Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/01247/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/01247/B Applicant : Mr Paul Halsall Proposal : Erection of a single storey extension to the rear elevation and installation of a flue Site Address : 18 Aspen Drive Ballawattleworth Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1WT
Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 30.04.2021 __
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.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The works are considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guidance.
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to drawings 217-01A and 217-02A received on 15th March, 2021. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4) (or 4(2)):
16 Aspen Drive and 16, Oak Road as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. __
Officer’s Report
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/01247/B Page 2 of 6
THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling situated on the western side of a cul de sac within a relatively new estate on the eastern side of Peel. The house looks east over the boundary hedge towards the Sunset Lakes fishing and tourist accommodation complex which is 270m away.
1.2 The existing dwelling is a detached, two storey dwelling of the same basic type as the others in the cul de sac but with a variety of different finishes and some are handed in plan form. The application dwelling is finished in brick at the ground floor with rendered walling above and with an integral garage on the left hand side of the frontage and corresponding double width driveway between it and the estate road.
1.3 Both properties on each side have had single storey extensions approved and built at the rear. As the properties are stepped back from the one to the north, there is a corresponding step in the rear annexes such that none looks directly towards the other. None of the dwellings have any first floor windows in the gables so there is limited overlooking of adjacent properties.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Following concerns raised by a neighbour, amended plans have been submitted reference PTA 217-01A which also show the lean to shed nearest to the application property at number 16, Aspen Drive as well as their pitched roofed rear extension and PTA 217-02A which shows the proposed works which are the erection of a rear extension which projects out just over 4m from the rear elevation and will be the width of the house (8.5m wide). The extension will accommodate a sun room with 4m wide bifold doors in the rear facing elevation and solid walls in both sides. The extension is flat roofed with a lantern light which projects only slightly (230mm) above the parapet wall which is 3.16m tall from ground level.
2.2 Also proposed is a new flue to be fitted on the rear elevation 2m from the side of the property which is closest to 16, Aspen Drive and projecting 1.5m above eaves level. This will be 4.4m away from the boundary with the neighbouring property on this side, further from the boundary with number 20.
2.3 The applicant states that the proposal maintains a large garden area, respected the neighbouring property and the extension thereto. The proposal has no impact on the front of the property, the access and parking arrangements being maintained as existing. The applicant explains on 12.03.21 that the amended drawings have been prepared following access to the neighbours' property and that amended drawings were provided to the neighbour who indicated that they would welcome further discussions. However, despite the applicant trying to engage the neighbours, no further discussions have been held. They considered amending the design but would prefer to keep with the flat roofed appearance as a pitched roofed extension would interfere with upper floor windows and they feel what is proposed is a contemporary design and not uncommon and they feel, offers a good addition to the property.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Peel Local Plan of 1989 as Predominantly Residential.
3.2 As such, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant:
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:
(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;
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/01247/B Page 3 of 6
(g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan."
3.4 The Department has recently published the Residential Design Guidance (March 2019) which provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property. This provides the following advice about extensions:
"3.2.2 Extensions should generally have the same roof pitch (angle) and shape as the existing dwelling and the height (roof ridge) should be lower than that of the main building. Generally, pitch roofs are the preferred roof type compared to flat roofs which are generally inappropriate forms of development, especially if publically viewable, unless the existing property has a flat/low pitched roof design. The extension should normally incorporate any design/interesting features of the existing dwelling (with windows and doors replicating the design, proportions and materials of the original building, and being in line with the existing openings) unless a deliberate design decision has been made to adopt a different approach.."
3.5 Advice on flues is also provided in the RDG as follows:
5.1.3 In recent years the Department has seen a number of planning application for flues serving wood burning stoves, and is broadly supportive of these. Consideration should be given to their placement, height, size and finish, as the main issue is likely to be the visual appearance of them and whether they would fit with the existing property and the street scene as a whole. Tall and/or prominent flues which have a detrimental impact to a property and/or street scene are unlikely to be supported. Where a flue may have an unacceptable detrimental impact, it may be possible to mitigate the impact by:
o colouring the flue to blend in with the existing colour of the wall the flue may adjoin (or a dark colour when the flue sits within a roof); o encasing the flue so that it appears as a chimney; or o incorporating the flue within the existing or new chimney stacks.
5.1.4 Before making any planning application, it is often helpful to discuss the required positioning and size of the flue required with the relevant Building Control Authority as Flues also require Building Control Consent (separate from planning approval). Details of flue sizing and positioning of the flue and installation of CO2 and heat alarms within the dwelling are all identified within the Building Regulations (Approved Document J - See 'Useful Contacts' at end of this report for details).
3.6 There has been a relatively recent application which was approved initially but refused on appeal following an adverse recommendation from the inspector. This application, 18/01125/B at Close Cowley was refused for reasons relating to the appearance of the flue and the effect of its use in terms of smell and smoke nuisance, to the immediate neighbour. The inspector accepted that that flue would only be seen by those living around the site but still considered that an adverse visual impact experienced by them would breach GP2 and the RDG. He was also concerned about the emissions from the flue, regardless of the fact that it appeared to have been installed by a registered installer and that Environmental Health had visited the site and had not experienced any smoke or smell. This flue was installed almost on the boundary of both properties and approximately 1m from the rear elevation, extending around 1m higher than the eaves of the main part of the two storey house. What is proposed here differs from the Close Cowley proposal as this flue will not be as close to any neighbours.
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/01247/B Page 4 of 6
3.7 Discussions with the Head of Building Control and Standards within the Department indicate that in his view, the issue at Close Cowley was not with the location and installation of the flue which would appear to accord with the guidelines in the Building Regulations, but with the operation and it is possible that incorrect fuel was being used. There are procedures for this which would normally involve the installer returning to check the installation. Whilst in the Close Cowley case, the EHI visited the site it is clear that on their visit there was no smoke or smell nuisance. It would appear from the discussions with Building Control that there are both standards for flues and measures which can be taken through Building Control and Environmental Protection which can address issues should they arise.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 No applications have been submitted in respect of this site since the approval of the estate.
4.2 19/00677B proposed a very similar development in a developing estate in Crosby. The application was initially refused due to concerns about conflict with the RDG and its general appearance but the inspector hearing the appeal noted,
"29. The proposed changes would result in a rectilinear, single-storey appendage to the previously approved, two-storey, pitch-roofed dwelling with a projecting flue, contrasting markedly with the style of the approved dwelling and that of the other buildings existing and under construction throughout the Ballaglonney Estate development.
At the same time, whilst there is an overall policy presumption against single-storey, flat- roofed extensions, I accept that there is nothing in GP2 or the supporting RDG to preclude an extension resulting from a deliberate creative or contemporary design approach which takes account of issues of loss of light, overlooking and overbearing impact at neighbouring property.
In the present case, the design responds to a currently popular choice of an extension lit by an overhead lantern light and avoids an entirely stark appearance by the addition of a parapet which would partly conceal the lantern light and the projecting flue. The chosen corner glazing feature would lend particular character to the design, whilst minimising direct overlooking toward the neighbouring property by presenting a facing plain, with the bifold doors to the dwelling opening on the southern elevation, away from other dwellings.
I consider that the extension has been carefully designed with a deliberately creative approach to make a particular visual statement within its local context. I do not consider that it would appear objectionable in views from other private properties, including at plot 17, or in the wider townscape or streetscene. Moreover, the appearance of the extension would be partly masked by the Manx stone wall to the flank boundary and would be softened by the proposed landscaping between plot 22 and the estate road, secured by planning condition.
With respect to its effect on the appearance and character of the dwelling as previously approved and on the wider townscape, I consider that the proposed development would, overall, have no unacceptably adverse impact and would comply with the aims of GP2 of the IMSP and the RDG."
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services do not oppose the application (04.12.21).
5.2 No comments have been received from Peel Town Commissioners who were consulted on 24.11.20 and 22.03.21.
5.3 The owner of 16, Aspen Drive express concern at the accuracy of the drawings in repsect of their property and the height of the fence between the dwellings. They also express concern at the impact of the flat roofed annex which will be out of keeping with the area and the flue which will emit smoke which could enter the upper windows of their propeties and their
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/01247/B Page 5 of 6
childrens' bedrooms and their rooflights. They believe that there is a requirement for windows to be white and the proposed grey windows will contravene that (30.11.21).
5.4 They submit further comments on 14.12.21 asking for interested person status and provide additional information in respect of their initial objections to the application and refer to numerous other approved extensions in the area which are for pitched roofed annexes and they consider that the extension, being to the south of their property will cast a shadow on their dwelling.
5.5 The owner of 16, Oak Road objects to the flue and the potential of smoke billowing from the proposed two flues and the smell and they refer to objections from 16 and 8 Aspen Drive [the owner of 8, Aspen Drive has objected to 21/00129/B not this current application but the submission from 16, Oak Road is identical in response to both applications]. They are also concerned at the problem of drainage and already have water coming into their property when number 16 added an extension and shed so are concerned at the potential for flooding. They provide a drawing of properties where there are proposals for flues (numbers 14 and 18), the shed and extension at number 16 and their property (23.03.21).
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues in this case are the impact of the works on the appearance and character of the dwelling to which it would be attached and whether there would be any effect on the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings.
6.2 The extension would not follow the design or character of the house to which it would be attached nor those of the properties alongside. However, the extension would generally have a lower height as a result of the flat roof and thus have a reduced impact on the surrounding area. The fact that the extension will only be seen by those in neighbouring dwellings and not by the public is also a relevant consideration.
6.3 The comments of the inspector in the case of 19/00677/B are relevant and these were accepted by the Minister. It would be inconsistent to object to the current application on the same basis as the proposal for the Crosby property was initially refused.
6.4 The staggered layout of the houses results in the proposed extension not projecting any further beyond the rear elevation than do the extensions on the properties on each side. It would therefore not have any significant or unreasonable impact given the context of the site and what has been developed on each side. None of the assessment criteria in the RDG has been breached in the extension (the applicant has provided diagrams of the 45 degree measurement of effect.
6.5 Whilst there will be an effect from the introduction of a flue, there are controls under the Building Regulations for such installations to prevent adverse impacts on neighbours and what is proposed is over 4m from the boundary with the nearest property and discharging above eaves level. The application has been discussed with the Head of Building Control who considered that the flue appears to comply with the Building Regulations although there is further control in this respect through that procedure.
6.6 It is not considered, given the position and height of the flue that mitigation of the visual impact as described in the RDG is needed.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The works are considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guidance.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/01247/B Page 6 of 6
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 4(2) who should be given Interested Person Status. __
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.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date: 30.04.2021
Determining officer
Signed : C BALMER
Chris Balmer
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal