs onto Cherry Tree Court, a modern building comprising 2 apartments on its ground floor with another above largely in the roof space. The site and Cherry Tree Court curtilage formerly comprised part of open land associated with Cherry Orchard Apartments/Hotel, an extensive block shortly to the west on 3 floors including its mansard roof.
By notice issued on 15th November 2013, PA13/91177/B approved the erection of a dwelling subject to the following conditions. The appeal is against Condition 3.
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
This approval relates to the erection of a dwelling as shown in drawings 01, SF22193-001A both received on 7th October, 2013 and the development must be undertaken in accordance with those drawings.
The dormer windows in the rear pitch must be fitted with glass obscured to Pilkington Level 5 or equivalent and these windows must be top hinged all so as to prevent overlooking of the private amenity space of the apartments to the rear.
The approval is for a detached 3 bedroom dormer bungalow, with 2 dormer windows facing towards Close Famman and 2 at the back facing towards Cherry Tree Court. The main bedroom, the full depth of the upper floor, would be served by a dormer window at the front and at the back. The other 2, smaller bedrooms would each have a single dormer, one at the front and the other at the back.
The site has the following relevant planning history:
Appellant: the Planning Officer's assessment incorrectly states that "The rear dormer windows are a second set of windows serving the two attic bedrooms and as such, the obscuration of the glazing here should not result in an unacceptable internal amenity for those occupying these bedrooms." In fact one of the rooms has no other window, and obscure gazing would provide an unacceptable standard of amenity. There will be 9.4 m behind the dormers to the roughly 2.0 m high rear boundary fence with Cherry Tree Court, which has a 5.0 m deep amenity space behind it. As a matter of geometry, illustrated on a submitted sketch, the dormers would not directly overlook that amenity space, although many of the Cherry Orchard Apartments do. The dwelling approved by PA 11/00770/B features a Large Cabrio Style Velux Window in the rear pitch; such windows can readily be used as an open balcony without any form of screening.
The Planning Authority: the approved bedrooms would still have a principal view and light available from the front dormers, so there does not appear to be an overriding need for clear glass at the back. These upper windows would then be harmfully intrusive, just some 10 m from the apartments' amenity area and only some 15 m from their rear elevation. Condition 3, specifying the level of obscurity and requiring top hinges, safeguards against that harm. PA 04/01128 approved large rear dormers but was not implemented. Later proposals included for obscure glazing on a single rear dormer serving a bathroom.
Appeal No AP13/0125 Application No 13/91177/B Inspector's Report
Healeycroft Ltd: own the Cherry Tree Court freehold and its ground floor Flat 2 directly behind the proposed dwelling. The firm has no objection to a dwelling on the site but the 2 large dormers, if clear glazed, would look directly down into the flats' bedrooms, upstairs as well as downstairs. This is the concern, not overlooking of the rear amenity area. Photographs and the appellant's own diagram show the problem. None of the Cherry Orchard Apartments overlook these bedrooms in any meaningful way, being further removed and at a considerable angle.
The Port Erin Commissioners supported the application when made.
Inspector's Assessment
There is no issue regarding the principle of a dwelling on this site. The issue is whether the approved dwelling, subject to Condition 3, would provide acceptable living conditions as regards outlook; or whether, without Condition 3, it would impinge unreasonably on living conditions at the Cherry Tree Court apartments as regards privacy.
On the information available it does appear as if the Condition was imposed on a false premise that Bedrooms 1 and 2 would each benefit from a front facing window. The approved drawings identified by Condition 1, in particular SF22193-001A, unambiguously show that although that is so for the main Bedroom 1, the smaller Bedroom 2 looks only to the rear. (Bedroom 3 looks only to the front and is unaffected by Condition 3). Pilkington Level 5 provides the highest degree of privacy and the outcome would be a bedroom with natural light but for all practical purposes no outlook. That would be a very poor standard of amenity, not least in a newly designed and built home.
Conversely, clear glazing would afford mutual overlooking between these windows and those on the flats some 15 m or thereabouts away, with a likely perception of being overlooked particularly in the ground floor flats standing appreciably below the dormer windows. This would provide levels of privacy well below the frequently applied standard of a minimum 20 m separation between facing windows. I temper this, but no more than that, by the thought that these would be facing bedrooms, not main living areas, where it could be expected that occupants would rely on net curtains for day time privacy and opaque curtains when the rooms are lit. I also give regard to the scheme approved by PA 11/00770/B, which if implemented would lead, or would have led, to a greater degree of overlooking. I accord little significance to the flats' rear amenity areas, which are far from secluded and not the basis of the objection raised by Healeycroft Ltd.
Strategic Plan General Policy 2 (g) seeks to safeguard the amenity of local residents in the determination of planning applications. In the balance, it seems to me that whereas occupants of the flats have no option other than to live with the outcome, the appellant on the other hand still has an option to seek to amend the proposed dwelling, striking a better balance between its standard of amenity and its impact on others, or to proceed with the scheme as currently approved. Notwithstanding that Condition 3 appears to have been based on a misapprehension regarding the proposed internal layout, I nonetheless reach an overall, very finely balanced conclusion that compliance with General Policy 2 (g), in the public interest, is better served by retaining its requirements.
Recommendations
I recommend that the Minister dismisses the appeal and uphold the issued approval retaining Condition 3.
If the Minister disagrees and is minded to allow the appeal, this would require a fresh approval in identical terms other than the omission of Condition 3.
Alan Langton Inspector
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
