Loading document...
Our Ref:
Mr. A. Johnstone Planning Appeals Secretary Cabinet Office Government Offices Buck’s Road Douglas IM1 3PN
Dear Mr Johnstone,
Tel: (01624) 685950 Email: [email protected]
Belinda Fettis Senior Planning Officer Date 4th of September 2024 PA No: 24/00415/B Proposal: Ground floor extension and alterations and Conversion of existing roof into habitable space by raising the roof, erection of 2 dormers and installation of roof lights Address: No.1 Bradda View, Ballakillowey IM9 4BE Please find a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application.
The statement relies upon the Planning Officer’s original report which was determined by the Acting Head of Development Management on the 12th of July 2024 which is online and forms part of the planning file.
The enclosed statement comprises the following parts:
In the event that the appointed Planning Inspector is minded to recommend that the application be approved, then the four-year expiration condition should be attached along with consideration to any potential conditions included at 4.0 of the Statement of Case.
Yours sincerely, Belinda Fettis Appendix 1 – Statement of Case
STATEMENT OF THE
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate
Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to:
Ground floor extension and alterations and Conversion of existing roof into habitable space by raising the roof, erection of 2 dormers and installation of roof lights.
No.1 Bradda View, Ballakillowey IM9 4BE
24/00415/B
Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Belinda Fettis Senior Planning Officer
The reason for refusal was:
“By virtue of the increased height and overall volume of extensions this proposal would result in a dominating feature within the streetscene and disrupt the sense of openness. The design would have an overbearing impact upon existing and future residential amenity for the neighbouring dwellinghouses, but in particular numbers 3 and 2 Bradda View and number 11 The Chase.
For the reasons given in this report the proposal is considered contrary to the Design Guide, Strategic Policy 3 and General Policies 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.”
S(4) In dealing with an application for planning approval or an application under subsection
(3), the Department shall have regard to —
There is a statutory duty to take into account the above, and while it is recognised that weight to be given is a matter for the decision maker.
That being said, it shall be noted that the Development Plan and other Adopted Policies do not have primacy as they do in the UK. The Isle of Man is also different from the UK as there is no presumption in favour of development as set out in the NPPF, and there is no 5-year land supply requirement.
In this application, the most weight has been given to the Strategic Plan and the Area Plan for the South Map 7 as they have been through a statutory process, which includes evidence base and public consultation process, and are adopted by Tynwald.
Other material considerations referred to in the officer report include Residential Design Guide (RDG) which followed targeted consultation and adoption by the Minister and has therefore been afforded greater weight.
It is considered that the other material considerations outweigh that set out above.
FOLLOWING SECTION ADDRESSES THOSE ISSUES DIRECTLY
The Appellant makes reference to amendments as a result of discussions with Senior Planner, this was part of a pre-application discussion in which the Senior Officer advised that the proposed development would be difficult to achieve.
Although time was allowed during the application process to submit further amendments this did not occur and the application was refused in part because Officers could not see a solution that would not involve raising the roof and this is the primary reason for refusal.
The Appellant states that some neighbours are in support of the application and although no comments were received in support the assessment overall is considered for existing and future occupants.
There are no objections to ground floor extensions and paragraph 7.1.2. of the report clearly states this, ‘The proposed ground floor extension and alterations incorporate those approved under planning application no. 20/01340/B and therefore these are not assessed or discussed.’
The Appellant raises various queries to the use of the term dominance and these are addressed individually below in order as they appear in the Appellants email of the 20th of August.
1.2 ‘The site is within a cul-de-sac housing estate of similarly styled bungalows’, this is followed by a general characterization of the dwellinghouses that are not bungalows at paragraph 1.3, ‘1.3. The character of the cul-de-sac is one of single storey bungalows of similar design around the entrance. The land than slopes downwards away from the junction to land on a much lower level than Ballakillowey Road, and the dwellings in this area of the cul-de-sac are similarly designed two storey houses. The majority of the bungalows and houses have had some form or alteration or extension.
In response to the Appellants comments below 7.5 seeking clarification of the term ‘dominating’ and the Design Guide’s consideration of effect on neighbouring properties.
The opinion takes account of the single storey properties that exist within the street setting of Ballakillowey Road, and the area of Bradda View close to the junction with Ballakillowey Road. The skyline from either direction and from the field opposite is one of taller buildings north and south however those taller buildings are on different land levels, some lower some higher and in both cases a distance of two or more buildings away from the application site. Therefore the view leaving Bradda View is one of openness, with the field ahead, across the road. The view travelling north is one of openness because the taller buildings stop and the single storey buildings occur until further up the hillside, adding to the visual openness of this area of Ballakillowey Road. Similarly in reverse heading south, the single storey buildings occur until the land falls away to the south which is where the two storey buildings begin to such affect that the roof height of the 3rd dwelling south from the junction with Bradda View, although not single storey, its’ roofline is similar to the adjacent bungalow. The result is a seemingly continuous roofline which adapts to the topography.
If the height of no.1 Bradda View was increased those visuals would change and because the buildings around it are single storey, the taller building amongst them would dominate the skyline.
Please see Appendix A - Dominance landscape and, Appendix B - Dominance Neighbour
The Appellant makes reference to the higher buildings in Bradda View, which there are, but these are on land lower than the application site and therefore the height of those properties does not impact adversely upon the bungalows.
Paragraph 7.6.1, between the two storey properties north of Bradda View and south of Bradda View, the properties are single storey bungalows. There is an openness to the aspect. The roof line gives the impression of following the gradient of the land.
Paragraph 7.7 the Appellant challenges with a supporting photograph of the dormers in the distance whereupon they are visible within the backdrop of other roofs and windows. Section 4.10 of the Design Guide provides guidance on dormers. Each application is taken upon its’ own merits. In this application the dormers would be introduced along with a higher roof. There are no dormers on neighbouring properties. The corner plot with open aspects and elevated height would exacerbate the visual intrusion. This would be contrary to the Design Guide because it would not introduce a positive character to the property or the streetscene.
The Appellant states that there are other dwellinghouses in Bradda View that are of more than one storey.
As outlined the Officers Report, the taller properties on Bradda View are positioned within the cul-de-sac on a land level that is lower than the application site.
Whilst alterations and extensions that improve older buildings are welcomed, the alterations must take account of all other determining factors. The assessment was made taking into account all determining factors and it was considered that for this dwellinghouse in this location the proposal is inappropriate and contrary to policy.
The loss of smaller properties should also be a consideration for those choosing to downsize especially when there exist larger properties on the island that could accommodate a larger family.
Prior to removal of the roof a suitably qualified person must assess the roof for the presence of Bats. If Bats are found, including droppings to suggest use of the roof, then a Bat Survey must be undertaken and to ensure no Bats are disturbed. If use of the site Bats is found then removal of the roof should not be undertaken outside of the bat hibernation period and so should not take place between the 1st of October and the 31st of March in any year.
The applicant must make sure that checks for bats are made around the building prior to any work taking place. Should bats, or evidence of bats such as staining or bat droppings be found then any other work that has commenced must stop and advice be obtained from the Ecosystem Policy Team on 01624 651577 or the Manx Bat Group Helpline 07624 366177.
Reason: To accord with Environment Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
Reason: To ensure surface water is managed appropriately and does not cause flooding elsewhere and to avoid contravention of Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 by allowing surface water to run onto the public highway, in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
Reason: To ensure that the development has an acceptable impact on the environment in respect of Bats which are a protected species in accordance with Environment Policy 4 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
APPENDIX – A – Dominance Landscape Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033
Page 1 of 6
Existing view out of Bradda View
Simulation of proposed
APPENDIX – A – Dominance Landscape Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033
Page 2 of 6
Existing view out of Bradda View
Simulation of proposed
APPENDIX – A – Dominance Landscape Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033
Page 3 of 6
Existing view travelling north, uphill.
Simulation of proposed view travelling north, uphill.
APPENDIX – A – Dominance Landscape Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033
Page 4 of 6
Existing view travelling into Bradda View
Simulation of proposed view travelling into Bradda View.
APPENDIX – A – Dominance Landscape Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033
Page 5 of 6
Existing view travelling north from Bradda View
Simulation of proposed view travelling north from Bradda View.
APPENDIX – A – Dominance Landscape Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033
Page 6 of 6
Existing view travelling south to Bradda View
Simulation of proposed view travelling south to Bradda View.
APPENDIX – B – Dominance Neighbours Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033
Page 1 of 4
Existing view out of Bradda View
Simulation of proposed which introduces height and dormer windows facing the property resulting in overlooking and overbearing.
APPENDIX – B – Dominance Neighbours Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033
Page 2 of 4
Existing view out of Bradda View
Simulation of proposed
APPENDIX – B – Dominance Neighbours Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033
Page 3 of 4
Existing view
Simulation of proposed
APPENDIX – B – Dominance Neighbours Appeal Statement - PA 24 00415 B_AP24 0033
Page 4 of 4
Existing
Simulation of proposed
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown