Loading document...
Kwiltyo Ellan Vanain
Planning statement on behalf of Department of Infrastructure Planning and Building Control
Erection of a detached dwelling with associated parking
Land Adjacent To Cliff Cottage Back Shore Road Laxey Isle Of Man
PA Reference 14/00335/B
Statement prepared on behalf of DOI Planning and Building Control by Planning Officer: Cabinet Office
0.1 The aim of this statement is to provide background information to this application for planning approval and set out an assessment of the proposal against the relevant Development Plan policies.
0.2 Part of the application site is owned by the Department of Infrastructure, of which the Planning Authority is part. This ownership situation was noticed late in the application process. The application has been advertised in accordance with Article 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013. The application must be considered by an Independent Inspector and the decision taken by the Council of Ministers.
0.3 The Department has no other interest in the proposal.
1.1 The application site is an area of open land, known locally as Kinrade's Garden, which lies between Cliff Cottage (to the north) and Beach Cottage (to the south) on Back Shore Road, Laxey. It also extends behind Beach Cottage in what is a rather unusual land ownership situation, the detail of which is set out in Sections 5 and 6 of this report.
1.2 To the front is the highway, bounded by a rendered stone wall, while the site slopes up very steeply to the rear in the direction of further residential dwellings. The bank here is steep, high and populated with some mixed trees and vegetation.
1.3 The site falls within the Laxey Conservation Area and is readily visible from the village shore, which is separated from the application site by another highway and a village green in-between. The wider area is characterised by a mixture of residential development of terraced, detached and semi-detached form. Traditional Manx architecture is predominant, with very little contemporary additions. The Back Shore Road area of Laxey is characterised by small- and medium-sized dwellings sat within relatively small plots that, together, offer an attractive, pleasingly jumbled and tight-knit built environment.
2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a two-storey detached dwelling with single storey outrigger on the application site, which would sit between Cliff Cottage and Beach Cottage. The second storey of accommodation would be partly within the roofscape. To the highway, the dwelling would offer a broadly traditional design, with a chimney stack at each end of the property and a front door to the left-hand side; three windows are also set within the frontage. The proposed single-storey outrider would be identical in width to the two-storey frontage. This would have a pitched roof with vaulted ceiling, and would be open plan to include a kitchen-dining-living area. Also located downstairs would be an entrance hallway (identified on the proposed plan as a porch), a WC; a spiral staircase would lead upstairs to the double bedroom with en-suite bathroom. Roughly 69sqm of floorspace would be provided (measured internally), with 43sqm of this at the ground floor.
2.2 The property would be painted render throughout, with white uPVC sliding sash windows and, according to the proposed plans, with a "blue grey slated or tiled roof". There would be a small door canopy, for which material details have not been provided. The rear outrider would have two rooflights, one in each roof pitch. Again, material details are not provided.
2.3 The existing Manx stone wall would be retained but reduced in height. No parking would be provided. The garden to the rear would have an area of patio (measuring 1.5m by 4.2m) onto which French doors would open, while a 1.5m-length of timber fence would be erected to the north of this. The remainder would seemingly be left to grass.
2.4 As originally submitted, the design was fairly similar to the scheme described above, but the specific differences are set out now for clarity. Originally, the dwelling had one chimney (to the right-hand elevation) and no porch; it was set further into the site and offered a single parking space beyond the frontage, which would be delineated by a dwarf wall. It was also slightly larger (at 75sqm) and some 1.1m taller to the ridge (7.1m versus the current 6.0m), offering two full storeys as opposed to the arrangement now. To the rear, a large patio area would have encircled the single-storey outrigger. Overhanging eaves and a wider ground floor window were also proposed. Officers discussed concerns
with the design and how the dwelling would sit amongst the surrounding built environment; the now-submitted scheme came about as a result of those discussions.
2.5 The application was re-advertised with the amended plans, along with a parking survey, for the full three week period. It was during this period that Highway Services identified that part of the site fell within the ownership of the Department of Infrastructure. Given that the proposed removal of the bank would be considered development, and this was intrinsic to the proposal, it was considered that the appropriate course of action would be to refer the application to the Council of Ministers to be determined. The interested parties were made aware of this timeline and course of action, although the application was not re-advertised for a third time.
3.1 One previous planning application is considered of material relevance to the determination of the current application. 01/00088/B sought approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling. Although the application carried the "B" suffix, it was definitely for approval in principle, with the only detail being an indicative siting for the proposed dwelling; this was refused for the following three reasons:
The decision was issued under delegated authority and was not appealed against.
4.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being of predominantly residential use under the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005. It is also within the Laxey Conservation Area. There are two policies within the Area Plan Order that are of relevance to the current application. Policy L/RES/PR/1 states:
"Residential development will generally only be approved within the study area in those areas designated as proposed and existing residential. In particular, in the case of Agneash no further dwellings will be approved although, as will be the case in areas zoned as residential, alterations and extensions to existing property may be accepted if such proposals are sympathetic to the character and appearance of both the building to be altered and the surrounding area in general."
4.2 L/OSNC/PR/6 states: "With the exception of the felling of trees planted for commercial purposes, there will be a general presumption against the removal of trees within the study area including instances where this is proposed in order to facilitate development."
4.3 It is appropriate to consider General Policy 2, Environment Policies 35 & 42, Housing Policy 6 and Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. 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 spaces around them;
(c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
(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 unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways, and
(l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding."
4.4 Environment Policy 35 reads in full: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."
4.5 Environment Policy 42 reads in full: "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".
4.6 Housing Policy 6 reads in full: "Development of land which is zoned for residential development must be undertaken in accordance with the brief in the relevant area plan, or, in the absence of a brief, in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 6.2 of this Plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive".
Paragraph 6.2 of the Strategic Plan contains General Policy 2, the relevant extract of which has been provided above.
4.7 Transport Policy 7 reads in full: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards." For new residential dwellings, this standard is two spaces per unit irrespective of bedroom size.
5.1.1 Highway Services, in an email dated 16th April 2014, indicate that they do not oppose the application; they advise that "because the dwelling is for one bedroom, a relaxation in standard has been applied".
5.1.2 During the consultation on the amended plans, Highway Services, in an email dated 10th October 2014, commented as follows: "IOM Strategic Plan states that one off-street parking space be provided. Due to the available on street parking in the nearby parking [sic] this standard has been relaxed on this occasion. Do not oppose."
5.1.3 Following this, Highway Services, in an email date 16th October 2014, added further comments: "Do not oppose subject to the imposition of the following condition"; two suggested conditions were outlined:
1 - "Nothing must be planted, erected or allowed to remain with the splay that exceeds or may exceed one metre in height."
2 - "The applicant shall contact the Network Operations Section of the Department of Infrastructure prior to carrying out any works within the highway, including the installation of dropped kerbs. Telephone 686665."
5.2.1 The Senior Biodiversity Officer within the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture (DEFA) comments as follows: "There are records of dark bush crickets on this site, both along the front boundary and around the rear of the proposed development footprint. This is a species listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife Act (protection of a species and its places of shelter and protection), with only two recorded areas on the Isle of Man. Taking account of the situation, between two existing houses, and this being a garden, I recommend that if consent is otherwise forthcoming, then activities on site are planned so as to maximise the likelihood of retaining the species in the vicinity. This would involve the following.
"Cultivated areas of green gardens, scrub and sunny woodland glades are beneficial. This species does not fly and more than three quarters of its two year life are spent in the egg stage, so areas to be maintained as green garden should be protected during development in order that insects may be protected as either adults/nymphs (summer) or eggs (all year). Eggs are laid in the axils of leaves, in pithy stems, or in decaying wood or dead bark, in the shelter of bushes or other vegetation. These should be left in situ where possible or moved to an adjacent area if necessary, rather than cleared/destroyed in the usual manner."
5.3.1 Laxey Village Commissioners, object to the application on three grounds in a letter received by the Department on 17th April 2014. These grounds are copied verbatim below:
5.3.2 During the consultation on the amended plans, the Commissioners, in a letter dated as 15th October 2014, recommend approval of the application.
5.4.1 The owner/occupier of Beach Cottage, Back Shore Road, Laxey, which is adjacent the site, object to the application on a number of grounds in a letter date-stamped as having been received by the Department on 10th April 2014. Their representation can be summarised as concern with: further restriction of light to kitchen/utility room/dining area, two windows of which are frosted by covenant; proposed dwelling would be detrimental to the foundations of their dwelling; loss of outlook from rear windows, with the rear entrance very close to a bedroom and bathroom window; proximity of rooflights to rear bedroom and bathroom windows; the new dwelling would be higher than those in the terrace and this may change the aspect of the "cottage style" aspect of the dwellings here; ownership issues regarding access, maintenance and gas supply; the agent incorrectly states that Beach Cottage was once 2 properties; the proposed parking space to the front of the cottage could result in the walls being knocked by cars; removal of the old timber structure would be beneficial to the streetsceene while the proposed dwelling would not. They also identify three plots of land that could be developed as new dwellings because of the precedent that would be set by an approval here.
5.4.2 On 23rd April 2014, the owner/occupier of Beach Cottage added supplementary comments to their initial objection. These additional comments can be summarised as concern with: the proposed removal of a wall attached to their house could damage the stability of the house; having the wall of their house as the boundary for parking could lead to vehicles bumping the house, undermining the stability of the property; the close proximity of the property will restrict access to maintain their old cottage.
5.4.3 During the consultation on the amended plans, the owner/occupier of Beach Cottage in a letter dated 20th October 2014 offered further objections. Their representation can be summarised as concern with: the application indicated that a previous application was accepted by LVC [Laxey Village Commissioners] and DOT however this was refused; they have not accessed the land since the application was submitted by are convinced it would restrict light in the kitchen and dining area; proposed trees planted for privacy could further restrict this light if allowed to grow unencumbered, much like the existing trees on the site have and do; trees' roots have previously damaged an outhouse so badly it needed to be taken down and the submitted plans do not clearly show the size and spread of the existing trees; the new dwelling could cause significant damage to the structure / foundations of their property; the main rear access path is exceedingly close to the west-facing bedroom window and this could create noise; there have been no discussions regarding how to make the wall good following the carrying out of the proposed changes to that front wall; they query the location of the boundary of the front of the property as being within the public highway; the parking survey photos are not of the dates and times stated in the parking survey, and the removal of the bank would not be sufficient to provide parking for two cars and allow emergency vehicle access; concern that the application site notice has not been displayed prominently.
5.5.1 The owner/occupier of Ivy Cottage, Back Shore Road, Laxey, which is attached to Cliff Cottage (which is adjacent the application site), object to the application on a number of grounds in a letter date-stamped as having been received by the Department on 11th April 2014. In the first instance they indicate that their property is incorrectly marked as "Fuschia Cottage" on the proposed Site Plan. Their representation can be summarised as concern with: the proposed dwelling is not on a designated building plot but is within a Conservation Area of heritage cottages; the development would ruin the characteristics of the area of picturesque cottages; a full structural engineer's report should be provided given previous structural issues on the bank at the rear of the site; new development here would be unsympathetic to the surrounding area, howsoever designed, given that Back Shore Road is a lane within a Conservation Area; the proposed development could set a precedent in the area; there is inadequate parking provision and this will exacerbate what they already believe to be a problem. They also identify previous refusals on the site and nearby from 2001 and 2002 respectively and suggest that the position has not altered since that time.
5.5.2 During the consultation on the amended plans, the owner/occupier of Ivy Cottage in a letter date-stamped as having been received by the Department on 20th October 2014 offered further objections. Their representation can be summarised as concerns with: parking availability; highway safety with respect to children using the lane; ambulances have on three occasions in the past 4 years been unable to park further down the lane than at its top end; the proposed spaces would restrict access to their property, which sits directly on the highway.
5.6.1 The owner/occupier of Mariners House, Back Shore Road, Laxey, which is roughly 50m southwest of the site taking a walking route, object to the application on a number of grounds in a letter date-stamped as having been received by the Department on 14th April 2014. Their representation can be summarised as concern with: shoe-horning a new house into a small plot will not improve the area; the new house would be taller than and set back from the existing cottages; the removal of an existing stone wall to create parking will reduce the natural "village style" feel of the area; a likely increase in parking would be aesthetically detrimental to the area; a new building would reduce the value of existing houses; should planning be granted, this would open the floodgates to have any spare piece of land being built on in this Conservation Area; planning was previously refused on the said plot and the objector urges the Department to continue with that stance.
5.7.1 The owner/occupier of Cliff Cottage, Back Shore Road, Laxey, which is adjacent to the site, make no comment on the merits of the planning application in a letter date-stamped as having been received by the Department on 29th April 2014. They instead comment on incorrect information that they believe is being disseminated and write to clarify ownership and other similar matters. They wish to make clear that the application site is not owned by Cliff Cottage and that, other than physical proximity, the application has no connection with them; the previous planning application was made by the current applicant and not the current owners of Cliff Cottage; (referring to comments made by the Commissioners) any off-street parking would require the use of a crane and in any case the application site is not owned by Cliff Cottage.
5.8.1 The Manx Utilities Authority, in correspondence received by the Department on 15th April 2014, requests the applicant contact them to discuss the electricity supply for this application.
6.1 As noted in paragraph 1.1 of this report, the site has been the subject of some confusion and speculation with regards ownership. The current owners of Cliff Cottage have gone to some trouble to clarify this situation. Cliff Cottage, when owned by the applicant, was in the same ownership as the application site. However, on the sale of Cliff Cottage the land the subject of the application site remained in ownership and control of the applicant while Cliff Cottage and its garden transferred to a new owner - Mrs Barrett. These facts have been kindly provided on behalf of the current owner of Cliff Cottage, who has submitted the deeds relating to Cliff Cottage as evidence. In any event, such matters relate to civil law and are not material planning considerations so, while they are useful to be aware of, they have no bearing on the assessment of the merits of this planning application.
6.2 In the first instance, it is fairly clear from the Local Plan that the principle of residential development here is acceptable. Policy L/RES/PR/1 of the Local Plan relates more to the principle of residential development rather than the detail, and it is not considered that the current application should necessarily be considered contrary to that policy, which reads quite positively in respect of new residential development where it is proposed on land that is zoned as "predominantly residential", which the application site is. The key matters for assessment, then, rest on whether or not the details of the proposed residential dwelling are acceptable and can meet the important tests for new dwellings set out in General Policy 2, Environment Policy 35 and Transport Policy 7.
6.3 Reflecting on the previous refusal to grant approval in principle for residential development at this location in 2001, there are some differences to note. The perhaps primary difference is the adoptions of the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order in 2005 and the Strategic Plan in 2007. Both of these change the policy landscape from that which prevailed in 2001 and it would be inappropriate to ignore this fact. (Equally, it cannot be ignored that the reasons for refusal issued to that 2001 application referred to material planning considerations without tying those to specific policies of the time.) As such, those reasons for refusal are still the best starting point for the assessment. Also different are the proposed locations for the new dwelling; this will be reflected upon in more detail later.
6.4 Turning initially to the second reason for refusal, which referred to parking issues, Highway Services did not object to the original submission on grounds of the dwelling's one-bedroom size and its location proximate to a number of public parking spaces. They reiterated this position on consideration of the amended plans. (Although they then requested a condition in respect of ensuring the visibility splay be kept free of visual clutter, the application proposes no parking space or highway and as such the purpose of such a condition is unclear and should not be applied.)
6.5 It cannot be ignored that the proposed removal of the bank adjacent the existing wall would enable at least one car to park here, and nor that cars are already free to park here in what is an unrestricted parking area, albeit that the lane's width perhaps prevents this. While self-evident that zero parking provision would fail to meet the Strategic Plan requirements, it is considered that to demand this requirement could have a detrimental effect on the design and situation of the proposed dwelling relative to its surroundings (this is discussed in more detail later). Indeed, it is considered that the removal of the bank, which measures over 12m in length and between 0.7m and 1.8m in width, could provide two on-street parking spaces where currently there are none. This could be judged a positive from a public amenity point of view, although it must be balanced against other material considerations. Also noted is that there is plentiful parking nearby, which is not disc-limited.
6.6 The first reason for refusal also refers to additional traffic as a significant concern. This is judged to be something of a makeweight issue - at least by contemporary standards - and it is not considered that the comings and goings of vehicles relating to a one-bedroomed dwellinghouse would cause inconvenience or unneighbourliness to a degree sufficient enough to warrant refusal of the application as a whole. For similar reasons, the concerns raised by objectors in respect of pedestrian safety are afforded limited weight since the low level of traffic generation likely to arise from the proposal, along with the necessarily low traffic speed that Back Shore Road demands, are such that any impact is unlikely to be unduly harmful in respect of highways safety.
6.7 The first reason for refusal to the 2001 application is, however and as a whole, perhaps more substantive than the second reason. The proposed dwelling footprint was shown in 2001, and this placed the dwelling some way behind the dwelling line of Back Shore Road - so far, in fact, that its frontage would ~~obscurely~~ overlook the rear elevations of both Beach Cottage and Cliff Cottage. On this occasion, however, the dwelling is far further forward and with its two-storey element ending parallel with the rear elevation of Beach Cottage. In the original submission, the proposed two-storey element ended parallel with the rear elevation of Beach Cottage, so the amended situation is a definite improvement from the point of view of overlooking and overbearing issues. The rear elevation of Beach Cottage, meanwhile, is angled away from this building line.
6.8 A reflection of the nature of the site as 'backland' is therefore appropriate. Appendix 1 to the Strategic Plan defines 'backland development' as follows: "Development on land at the back of existing properties, usually on what were the back gardens, and often without a separate road frontage". The proposed dwelling would certainly be on an existing back garden - that of Cliff Cottage, but that might logically be viewed by the general public as being that of Beach Cottage - although it would retain its own separate frontage. On the basis that the proposed dwelling would not be directly behind existing development - albeit that it would sit rearward from it at least to some extent - it is judged that to consider the proposal as being backland development would be overly-precautious. Not all dwellings sit in straight lines, and a good many are at angles to one another, and still more have rear extensions that project further back than neighbouring dwellings.
6.9 Since it is not considered, on balance, that the development should not be considered as "backland", it is further considered that it cannot be considered as inappropriate backland development.
6.10 It is therefore considered that the previous reasons for refusal do not entirely apply to the current application (albeit that the issue of "unneighbourliness" will be considered in greater detail when the Report reflects on the specifics of the proposal). On this occasion, different to 2001, the application is in full detail and this issue can now be properly considered.
6.11 In considering the detail, and given that the issue of parking and highway safety has already been covered above, the key issues that remain are: (i) whether the design is appropriate; (ii) whether the dwelling would sit comfortably within the streets cene; (iii) whether adequate amenity space would be provided to residents of the new dwelling, and (iv) whether the impact on neighbouring properties would be of an acceptable level.
6.12 The dwelling is of a somewhat innovative design; at the front, it presents some traditional features, with its window and door proportions being successful. Retention of the Manx stone wall - albeit in foreshortened form - to the front is also welcome. Twin, bookended chimneys and an appropriate fenestration proportion along with no overhanging eaves complete the relatively traditional feel of the principal elevation. To the rear, the single-storey outrider is of a proportionally-large size but reflects the intention of the architect to provide satisfactory amount of living space for a one-bedroom dwelling. This outrider could not be said to be traditional but, in design terms, is also not especially objectionable from a design point of view when reflecting on the massing of the dwelling overall. The fact that it could only be seen from an angle given its positioning to the rear of a dwelling and within a relatively narrow site further reduces the concern in this respect.
6.13 The intention to use a number of traditional materials and features - painted render; slate tiles; sliding sash windows; chimney stacks - is further welcomed. No objection is therefore raised in respect of the proposed design. However, a condition should be attached to any approval requiring that sections of the windows be provided to and approved by the Department to ensure accurate detailing and a sufficiently deep reveal.
6.14 Back Shore Road is, as noted at the outset, a relatively varied street with different forms, masses and styles of residential development evident. This variability is perhaps another reason the proposed design is not in itself objectionable. The area is also in many ways characterised by the lack of large dwellings in significant grounds; indeed, the dwellings here are not large and their grounds similarly so: this is part of the quaint charm of the Back Shore Road area.
6.15 The dwelling as originally proposed would not have fitted neatly within that streetscene. Its ridgeline was noticeably higher than the two dwellings that would sit either side of it, and the site's relatively prominent location - especially when viewed from the shore-side - would have exacerbated the visual impact of this higher ridgeline. This ridgeline would have been - or would certainly have given the impression of being - the highest in the street. Although it is self-evident that one dwelling has to be the highest in any street, it is not considered that this small site represents the most appropriate opportunity for this approach. Indeed, Back Shore Road slopes down away from the shore and, when viewed from the shore, any additional height over that of its neighbours would be brought into especially sharp relief. These concerns were raised by neighbours during the consultation process.
6.16 It is therefore noted and welcomed that the amended scheme's ridgeline would sit more or less in line with those of the adjacent dwellings. The concerns raised in respect of the originally-submitted scheme no longer apply: the reduction in the dwelling's mass serves to give further credence to this conclusion as it would result in the dwelling sitting more comfortably within what is an undeniably tight site. With this in mind, and reflecting also on the design of the proposed dwelling, it is considered that the proposal would result in a preservation of the Conservation Area and would satisfy the key assessment points of Environment Policies 35 and 42, and also General Policy 2(b) and 2(c) of the Strategic Plan.
6.17 The dwelling would provide some $69\mathrm{sqm}$ of floorspace, plus a relatively generous rear garden and this is considered perfectly adequate. The open views afforded over the sea from the front elevation would also balance well against the limited outlook that would be provided to the rear, beyond which is a steeply-rising cliff. While the actual level of usability of the garden is perhaps slightly open to question given that steeply-rising cliff, the fact of its very existence is, psychologically, likely to provide levels of openness and outlook sufficient to prevent this being a substantive concern.
6.18 This is perhaps the most serious concern, and is noted as being a particular - and understandable - concern for the residents of the adjacent Beach Cottage. With the proposed dwelling located so close to other adjacent dwellings, ensuring the protection of neighbouring residential amenity a difficult matter, and the architect has gone to some effort to attempt to achieve this - most notably through the single- rather than double-storey rear outrigger. The main impacts in this regard will be felt
by the residents of Beach Cottage and Cliff Cottage; given the nature of the site, it is worthwhile assessing the impact from each dwelling.
6.19 It is noted that the owners of Cliff Cottage have commented on the ownership issues relating to the proposal but not to the proposal itself. The two-storey element of the proposed dwelling sits back of both the front and rear building line of Cliff Cottage and any overlooking between the front elevation of the new dwelling and the side windows of Cliff Cottage would be minimal. It is not known what rooms the windows in the side elevation to Cliff Cottage serve but, in any case, the obliqueness of the view would, it is judged, ensure that any overbearing impacts or loss of privacy would be kept within acceptable limits, albeit that there would likely be some such impact. The proposed dwelling would, it is judged, be unlikely to unduly affect the private amenity enjoyed by Cliff Cottage.
6.20 The owners of Beach Cottage, meanwhile, have objected to the application on grounds primarily of loss of light and loss of privacy. To these, the nature and level of the overbearing impact and also the effect on outlook can be added as matters for consideration. It is worth reflecting on the circumstances of Beach Cottage on its two storeys and also from its side and rear elevation given that from each of these vantage points the proposal's impact will be quite different given that it is turned at an angle from the proposed dwelling, with the side and rear elevations overlooking to a greater or lesser extent the application site.
6.21 It is first worth noting that the architect's keeping of the rear of the dwelling to a single storey has reduced the impacts in these respects to a different - and probably more acceptable - level than had the dwelling been two storeys in height throughout. Such an effort is welcomed. Indeed, the two-storey element as now proposed sits parallel to the northern corner of Beach Cottage, whereas as originally submitted this element projected some 4.1m rearwards of this corner.
6.22 The most serious impact from the proposed dwelling would be felt at the ground floor of Beach Cottage. There are three windows in the ground floor, one in the side elevation and the remaining two to the rear, all of which serve the ground floor kitchen/diner of Beach Cottage. It is understood (both from the applicant and the owner of Beach Cottage) that the two rear windows are partially frosted and must remain so under covenant. While there would be something of a "hemmed in" feeling resulting from the rear outrigger's position, it is considered that its single storey nature - and it is only this that would be noticeable from within the kitchen/diner when viewing out from the rear - coupled with the pitched roof angled away from Beach Cottage, are together sufficient to conclude that, on balance, any such impact would be sufficiently limited so as to not be unduly harmful.
6.23 It was noted from the site visit that the kitchen/diner is already a dark room given the frosted windows and cliff rising away to the rear. It cannot be ignored that these two rear windows are frosted, and must legally remain so, and that light ingress and the outlook enjoyed are consequently limited such that any impact from new built environment to the rear will also, consequently be limited. The proposed new dwelling would not impact on direct sunlight but would instead have an impact on ambient sunlight. However, it is not judged that the reduction in ambient light is likely to be so significant. This is especially so given that the room is already dark and cannot benefit from high levels of direct or indirect sunlight or a good outlook such as to be unduly harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of Beach Cottage.
6.24 The two-storey element of the dwelling could not be readily seen except from the side elevation, which in any case is north-facing and does not currently benefit from any significant levels of natural light in any case. While there would be a reduction in indirect light reaching the kitchen/diner via the side elevation window, it must be noted that the room is already dark. In essence, the proposed extension would make an already bad situation slightly worse, but not worse to an unduly harmful degree. This, too, is a balanced judgement.
6.25 In terms of outlook, the existing outlook afforded to this window is perhaps surprisingly good given its fairly small size and the circumstances of the built environment in the area. Views are available in the direction of the upper Laxey hillside some miles away. However, it cannot be ignored that it is a little unusual to find a window overlooking third party land - over which the occupiers of Beach Cottage have no control - in this fashion, and it also cannot be ignored that under Permitted Development rights the owners of that land could erect fencing or garaging that would also and similarly obstruct this view and affect this outlook. As such, while the proposed dwelling would essentially remove this view, it is possible that this could occur in any case (and without the submission of a planning application) and at any time. Therefore, while the situation is unfortunate and might in other circumstances be
objectionable, it is not considered that an objection on this point could be sustained for the reasons outlined.
6.26 Having taken all the above into account, it is concluded that the proposed dwelling would have an effect on the private amenity of the occupiers of Beach Cottage at the ground floor in terms of both loss of outlook and reduced levels of light. However, it is also concluded that this effect would not be so harmful as to warrant the application's refusal.
6.27 From the second floor, a more favourable conclusion is reached in respect of overbearing issues. One of the windows to the second floor serves a bathroom and is frosted as a result. While this could be changed to clear glazing (it is not frosted by covenant), this is a matter for the owner of Beach Cottage. It is also the window furthest from the proposed dwelling. The other window serves a second bedroom and this would look out over the proposed single-storey outrigger, the roof pitch of which would sit at roughly the same height as the base of this window in Beach Cottage. However, it is not judged that this view in and of itself would be harmful to the private amenity of the occupants of Beach Cottage; this position is explained below.
6.28 The outrigger has no windows, and its rooflights would be in the pitch facing away from Beach Cottage. There would therefore be no concern with respect to privacy. Perhaps the most serious concern therefore relates to the overbearing impact of the proposal, and it cannot be ignored that there would be such an impact even at the second floor. The rear bedroom does not, it is accepted, have another window from which a view can be obtained. However, the dwellings would be angled relative to one another and, although the aforementioned window opens in such a way that the side elevation of the rear outrigger would be in fairly direct view, just the presence of this part of the dwelling within that field of vision is not judged to be a sufficient reason to object to the application. Were the outrigger to be more of a dominating feature within that view (if, say, it were higher, longer, or both), then it is possible that a different conclusion would be reached.
6.29 However, it is a single-storey outrigger, which would give the impression of being an extension (given that the rest of the house would not be visible from this window), and there would be no serious reduction in the longer views already available from this window. It also cannot be ignored that the longer views are fairly lateral in that they are restricted by the cliff rising to the rear; views over the roof pitch of the proposed outrigger would still be possible. There is therefore not considered to be a fundamental issue in respect of the effect of the proposal on the outlook from this bedroom.
6.30 It is therefore concluded that, on balance, the proposal would not have an unduly overbearing impact on the occupiers of Beach Cottage.
6.31 This conclusion is reached with the case officer having visited the site and having been inside Beach Cottage to reflect on the views currently available to each of the affected windows, and also the level of light within the property at the moment. There would, it has been seen, be an overbearing impact from the proposed outrigger. However, and on balance, it has been concluded that the impact would either not make an existing situation worse (in respect of light levels in Beach Cottage) or reduce the level of outlook enjoyed by the occupants of Beach View to a degree that could be considered unacceptably harmful.
6.32 Concern has been raised in respect of disturbance to foundations of existing properties; this is a matter for Building Regulations and not a material Planning consideration. Inconsiderate parking and manoeuvring of vehicles are also not material Planning considerations, and nor are matters related to the financial value of property.
6.33 The matter of structural security of the bank has been raised. While it is in the applicant's interest to address this issue prior to undertaking developmental works, it only becomes a de facto Planning consideration once any works required to shore up the bank - should any indeed be required - results in what would constitute "development". While it would have been preferable to understand the potential implications of the proposal having had sight of an engineer's report, the proposed dwelling is some way removed from the cliff itself and it is therefore considered unlikely that any works to the bank would be of a level significant enough to warrant raising an objection. It is, primarily, a matter for Building Control to address.
6.34 Concern has also been raised in respect of the planting of trees and how these could be allowed to grow and further restrict light entering Beach Cottage. The planting of trees can be done without planning approval and it is therefore not appropriate to comment on this issue.
6.35 In respect of the proposed dwelling preventing maintenance to the side of Beach Cottage, it is considered that the distance between the proposed and existing dwelling of 1 metre would be sufficient.
6.36 Some representations have raised the possibility of the proposal being viewed as a precedent to other, similar applications being submitted. While such applications are beyond the scope of this current application, it must be remembered that it is a fundamental Planning principle that all applications are treated on their own merits.
6.37 Finally, the comments from the Senior Biodiversity Officer within the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture are noted and welcomed from a wildlife point of view. Although there is no way to word a reasonable condition to fully cover the concerns raised, a condition has previously been attached on sites such as this. Previously, such a condition has required that, prior to the commencement of development, a survey of the application site be undertaken by appropriately qualified persons to identify the presence of any dark bush crickets. The survey together with its findings and details of any required mitigation measures would need to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department prior to the commencement of development.
7.1 The application has been complicated to assess. The key issues - parking and highways safety; residential amenity; the proposed dwelling design - have been taken in turn and assessed as to the likely level of harm that would arise if approval were forthcoming and the dwelling built.
7.2 While the issue of design has been the most clear-cut, the issues of parking and amenity have been more complex to conclude upon. This has been reflected in a balanced report, but the conclusion that has been reached is that the level of harm that would arise would not be so significant as to warrant the application's refusal. As such, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.
8.1 In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits.
8.2 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and Article 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
8.3 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and Article 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:
9.1 If the Inspector is minded to recommend the application's approval, the conditions and advisory note at the base of this report are considered appropriate to attach to the approval notice.
9.2 If the Inspector is minded to recommend the application's approval, reference should also be made to the approved plans.
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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
No works shall take place until details of the following items, to include plans, elevations and sections at a scale of 1:10 or 1:20 have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department:
a) Doors, and b) Windows
Reason: in the interest of the character and appearance of the application site and Conservation Area as a whole.
Prior to the commencement of development, a survey of the application site to identify the presence of any dark bush crickets must be undertaken by appropriately qualified persons. It is recommended that such survey be undertaken in August or September. The survey together with its findings and details of any required mitigation measures must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department prior to the commencement of development.
Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for any dark bush crickets existing on the site.
Any damage to the wall that fronts the site and is adjacent the Back Shore Road highway shall be made good using materials to match the existing and the wall shall be retained as per approved plan 900-03/B.
Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.
The applicant is recommended to contact the Network Operations Section of the Department of Infrastructure prior to carrying out any works within the highway, including the installation of dropped kerbs, on telephone number 686665.
Plans on which recommendations have been based and upon which any approval should rely.
900-01/B, 900-02/B, 900-03/B, 900-05/A and 13TS022-01, all date-stamped as having been received 28th October 2014.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
