Loading document...
Rheynn Chymmyltaght, Bee as Eirinys
Isle of Man
Government
Please reply to the signatory
Our Ref: 18/01125/B
Tel: (01624) 685910
Fax: (01624) 686443
Email:
Jennifer Chance MRTPI
Director of Planning & Building Control
3rd April 2019
Mr. A. Johnstone, Planning Appeals Secretary, Cabinet Office, Government Offices,
Buck's Road,
Douglas,
IM1 3PN.
Dear Mr Johnstone PA No: 18/01125/B (AP19/0015) Proposal: Installation of a flue (retrospective) Address: 6 Close Cowley, Douglas, IM2 2HX
Please find 7 copies of the appeal statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the above planning application. Also attached to each copy are:
I trust all of the required information is included.
Yours sincerely,
Nick Salt
Planning Officer
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, Planning & Building Control, Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2SF. Email [email protected]. Tel 01624 685950
Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to:
Installation of a flue (retrospective) 6 Close Cowley Douglas IM2 2HX
PA Reference 18/01125/B
Prepared on behalf of the Planning Authority by Planning Officer Mr Nick Salt
The information provided in the assessment within the initial planning officer's report provides the basis of information for the planning appeal and also forms the Appeal Statement. There is some additional information at the end of the report.
The key considerations in the assessment of this application are, the impacts on the visual amenity of the area, the impacts on neighbouring dwellings residential amenity, and polluting impact.
To pedestrians and vehicles driving on Close Cowley, the flue is not readily visible. Its visual impact is therefore limited to the rear of the houses to the east of the site, and those immediately adjacent. The flue is black matte which reduces its impact somewhat, and sits well below the roof ridge of the dwelling.
The objection from No.8 on visual grounds is noted, however it is not considered that the rear of the properties are of special aesthetic value and similar flues are in similar locations throughout the island. Whilst flues are generally not an attractive addition to a property, their visual impact in generally limited and not sufficient to warrant a reason for refusal.
Environment Policy 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic plan states that development would not be permitted where it unacceptably harms the amenity of nearby property due to the emissions of airborne pollutants. Whilst this may appear that all pollutant renders development fundamentally unacceptable, the issue is subject to a test of severity and what constitutes 'unacceptable'. The objection from the neighbour at 8 Close Cowley has been carefully considered, along with the relevant documentation concerning airborne pollutants such as WHO publications. However, if it is considered that a property is burning illegal or unacceptable fuels or quantities of fuel and emitting the smoke via a flue - this is a matter for Environmental Health.
Planning must consider the flue as per any other multi-fuel stove flue. Such flues have been permitted in large numbers over recent years and any refusals of permission are likely to result from the visual impact of the proposal rather than any pollution. If used correctly, the proposal would not have any unacceptable impact on the neighbouring properties which is
3rd April 2019
18/01125/B
Page 2 of 4
above and beyond that which is normal and prevalent throughout the island. The applicant could, if they wished, burn wood pellets or other alternate cleaner-burning fuel in their stove again this is not an area which can be controlled through the planning system.
Whilst the impacts on the neighbours personal amenity and health have been raised, it is not considered that these impacts can be evidenced as directly linked to the burning of fuel and emission through the flue. There is proximity to a window in 8 Close Cowley, however the fuel is more likely to be burnt during colder weather - when it is less likely that this window will be open. Additionally, the applicant has raised the height of the flue to further limit this impact.
Building Control Regulations are concerned with the proximity of outlets such as flues to windows and other dimensions - the applicant has provided the certificate of compliance for this installation. Whilst Douglas Borough Council are responsible for Building Control in this area, DEFA Building Control Regulations contain Part J which relates to combustion appliances and fuel storage systems. The positioning of the flue exit out from the rear elevation and above the eaves of the roof is compliant.
Overall, the pollution potentially emitted from the flue is not considered likely to be unacceptable. Refusing the application on these grounds would, in effect, render all future flue's on the island unacceptable as this reason for refusal would need to be applied consistently. This position may change in future if further legislation and policy were to be published; however, this is not yet the case on the Isle of Man.
In summary, whilst the concerns raised have been carefully considered in terms of pollution, and whilst the flue is does not have a positive visual impact on the rear of the property, these issues are not considered so severe as to be reasons for refusal. On balance therefore, the application is recommended for approval.
The appellant refers in their statement (Appendix 1) that the flue can be seen between properties on Bayr Cam, Anagh Coar Road and also from the golf course. The planning report states that the flue would indeed be visible from houses to the rear (east), however this is not regarded as being a particularly striking feature. Views from the golf course and New Castletown Road would be limited and at a distance of over 90 metres.
There are a large number of flues permitted each year on the island, and whilst the appellant is correct in that all applications must be, and are, considered on their own merits - the point raised in the planning officer's report was that the objection was based on airborne pollutants from the flue. Therefore, if refused on that basis, all multifuel flues must be refused.
3rd April 2019
18/01125/8
Page 3 of 4
as the majority emit similar levels of pollution. Recent approvals include 19/00100/B, 19/00130/B, 18/01043/B, 18/01082/B, 18/01083/B.
3.3 There is no dispute that the appellant has the right to open their windows at any time. Generally speaking however, people are more likely to shut their windows during spells of colder weather. Regardless, the specific health concerns of the appellant cannot be a reason for refusal where the proposal would otherwise be acceptable. The vents are acknowledged, and there is no disputing that some smoke particles may well enter 8 Close Cowley. The issue is that this is not unusual for a highly populated area where chimneys are common.
3.4 The further point raised regarding civil action is not relevant to planning.
3.5 Overall, whilst sympathetic to any nuisance caused on the neighbours, it is not considered that the application could be regarded as unacceptable on planning ground either for the visual impact or the fact that smoke is emitted.
3rd April 2019
18/01125/B
Page 4 of 4
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
