DEC Officer Report

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No.: 23/00921/B Applicant: Mr Mike Carney Proposal: To increase the height of the flue of the woodburning flue from 1m to 2.3m, due to HETAS requirements. Site Address: 3 Ballamaddrell Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6AS Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken: 23.08.2023 Site Visit: 23.08.2023 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 26.10.2023 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal R 1. The height and proximity of the proposed flue to the immediate neighbours No. 1 and No. 5 Ballamaddrell results in a dominant and overbearing impact on their outlook and visual amenity and one which has an unneighbourly and unacceptable impact on the enjoyment and living conditions of their properties including their rear gardens contrary to General Policy 2(b, c, and g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

_______________________________________________________________ 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):

• o 1 Ballamaddrell, Port Erin
• o Westlodge, Castletown Road, Port Erin

as they both satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

- 1.0 THE SITE

1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 3 Ballamaddrell, Port Erin. The property sits along the main Station Road an arterial route into Port Erin. - 1.2 The semi-detached property is single storey and has recently been extended to the rear. - 1.3 Above the new flat roof rear extension has been installed a 2.3m high flue.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Retrospective approval is sought for the installation of the 2.3m high flue.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site has been subject to a number of recent planning applications, the most recent which is considered to be material to the current application is PA 22/01515/B which was approved for the erection of the rear extension and which included the installation of a 1m high flue.

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The application site is designated as; 'predominately residential' on the Area Plan for the South. The site is not within a Conservation area, nor are there any registered trees on site and the site is not identified as being at any flood risk. - 4.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered materially relevant to the assessment of this current planning application:

• o Strategic Policies 3 and 5 - promote good design and use of local materials and character
• o General Policy 2 (b) (c) (g) (n) - general standards towards acceptable development visual and neighbouring amenity, and energy reduction.
• o Environment Policy 22 - noise and smell impact on amenities

4.3 The Residential Design Guide (July 2021) Section 5- Architectural Details is also relevant.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only. - 5.1 Port Erin Commissioners - in support (13/09/2023). - 5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - No highways interest (18/08/2023) - 5.3 DEFA - Environmental Health - Comments (22/09/2023)

• 5.3.1 They indicate that there doesn't appear to be an obvious risk of a smoke nuisance and raising the height of the flue should help reduce the risk of a nuisance to neighbouring properties, but they have outlined a number of matters relating to the proposal which have come from experience in investigating complaints about smoke nuisance, and they state a number of points which should be considered;

• 1) Compliance with building control may not be sufficient to prevent smoke nuisance to neighbouring premises.
• 2) Ensuring flues discharge at a height that allows dispersion upwards into the atmosphere, and not blown back down into the neighbours.
• 3) Factors that may affect nuisances occurring include:

• a) Topography of the surrounding land
• b) Height of neighbouring properties in relation to the top of flue
• c) Construction characteristics of properties, e.g. trickle vents in windows and ventilated

soffits that provide ventilation to 'cold roofs'

• d) Local wind patterns/ the prevailing wind direction
• e) Localised effects of air movement around buildings, e.g. the formation of eddies can

draw smoke towards the ground/ impede its dispersal into atmosphere

• f) It may not be possible/ practicable in all circumstances to install a flue that discharges

smoke at a height that won't cause a nuisance to neighbouring premises.

• 4) Other factors that can affect impact of smoke on neighbouring properties include:

• a) Fuel quality - wet/ damp wood produces more smoke than well-seasoned/dried wood
• b) Burning rubbish, particularly plastics, can produce pungent smoke
• c) Insufficient airflow - can cause fuel to smoulder and produce excessive smoke
• d) The effect of any cowl fitted

5.4 DEFA Building Control - Comments 20/09/2023 -

• 5.4.1 They outline that the installation of a stove requires to comply with Building Control Regulations and Part J give direction of what regulations apply and with specific reference to Note 2.8 which indicated a flue height of 4.5m "could be satisfactory if further guidance in 2.10 and 2.12 is adopted" to ensure suitable draw on the stove is achievable. Building Control always suggests an applicant seek advice from specialists within the area, and many find HETAS a suitable third party. HETAS are able to sign off stove installations as per Schedule 3 of Building Regulations 2014.

5.5 Owners of No. 1 Ballamaddrell. - Objection (23/08/2023 and 22/09/2023) -

• 5.5.1 Their comments include a number of photographs taken from their rear garden, from rear windows and from the street scene, they also include copies of the officer report for the previous approval of the 1m flue.

• 5.5.2 Comment is raised about the drawing being inaccurate as the 1m flue was not built however it must be noted that this is a new application for a 2.3m flue and so the drawings reflect that proposal and are not required to show the 1m as that was part of a previous application.
• 5.5.3 They state that the proposed flue is unsightly and incongruous and having significant adverse visual impact from their property and from the rear of neighbouring properties including from rear gardens.
• 5.5.4 The flue can also be seen from the main road.
• 5.5.5 They make reference to distance from the nearest obstruction and that the 2.3m height is not necessary, and no details have been provided on regulatory documentation on which the flue has been designed. If the 2.3m is required then given the extension is flat roof then the log burner and flue are inappropriate and should be removed.
• 5.5.6 The 2.3 is not for the benefit for the neighbours but to prevent back draught to the applications own property.
• 5.5.7 They finally raise a number of questions about why the applicants weren't informed of a need for a 2.3m high flue from the start or when they purchased the log burner? Why was the application for 1m applied for? They state that the installation of a log burner into a highly insulated building is totally out of place and that the proposal results in an eyesore.

5.6 Owners of Westlodge, Castletown Road - Objection (05/09/2023) -

• 5.6.1 Proposed flue is on a flat roof and its size is totally out of proportion and there are no others like it in the area, and there is no evidence of any other in the area provided. They can see it from the front and rear of their house, and ask why the applicants did not put it closer to their own garden rather than closer to No.1. The flue looks like something you'd find on a boat/ship.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The application seeks retrospective approval for the installation of a 2.3m tall metal flue within a recently constructed flat roof, single storey extension. As part of the officer report Building Control matters have been summarised, but aside from whether or not the flue meets with those regulations, the strict planning assessment of the application falls to the visual and amenity impacts beyond the previous approval of the smaller flue under 22/01515/B in particularly the amenity impact on the neighbours in respect of fumes, smoke and smells, and whether there is any visual impact on the street scene or from neighbouring properties. - 6.2 Building Control

• 6.2.1 Information provided within the application and comments from Building Control indicate that Approved Document J is relevant for flues and their heights, HETAS are recognised as being a specialist in this field and are able to sign off stove installations as per the requirements in Schedule 3 of the Building Regulations 2014. Note 2.8 of Approved Document J (ADJ) states "Flues should be high enough to ensure sufficient draught to clear the products of combustion. The height necessary for this will depend upon the type of the appliance, the height of the building, the type of flue and the number of bends in it, and an assessment of local wind patterns. However, a minimum flue height of 4.5m could be satisfactory if the guidance in Paragraphs 2.10 to 2.12 is adopted. As an alternative approach, the calculation procedure within BS EN 13384-1:2005 can be used as the basis for deciding whether a chimney design will provide sufficient draught."
• 6.2.2 The agent has indicated the 2.3m is required to meet HETAS, although there is no information in respect of how these calculations have been reached nor any correspondence or certification from HETAS to support the application. It's not clear whether there have been any other alternative calculations specific to this situation under ADJ or BS EN 13384-1:2005. From a planning perspective it is still unknown if the proposed flue meets building regulation requirements or if it's specific burner spec, position and wind pattern would result in height changes.
• 6.2.3 In any case the compliance with Building Control Regulations would be a matter outside of the planning remit. The matters of this application will fall to the planning merits set out below.

6.3 Amenity Impact (smoke, smells, fumes)

• 6.3.1 The officer report for the previously approved 1m flue stated "turning to the use of the flue in conjunction with a proposed wood burning stove, the installation can raise concerns of air pollution to neighbouring properties. However, given the location of the flue pipe on the rear of the property and its height, and that it is to be used a 'feature' as opposed to the sole supply of heating and hot water due to the modern construction of the property, it is considered to be of sufficient distance away for adequate discharge of the smoke following combustion so not to be considered a nuisance from smells or smoke". Although noting the comments from Environmental Health, from a planning perspective given that the distance from the neighbours has not changed and that the height of the flue has now increased, it would be difficult to reach a different judgement on the impact of the smell, smoke or fumes on the neighbours compared to the approval of the 1m flue.

6.4 Visual impact

• 6.4.1 The previous officer considered the 1m flue to be "small scale" and "the installation of flue pipe are not considered to have an adverse visual impact on the property when viewed from the surrounding neighbouring properties due to its position, size, and design and would not result in a significant adverse visual impact upon the appearance of the building or that of the immediate area.". They then go on to state "the proposed flue would project up from the proposed extension and terminate 1m above the roof line. Being on the rear of the building it would not be considered an incongruous feature and would not be apparent from the public highway to the front. Whilst some views may be visible from the rear elevation and within the

communal car park to the rear, flue's and their association on buildings are common place given the popularity of wood burning stoves and alike".

• 6.4.2 The situation now is that the taller 2.3m flue has already been installed and retrospective approval is being sought. It is evident from the site visit and from photographs provided in objection letters that the flue can be seen from the adjoining and immediate neighbours rear elevation windows and garden areas, as well as in part from the rear car park and rear lanes, and can be seen between the gap in the houses from the main Station Road.
• 6.4.3 Whilst views from Station Road for those passing on foot or in vehicles are somewhat fleeting, and those views from the rear lane and car park are at distance with the flue read with the backdrop of the terraced dwellings behind, it is clear that there are prominent views from the two immediate neighbours No. 1 and No. 5.
• 6.4.4 The relationship of these dwellings to the application site, being in close proximity and of low level design means that the 2.3m height of the flue on the rear extension is visually prominent, and has an overbearing and dominant visual impact on outlook from rear elevation windows and from rear gardens. The proposal is considered to have an unacceptable and overbearing visual impact on the immediate neighbours contrary to General Policy 2 (b, c and g).
• 6.4.5 Whilst there are also views from Westlodge these are from a little further away and this distance helps to limit the flues dominance on their living conditions and although accepted it would be visible and changing their outlook to some degree, it would not be so dominating to harm their overall living conditions to such an unacceptable degree to warrant a refusal.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 Whilst it is recognised that log burners have become popular over recent years their installation along with associated flues should not be at the detriment to visual and neighbouring amenity. On review of this proposal whilst the visual impact from public perspective may not be so significantly adverse or harmful to warrant a refusal, the height and proximity of the flue to the immediate neighbours No. 1 and No. 5 Ballamaddrell results in a dominant and overbearing impact on their outlook and visual amenity and one which has an unneighbourly and unacceptable impact on the enjoyment of their properties including their rear gardens contrary to General Policy 2(b, c, and g). - 8.0 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

8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot 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 : Refused Date: 27.10.2023 Determining officer Signed : J SINGLETON Jason Singleton 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.