Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/01404/B Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/01404/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs John Eugene and Kathryn Anne Humphrey Proposal : Construction of new dwelling and detached garage Site Address : Land Adjacent To Longmead Ballakillowey Road Colby Isle Of Man
Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 01.03.2021 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. It is considered that the proposal will not have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of those in Strathcona and Horizon. However, the impact on the rear garden of Longmead is considered to be significant, offering substantial views over this property from the proposed balcony and exacerbated by the inclusion of large areas of glazing on the rear ground floor in terms of actual and perceived privacy. The proposal is thus considered to fail General Policy 2g.
R 2. The design of the property is considered to be out of keeping with the surrounding area which is largely characterised by traditional Manx cottages. This impact is exacerbated by the inclusion of a large garage finished in similar materials, which is closer to the road than is the house. The proposal is considered to conflict with General Policy 2b, c and g and Strategic Policies 3b and 5 in this respect. __
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 4(2):
Strathcona as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/01404/B Page 2 of 6
1.1 The site is a parcel of land which sits immediately alongside the Ballakillowey Road (A36) with properties on all sides: Strathcona sits 20m to the north of the main part of the northern boundary of the site, Longmead sits 15m to the south of the southern boundary of the site and Horizons sits at an angle, 3m to the east of the eastern boundary of the site, this property being accessed from Hill Park with Ivy Cottage and Crofton Cottage sitting opposite the site on the other side of the A36.
1.2 Planning approval was granted for the erection of a dwelling on this plot and works have commenced in the creation of the access.
1.3 The site slopes downward from north to south as does the main road. The road to the north of and including the application site is characterised by largely traditional properties facing south and many of which are right alongside the road. Lynwood Dene sits alongside Longmead and is a traditional property which sits at the edge of and right alongside a modern housing estate, including Horizon which abuts the site. Despite Fuchsia Cottage which sits to the south of Crofton and Ivy Cottages, being largely traditional, although it had modern extensions, it has a modern single garage to its south, abutting the highway,
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a dwelling with associated access and landscaping. The boundary of the site is proposed to be a new 2m high lollipop style fence to the south between the new house and Longmead and the retention of the existing hedge to the east between the house and Horizons. Nothing is shown as the boundary to the north and the roadside boundary is to have the existing hedge cut back and down to provide visibility which is shown as 43m in both directions.
2.2 Unfortunately the elevations are not annotated but considering the proposed site plan, it is understood that the elevation with the solar panels and glass balustrade balcony is to face south and that with the pitched roofed porch is to face north. The side elevations both have two small windows, one per floor with the roadside elevation windows serving a lounge at ground floor level and master bedroom above and the elevation facing Horizons having windows which service a guest bedroom at ground floor level and the third bedroom above. There is a large space in between the two bedrooms which has access onto the south facing balcony which is not annotated so it is not known for what this space will be used. In any case, internal changes to layout do not need planning approval once a building has been erected so the identification of a use for this space is not considered critical to the consideration of the application as both bedrooms on each side have similar access to this balcony area and there is also access from the ground floor via an external spiral staircase.
2.3 The house, like the garage, will be finished in dark coloured tiles with cladding on the upper floor and render below. The rear (south) roof plane will have a number of solar panels attached which would not need planning approval once the house is complete, under the Town and Country (Permitted Development) Order 2012.
2.4 A detached garage is proposed to the north of the house and in front of the forwardmost part of the proposed house, some 3.5m from the road and 7m in front of the gable of the proposed house. The garage will have a floor of accommodation over the two garage parking spaces with internal access and the upstairs accommodation (a bed, sofa and kitchenette in around 25 sq m of floorspace measured as of a ceiling height of at least 1.5m and excluding the hall and stairs). This has an external door, a large window in the southern elevation and a pedestrian door in the eastern elevation with a small first floor window in the northern elevation. The building will have a footprint of 7m by 7m and will be finished in dark coloured roof tiles with cladding to the upper storey and render otherwise
2.5 The proposed dwelling will be, building to building, 27m from Longmead, 11m from Horizons and 33m from Strathcona.
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/01404/B Page 3 of 6
2.6 The applicant provides a comparison with the approved scheme, illustrating that this was longer and slightly (10cm) taller with the rear annex longer and 70cm taller than the proposed garage.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South 2013 Map 7 as 'Residential'. The site is not located within a flood risk zone as per the MUA flood risk maps. The site falls within the D15 landscape character area on the Area Plan for the South 2013:
"Port Erin and Port St Mary (D15): The overall strategy is to maintain and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the local built vernacular and integrity of the nucleated settlements of Port Erin, Port St. Mary and Ballagawne, the scattered traditional farm dwellings and to maintain the field pattern and semi-upland character of the upper slopes.
Key Views: Extensive panoramic views from higher ground on hill slopes along coast to the Calf of Man, inland over the Scarlett Peninsula and up the Southern Uplands and Meayll Hill."
3.2 Given that the land use designation is residential there is a general principle in favour of residential development here. In the assessment of such an application it would be relevant to consider the general standards of development as set out in General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 which relates to development within existing settlements of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016:
3.3 General Policy 2 states (in part):
"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 space 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; 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 adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding."
3.4 Environment Policy 42:
"New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."
3.5 The Residential Design Guidance provides advice on the design of new dwellings, suggesting that the context of the site and its surroundings are appropriate considerations when considering the design of new dwellings. It also sets out the way in which the impact of development on the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings may be measured.
3.6 Strategic Policy 3 requires that proposals should have regard to the use of local materials and character in their design and Strategic Policy 5 requires that new development should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island.
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/01404/B Page 4 of 6
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Planning approval has been granted previously for the erection of a dwelling on this plot under 13/00409/B approved on appeal and 19/00320/B. The earlier approval was for a one and a half storey house with the later approval being for a two storey dwelling with an elevation facing Longmead of 16m and a table facing Horizons of 9m and with a main ridge height of 7.5m and the annex 7m. This property was to be set at a level of 62.7 AOD: the proposed dwelling being set at 63 AOD and with a total height of the house being just under 7.1m
4.2 The garage will be on slightly higher level than would have been the approved house but with a lower overall height. The approved house would have been 9m from the road, 24m from Strathcona, 10m from Horizons and 26m from Longmead.
4.3 The 2019 application generated a strong objection from the owners of Strathcona on the basis of size and proximity. No appeal was sought of the approval.
4.4 Planning approval was sought for the erection of a dwelling under 18/00484/B but this was withdrawn following adverse comments made by the reporting officer.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services conclude that the proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway services raise no opposition to the proposal subject to the condition that vehicular arrangements, including visibility splays, accord with drawing No. JH-20-01. An advisory for a S109(A) Highway Agreement to apply too (05.02.21).
5.2 The owners of Strathcona object to the application on the basis of the loss of privacy and the design. They consider that whilst they had reservations about 19/00320/B this was approved and whilst they do not commend that scheme they consider it integrates better into the area than did the previous one and in that scheme, the windows which could overlook their property were only three and minimal compared with the current application. They note the number of bungalows in the area with traditional Manx cottages alongside the road above the Ballakillowey entrance. The proposal fits with neither. They consider that the application is backland development and an intensification of use which was never meant to accommodate an additional dwelling. They do not question the principle of the development but the impact of the immediate landscape and residents. They cannot see any materials on the plans and do not understand the thought process leading to the design. They consider cladding to be contrary to the local vernacular and wooden cladding was one of the reasons for the refusal of 18/00484/B and there are no integrated stacks and the result is boxlike which looks out of place contrary to General Policy 2b and c and Strategic Policy 3b. They also refer to the Area Plan for the South at paragraph 3.4.3. The inclusion of a wall of glass on the southern elevation and a full width balcony will have an adverse impact on the neighbours' privacy and their privacy and perceived privacy will be affected by the inclusion of a large first floor horizontal window which appears to serve primary living space with a worse effect than the previous proposals. The windows would look into their three bedrooms, lounge, dining and main reception room. They also consider that the garage is out of character and intensifies the use of the site by creating a separate annex (undated and received on 16.02.21).
5.3 The applicants respond to the comments from Strathcona on 26.02.21, comparing the approved with the proposed in terms of area, height, glazed areas and distances, most of which compare in the current application's favour. They do not agree that there is any homogeneity or significant local character and the comments on this are selective and misleading. Indeed the officer's report on 19/00320/B refers to the mixed age, form and style and as such there is no need to adopt any prescriptive guidelines for design. In terms of over-intensity of use the plot is 1109 sq m with the house and garage occupying 136 sq m and is 34% smaller than the 2019 approval which was itself not deemed to be over-intensive and they note that the site is designated for development. They describe the use of cladding as something found in the area and intended to soften the visual impact of the house on the skyline and result in the windows appearing less stark than set against a plain rendered wall and the cladding also adds a second cavity which significantly improves thermal efficiency as do the large window openings on the
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/01404/B Page 5 of 6
southern elevation. The windows in the northern elevation are not random nor arbitrarily sized but are shaped and placed to reflect the need for natural light in different areas of the property reducing the need for artificial light as well as providing high level cross ventilation to prevent overheating. They refer to the RDG and note that the windows of habitable rooms are not less than 20m from other properties.
5.4 Rushen Parish Commissioners support the application (20.02.21).
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The principle of the erection of a dwelling here has been accepted in the approval of the previous two detailed applications and the site is also designated for development. It is relevant when considering whether what is proposed is acceptable, to consider the impact of what already has approval and what could be erected without the need for further applications. What is proposed is smaller, lower and further from neighbouring properties than what has approval.
6.2 The design of the property is more modern than what had approval although that had traditional proportions (although a little longer than most traditional properties) with chimney stacks although the windows were very modern and integral garaging all of which detracted from the traditional character of the property. What is proposed is perhaps more consistent in its size, mass and design and with the cladding and render finishes and the tiled rather than slated roof, it will be clear to the observer what the property is trying to be - i.e. not trying to be traditional in any way.
6.3 Whilst many of the properties in the vicinity alongside the road, as this will be, are traditional, those immediately to the east and south west are not and even Fuchsia Cottage has modern extensions and a modern garage. Also, the traditional properties in the area are generally set right alongside the road which the proposed dwelling will not be and with a different form of access, parking and garaging. Whilst the applicant has provided photographs of other properties in the vicinity which are more modern, some with cladding, these are not viewed in the same context as the application property which has traditional Manx cottage style buildings on three sides which are the buildings seen as one passes the site.
6.4 All that said, the character of the area at this point is very much formed by traditional architecture unlike the wider area and what is proposed with its dual material finish will not sit comfortably with either the traditional or the more modern properties nearby. Attention will be drawn to these different style and finishes by the position of the proposed garage closer to the road than the house and the garage will be taller than the other garages in the vicinity.
6.5 The provisions for access are in accordance with the approved and partly implemented scheme.
6.6 The dwelling will be further from adjacent property than the approved scheme and whilst there are to be balconies, these will be a significant distance from Longmead itself although these will provide a clear view out over the rear garden of this adjacent property. Furthermore, there is a first floor bedroom window in the elevation facing Horizon which will be 11m away where there was no such window previously (the approved scheme had a number of rooflights in the plane facing Horizons), although it is acknowledged that the window will not look directly at any window in that property and serves a bedroom so any overlooking of the rear garden of the adjacent house may be reduced by these factors.
6.7 In terms of the impact on Strathcona, the impact is limited by the distance between the properties and the size of the windows. Whilst there are concerns about the impact of the horizontal window, this is high level so will not enable views out from a seated position and with the two other first floor windows serving bathrooms.
CONCLUSION 7.1 It is considered that the proposal will have an acceptable impact on the living conditions of those in Strathcona and Horizon. However, the impact on the rear garden of Longmead is
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/01404/B Page 6 of 6
considered to be significant, offering substantial views over this property from the proposed balcony and exacerbated by the inclusion of large areas of glazing on the rear ground floor in terms of actual and perceived privacy. The proposal is thus considered to fail General Policy 2g. The design of the property is considered to be out of keeping with the surrounding area which is largely characterised by traditional Manx cottages. This impact is exacerbated by the inclusion of a large garage finished in similar materials, which is closer to the road than is the house. The proposal is considered to conflict with General Policy 2b, c and g and Strategic Policies 3b and 5 in this respect.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 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 the Head of Development Management 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 : Refused Date : 02.03.2021
Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
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