82123

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      22/00827/B                                     Page  1  of  11

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. 22/00827/B Applicant : Mr Robert & Mrs Grizelda Taylor Proposal Demolish existing detached house and build a replacement detached dwelling Site Address Rheaby Beg Main Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man IM5 3AU

Case Officer :

Mr Richard Boyt Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation 25.01.2023

Reason for Refusal

R.1 Notwithstanding the extant planning permission for house renovations and extensions at the site, on balance, it is considered that the proposed replacement dwelling will result in an adverse landscape and visual impact on the rural uplands by virtue of the scale and design of the development and is not considered to amount to an exceptionally innovative or high quality modern design, being contrary to Policies EP1, EP2 and HP14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

__

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not 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):

The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and the Environment __

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE PRINCIPLE PLANNER

THE SITE 1.1 The application site is an existing derelict two storey cottage and surrounding land on moorland 700 metres east of Glen Maye village on an elevated hillside position looking out to the sea in the northwest.

1.2 The stone cottage has a regular three bay frontage with high eaves which possibly had a room in the roofspace. The house is gable ended with broad chimney stacks and a pitched slate roof.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      22/00827/B                                     Page  2  of  11

1.3 Former single storey extensions have been removed on the northern and southern end of the building as have former attached barns and stores. Recently a new or significantly improved access track has been created, looping in from the south, but approaching the house from the north. No gardens are evident at the property and the site is currently a vacant building site with the house uninhabitable. Footings and walls up to DPC level appear to have been constructed in accordance with a 2016 planning permission to extend the cottage.

Surroundings; 1.4 Rheaby Beg, as it is now known, is in the open countryside in an attractive upland area. The locality is grazed moorland with banked field boundaries and poor quality grassland. There are no tall trees aside from some boundary copses.

1.5 The character of the area is one of open moorland grazing at an altitude that allows long distance views out to sea. It is has a very remote feel even though it is only half a mile from the village of Glen Maye.

THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is a replacement dwelling for a substantially larger house on the plot (over 10 metres high and nearly 30 metres wide), with the applicant primarily relying on the fall-back position of an existing house extension consent on the property which appears to have been lawfully commenced.

2.2 The proposals involve the wholesale demolition of the existing house and its replacement with a 3 storey dwelling clad in timber effect panels (presumably fibre board) and stone with a slate roof. Windows, doors, trims, fascias, rooflights and rainwater goods are described as dark grey or black (potentially plastic).

2.3 A newly defined garden area is proposed with a large barn/shed for grounds maintenance equipment positioned to the north measuring 15 metres long, 7.5 metres wide and 5.75 metres tall, clad in olive green metal panels and dug into the ground somewhat. To the northeast of the proposed dwelling a subterranean garage 10 metres wide and 8 metres deep is proposed with stone-faced retaining walls.

2.4 The new dwelling will be positioned and rotated around 10 to 30 metres to the northwest from the current footprint of the existing house for reasons of improving the view to the coast and to provide solar gain by moving away from the sloping ground to the south.

PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 In application 16/00070/B, substantial single storey and two storey extensions were approved to the existing old house. The former house (because it was abandoned) already had a side sunroom, a back kitchen, porch, barn and store. The 2016 consent gave substantial extensions to the renovated house, resulting in a rambling 5/6 bedroom, two kitchen dwelling based around the original stone cottage. This latest submission states that the 2016 permission resulted in a total floor area of over 400 square metres. The officer report refers to the 2016 permission creating two units; in the case of the applicant this was to allow parents to live alongside their daughter who would live semi-independently following an accident.

3.2 In 2016, planning officers found that although the house had been abandoned, the special vernacular qualities of the cottage were enough for this building to be renovated and reused with modest extensions.

3.3 In subsequent pre application discussions since that approval, the principle of demolishing and replacing the cottage has been accepted by officers on the basis that the 2016 permission is a suitable fall-back position because the development has been commenced. This

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      22/00827/B                                     Page  3  of  11

acceptance has been on the strict condition that a suitable scale and design of replacement dwelling is proposed.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES 4.1 The site lies within a wider area of land that is not designated for a particular purpose on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982. The site lies outwith the area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance which lies to the west. The site lies within the Southern Uplands area in the Landscape Character Assessment.

4.2 Type A: Uplands The overall strategy for the protection and enhancement of the Uplands Landscape Character Type is to conserve and enhance: the predominantly open and exposed character of the moorland hills and mountain summits; the generally uninterrupted skyline and panoramic views across the lower slopes and plains towards the sea; the strong sense of tranquillity and remoteness; and the distinctive features of cultural heritage and nature conservation interest. Key landscape planning considerations in relation to the protection and enhancement of this Landscape Character Type are as follows:- (a) Housing and business development would be out of place within the predominantly open, exposed, and visually-sensitive Upland landscapes; (b) Any buildings which are deemed necessary should avoid exposed or visually-prominent locations, and should reflect local building materials and styles; (c) Care should be taken not to compromise the sparsely-settled pattern of isolated, small-scale farmsteads within the Uplands; (d) Care should be taken to minimise visual clutter of highways infrastructure and signage on the unenclosed and simple character of rural roads that cross the Uplands; (e) Vertical telecommunication masts or structures, or renewable-energy development such as wind turbines, may be out of place within the predominantly open, exposed, and visually- sensitive Upland landscape, and care should be taken to ensure that the location of such development does not dominate the landscape.

4.3 The Landscape Character Policy Statement 1 states as follows: Generally, new built development would be out of place within the predominantly open, exposed, and visually-sensitive Upland landscapes. Any new built development which is deemed necessary should avoid exposed or visually-prominent locations. The setting of the sparsely- settled pattern of isolated, small-scale farmsteads within the Uplands must not be compromised.

4.4 Housing Policy 14: Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with policies 2- 7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building. Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact.

REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      22/00827/B                                     Page  4  of  11

5.1 Patrick Commissioners - no objection 5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - no significant negative impact. EV points should be installed. 5.3 DEFA Biodiversity - no bats and barn owls, but swallow nests in the building. Recommends provision wildlife protection condition should approval be given including swallows and protective fencing to the SW during construction. 5.4 No comments received from neighbouring properties, but an objection to the quality of the information and plans provided from the Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and the Environment.

ASSESSMENT Introduction Visual Impact Other Material Considerations

6.1 The applicant is proposing an entire replacement dwelling on an altered footprint of approximately 500 square metres in internal area and including the demolition of the existing Manx cottage and the erection of a large shed/ barn outbuilding to the north. This 500 square metre internal area does not appear to include the garages and garden shed which provide another 200 square metres of internal area.

6.2 The justification for the larger development given by the applicant is that the current building is structurally difficult and thermally inefficient and its complete rebuild would result in a more sustainable building in the medium term. Moving the house away from the southern slopes would improve solar gain by reducing overshadowing and also improve views to the northwest.

6.3 The planning justification made by the applicant is that although planning policies restrict replacements to 50% increases of the original dwelling, there is a caveat for exceptionally innovative or modern design where there is no adverse visual impact.

6.4 To be clear, the original dwelling at Rheaby Beg is an abandoned cottage of around 100 square metres and perhaps slightly more if the attic room previously existed (the inclusion of attic rooms is excluded in Policy HP14). The cottage had been extended prior to 2016 and had outbuildings, but such additions (and attic spaces) are not normally included in such floorspace calculations. The 2016 permission allowing extensive extensions to the dwelling were allowed on the beneficial basis of converting a heritage building worthy of preservation.

6.5 Policies EP1 and EP2 of the Isle of Man Plan are clear that the countryside will be protected for its own sake and that development that would adversely affect the landscape qualities of an area will not be permitted. Notwithstanding the permission which exists on this property, these proposals will inevitably harm the character of the uplands landscape by virtue of their altered appearance and excessive scale.

6.6 Policy HP14 accommodates replacement dwellings, however due to the scale of these proposals, they would only qualify to meet this policy if they are considered of exceptional modern or innovative design. Whilst these proposals are undoubtedly modern, they are not considered exceptionally so and they are not innovative in any identifiable way.

6.7 In terms of starting point it has to be acknowledged that the 2016 approval as noted in para 3.1, has been implemented and the applicants could continue to build this proposed dwelling house that would offer 400 square meters of habitable accommodation. This permission would allow for the creation of a dwelling house on site and with a larger residential curtilage that what is proposed under this (2022) application. This would be seen as a benefit which would help to reduce the level of domestic paraphernalia on site and reduce the

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      22/00827/B                                     Page  5  of  11

residential curtilage. It is further noted the proposals also include a walled garden to the south west corner of the proposed build.

Visual Impact 6.8 The proposals are for a substantial detached dwelling of 3 storey appearance and form. The internal area of this dwelling is over 500 square metres and the house would provide spacious 6 bedroom accommodation. Being approximately 5 times the internal floorspace of the 'original' dwelling, plus the addition of very large outbuildings (the shed and garage), the proposals could be read are at odds with the standard size criteria of Policy HP14 if looking at the built form on site. However, consideration has to be given to the extant permission as described above, and the level of impact this would have. On this basis, the proposals rely on qualifying as exceptional in terms of innovation or modern design to comply with HP14 and have acceptable visual impact.

6.9 In parallel to 'exceptional' considerations, it must be borne in mind that the proposals replace a vernacular Manx cottage that this authority considered of such high value as to justify approving an extended dwelling on the grounds that it would preserve the historic structure. The cottage is in a very poor structural state and because of its solid wall construction, it will be costly in both financial and carbon terms to make it thermally efficient. The cottage is not so precious that it must be preserved no matter what, however it is recommended that for any replacement dwelling to be approved, a proposal must be in keeping with the ethos and form of what is already there and not wholly unrelated to it, unless a departure is being sought for a replacement dwelling as noted in Hp14 that allows for exceptions for; "buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact" (Hp14 text).

6.10 The applicant has argued that the current dwelling is effectively three storeys in height and so is the replacement. It is evident that the current cottage has a two storey appearance and the proposals are significantly taller (2.5m taller to the ridge) and they appear of a much larger scale in every dimension. The scale of the proposals does not could be considered to not respect the sensitive rural hillside location and would could be visually intrusive in the landscape, especially at night where there is a danger that its large windows would could result in a hillside beacon effect.

6.11 The landscape policies are clear that built development in isolated upland areas should reflect the small-scale farmsteads found in the area and not result in prominent development in exposed locations. The scale and bulk of this proposal are could be read at odds with that policy, but a balance has to be taken on material weighting of the Strategic Plan and the Area plan in general. The overriding theme of the Area Plan is the protection of the countryside with its rural character and open views.

6.12 The impact of these proposals is further increased by moving the footprint of the building away from the hillside on the grounds of solar gain advantages. Whilst there may be some gains in doing this, the proposals involve no solar panels and few other features of passive solar design, it is questioned whether the altered footprint is all about sustainable energy or principally about the quality of view looking northwest. Within the written design statement accompanying the planning application the agent notes at para3.15 of their statement, on the sustainability issue as; "Further, one of the functions of the glazed links is to act as 'heat sumps' for passive solar gain; they will be exposed to the sun for most of the day, will therefore be heated via the Greenhouse Effect, the hot air will rise due to the Stack Effect, and can therefore be harvested via a heat exchanger for use in the heating of the house and its domestic hot water, as appropriate. The proposals include for plant areas in the roof void to house such equipment, with the louvres to the northern elevation available for hidden ventilation, if required. The glazed areas are severable from the general living accommodation to avoid overheating in exceptional circumstances, but a proposed MVHR system will ensure that no passive energy harvested is wasted".

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      22/00827/B                                     Page  6  of  11

6.13 It is acknowledged that Rheaby Beg is not immediately visible from surrounding houses which are shielded from the site by local topography. However, the wider impact in the landscape is still a material consideration and just because a development is not immediately evident from surrounding land, it does not mean that the development may be permitted in any form, scale or design.

6.14 The applicant has been invited to meet officers during the course of the development to discuss some of the design issues that the authority consider contribute to its conflict with planning policy. The overriding concern is the scale of development in terms of floorspace (and therefore bulk), height and orientation of building. The use of stone is considered appropriate, but the large areas of timber effect cladding are could be considered excessive and out of keeping with the local vernacular. There are concerns about lost opportunities for passive solar gain by having more windows on the south elevations, the lack of renewable energy incorporated in the proposals and the size and design of the outbuilding. However a balance has to be struck between a replacement dwelling under HP14 that is innovative and modern whilst respecting the level of visual impact needed under Ep1. Arguably the design is balancing point here that can be very subjective.

6.15 These factors combine to result in a development that is may not be considered of high quality and innovative enough design to be exceptional and worthy of justifying the demolition of the Manx cottage on the land. The proposed dwelling will be tall and prominent in the landscape, harming the character of the uplands and out of keeping with the small farmsteads that are found there, thus could be read at odds with Policies EP1, EP2 and HP14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

Other material considerations 6.16 In terms of other elements of the proposals, there are no ecology objections providing conditions are applied to protect nearby grassland from construction activities and swallows nests are protected. Trees are unaffected.

6.17 The established driveway access, although perhaps grander than envisaged in the 2016 consideration, is acceptable in terms of design and highway safety, parking (a subterranean garage is proposed to the back of the site), etc. are all considered acceptable. EV points could be installed in the garage or parking areas.

6.18 Being so isolated, there are no near neighbours to the site who are affected and obviously such a large house and gardens will provide excellent living conditions for future residents.

6.19 Another area of concern has been the scale and proportions of the equipment store/ shed proposed north of the house. It has an internal area of 112.5 square metres, it is 5.75 metres tall and requires a large dig out alongside the drive. The justification for this building which is roughly the same size as the existing cottage is that the surrounding land requires maintenance. Whilst this may be the case, the house is proposed with around an acre of garden land, 50% of which is the footprint of the house, its garage, hardstanding areas and the machinery store itself. The applicant has stated that they wish to maintain the wider land and for that reason a farming building application may be more appropriate for this building. The shed is not commensurate to domestic garden maintenance, but could be conditioned to ensure its use is strictly related to agriculture if this is the applicant's intention.

6.20 Were the proposals to be recommended for approval, the large areas of new hard bound surfaces and roofs would result in a substantial rainwater drainage change and a surfacewater drainage scheme would be required by condition. Foul water is proposed to be processed by biodisc before draining on site which is considered acceptable subject to details being agreed.

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      22/00827/B                                     Page  7  of  11

CONCLUSION 7.1 Notwithstanding the extant planning permission for house renovations and extensions at the site, it is considered that the proposed replacement dwelling will result in an adverse landscape and visual impact on the rural uplands and will not amount to an exceptionally innovative or modern design contrary to Policies EP1, EP2 and HP14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

7.2 Furthermore, the existing Manx cottage is considered of heritage value such that any replacement must be of such quality and scale that it justifies the loss of this vernacular asset. That quality and scale has not been achieved in this proposal.

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 above who should be given Interested Person Status It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not 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):

__

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : ...Permitted... Committee Meeting Date:...27.03.2023

Signed :...J SINGLETON... Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below 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.

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      22/00827/B                                     Page  8  of  11

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 27.03.2023

Application No 22/00827/B Applicant Mr Robert & Mrs Grizelda Taylor Proposal Demolish existing detached house and build a replacement detached dwelling Site Address Rheaby Beg Main Road Glen Maye Isle Of Man IM5 3AU Planning Officer Mr Richard Boyt Presenting Officer J SINGLETON Addendum to the Officer Report

The Planning Committee deferred consideration on 27/03/23 in order to conduct a site visit, which was agreed for 09/03/23 at 10.00am.

This site visit was postponed due to adverse weather conditions and re-scheduled for 20/03/23.

The application was referred back to the committee on 27/03/23.

At the meeting and having visited the site, Mr Singleton in absence of the case officer presented the application to the committee, addressed the factual inaccuracies within the report with correct interpretation of the proposals.

The planning committee voted to overturn the case officers recommendation for refusal and proposed a recommendation to approve which was seconded and the application was approved subject to 14 conditions (as below).

C 1. The roof(s) must be finished in either dark natural slate or a material which has first been approved in writing by the Department and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure a suitable finish to the proposed dwelling.

C 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development shall be undertaken under the following classes of Schedule 1 of the Order at any time: Class 13 - Greenhouses and polytunnels Class 14 - Extension of dwellinghouse Class 15 - Garden sheds and summer-houses Class 16 - Fences, walls and gates Class 17 - Private garages and car ports Class 21 - Decking

Reason: To control future development on the site.

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      22/00827/B                                     Page  9  of  11

C 3. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

C 4. The fenestration details of the proposed building hereby approved must be a dark grey colour, or as otherwise agreed in writing by the department and being retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

C 5. Prior to the erection of the replacement dwelling hereby approved, a definitive plan and proposed boundary fencing and or hedge planting treatment delineating the extent of the residential curtilage and scheme of implementations, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved details and maintained as such thereafter. Reason: To reinforce the boundary of residential curtilage In the interest of visual amenity of the Countryside.

C 6. Prior to the erection of the new dwelling, a swallow mitigation plan shall be provided to and approved in writing by the Department. The plan should include details of swallow cups to be erected on the site / building(s). Details should include the numbers to be installed, their location, type and timescales for their installation.

REASON: To ensure suitable nesting habitats for migrating swallows.

C 7. The agricultural buildings must be used only for the storage of plant and machinery in conjunction with the management of the land.

Reason: the countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of agricultural need. As such the building must be used for the purposes for which it is approved.

C 8. The external walls, doors and roof on the new agricultural building must be a dark green colour and the roof a dark green colour all being retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

C 9. The Agricultural Building shall be for private (not commercial) use only and associated with Rheaby Beg, Main Road Glen Maye and the land defined in red and blue on plan reference 280/001 (location plan) as submitted.

Reason: In view of the location of the site in this rural part of the countryside; the Department does not consider the site suitable for anything other than private use.

C 10. Prior to the erection of the proposed dwelling and agricultural building full details of soft and hard landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include details of grassed areas and new planting (including tree planting) showing, type, size and position of each. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwelling, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      22/00827/B                                     Page  10  of  11

The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted. No excavation works or changes to site levels shall be carried out other than in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

C 11. Development shall not commence until a programme of historic building recording of the buildings affected by the development has been undertaken and submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department. The programme of building recording must be undertaken in accordance with Level Two as set out in Understanding Historic Buildings: A guide to good recording practice

Reason: To ensure and safeguard the recording and inspection of matters of archaeological/historical importance associated with the building/site that will be lost in the course of works.

C 12. Prior to the erection of the new dwelling, a schedule of materials and finishes including non-reflective glazing and samples or trade literature of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

C 13. 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.

C 14. Prior to the commencement of any works an Energy Statement shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Department (planning) which demonstrates the new dwellings has a Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating of at least 93 (or similar rating system) and prior to the occupation of the dwelling a further Energy Statement post completion shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department (planning) to demonstrate that the SAP rating of at least 93 (or similar rating system) has been achieved.

Reason: A reason why the application is considered acceptable is due to the overall environmental impacts as outlined on Housing Policy 14 and namely the eco efficiency credentials of the new dwelling as noted by the agents.

N 1. Nesting birds are legally protected under the Wildlife Act 1990 and this includes protection from recklessness. All birds, their nests, eggs and young are protected and it is an offence to: Intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild bird Intentionally or recklessly take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst it is in use or being built Intentionally or recklessly take or destroy the egg of any wild bird Intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird. The maximum penalty that can be imposed - in respect of a single bird, nest or egg - is a fine up to £10,000.

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                      22/00827/B                                     Page  11  of  11

The bird nesting season is usually between late February and late August or late September in the case of swallows or house martins. Additionally, pigeons have been known to nest year round should conditions be suitable.

Should the applicant not obtain the services of an ecologist, contrary to our advice, then they must undertake thorough checks for bats and birds prior to the demolition of the building. Demolition without thorough checks would be considered reckless.

The presence of bats and birds will not stop the demolition from taking place, but provision must be made for their ongoing protection. Mitigation should also be provided for the loss of any roosting or nesting space.

Reason for approval: The planning committee deemed the proposed application for a replacement dwelling in the countryside would meet the exception given in Housing Policy 14 for innovative and modern design that is of high quality. Given its setting and the proposed land management would not result in adverse visual impact upon the countryside and would inadvertently comply with Environmental Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan (2016).