Loading document...
The Planning Committee visited the site on 25th April, 2015 where they were able to see the position of the dwelling staked out on the site.
1.1 The site is a field, reference 434022 which lies to the rear of a number of dwellings: 4, 5 and 6, Chapel Court, which lie to the south and Derbyhaven House, Traa-dy-Liooar, Cass-na-Hawin - Ballamoar House and Beachway which lie to the east and front onto the public highway and look out onto Derbyhaven Bay. The applicant also owns Derbyhaven House.
1.2 The site has to its rear the boundary with Isle of Man Airport. To the north is the curtilage of a large dwelling, Midway. This owner has recently submitted a planning application for an additional dwelling in their grounds, intended for a housekeeper but for all intents and purposes a separate dwelling as it shares no amenities or amenity space with Midway and has its own access (PA 15/00337/B).
2.1 Planning approval was granted for the erection of a dwelling under PA 12/00087/B. Now proposed is the erection of a dwelling which is smaller (500 sq m compared with 695 sq m), on a similar footprint and generally the same height. The finishes are the same as are the provisions for drainage and access.
2.2 The differences between the two schemes are:
i. the dwelling is 3.3m further east ii. the access lane is 2m wider and there is a parking area closer to the properties to the east iii. tree planting is to be introduced between the proposed dwelling and the properties to the east
iv. excluding the overhang of the proposed roof, the new dwelling will be 5.5m shorter: including the overhang it is 2m shorter on the eastern elevation
v. excluding the overhang of the proposed roof, the new dwelling will be around 2.5m longer (although there are wider parts of the building slightly further back than the gable which would reduce this to no difference), including the overhang 6m longer on the northern elevation (3.5m including the wider part of the previously approved building)
vi. the height of the building is exactly the same but the eaves level is 1.1m higher resulting in higher level windows (1.5m higher than approved previously)
vii. the design has changed to become more angular, with striking overhanging eaves features but with generally smaller expanses of window
viii. a tennis court is proposed at the southern end of the site, abutting the rear of 4, 5 and 6, Chapel Court. The applicant has indicated that following objections from neighbours in Chapel Court, he is withdrawing this element of the application from consideration.
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as Existing Residential. The Plan provides further information about the Derbyhaven area at Appendix 4:
3.2 Whilst there may be some debate about the acceptability of the principle of an additional dwelling here, bearing in mind the provisions of Appendix 4 and the fact that planning approval has been granted for a dwelling on this site (see below) as such the principle of the erection of a dwelling here is no longer considered to be an issue.
3.3 The general standards of development set out in General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan are applicable in this case:
"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:
a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them;
c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; 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 adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j) can be provided with all necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
4.1 Of material relevance is a decision in 2012 which approved the erection of a dwelling on this site - PA 12/00087/B. This application was approved by the Planning Committee and the approval appealed by the owner of Midway House on the grounds that the principle of development here was wrong as the site is not sustainable and the proposed dwelling would be higher than the Chapel Court houses and bigger than most other properties in the vicinity and be visually intrusive to those visiting Derbyhaven. The impact on the amenities of those in Midway House and Ballamoar would be adversely affected, even given that the separation distances would exceed the normal rule of thumb of 20m. The inspector found in September, 2012 that as the site is within an area designated as Residential and within the settlement boundary (as it still is) there was a presumption in favour of development here and the principle was acceptable. She considered that the development would be a rounding off or filling in of the settlement and would be generally secluded from public views. What was proposed would not be the highest or the only non-traditional dwelling. She concluded that the distance from the neighbouring properties would enable it not to be unacceptably dominant and the spacious setting of Midway House would allow the development to be accommodated without significantly affecting the amenities of that property. One of the conditions of approval was that all windows above ground floor level in the northern elevation of the property must be fitted with obscure glazing and permanently retained as such. Also required was a landscaping scheme.
4.2 There are other applications which have been considered on this site, none of which is considered relevant given the most recent decision on the site and what is currently proposed.
5.1 The owner of 5, Chapel Court which backs onto the development site, alongside the proposed tennis court, explains that she is not allowed though a restrictive covenant on her property, to object to the application. Notwithstanding this she raises concerns about the impact of the tennis court and potential lighting thereof and the drainage of this feature which is not explained in the application. She considers that the applicant should take into account to a greater extent the amenities and effect of the development on those in neighbouring property (23.02.15).
5.2 The owner of Midway House which lies to the north of the application site, consider that what is proposed is "a very large house which is not in keeping with the established properties of this unique seaside village." They are concerned with the proximity of the proposed dwelling to their boundary (8.5m away) and it should be noted that the piece of land between their property and the application site is also designated for development so this should be taken into account in any decision on this site. They consider that the noise from the building works and additional traffic will impact upon their quality of life and there is potential overlooking from the proposed windows to bedrooms 3, 4 and 5 which could look into their bedroom windows, particularly as the dwelling is around three feet higher than what
would normally be considered ground level. They would expect the previously imposed condition regarding obscured glazing in any windows overlooking their property, to be included in any approval of the current proposal (20.02.15).
5.3 The owner of Midway House submits further comments on 26.03.15 following the submission of further plans. They remain concerned at the impact which this dwelling will have on their amenities and note that part of their land is a building plot with its own access which would be overshadowed by the proposal and which they feel contravenes General Policy 2k of the Strategic Plan. They have recently submitted an application for the development of this plot. They also consider that given the height of the proposed dwelling, the bedroom windows in the ground floor of the northern elevation should also be obscured.
5.4 The owner of 6, Chapel Court which backs onto the application site, alongside the proposed tennis court also explains that they have a restrictive covenant which prevents them from objecting to the application but nevertheless raise concerns about potential noise nuisance (they have experienced noise nuisance in the past when the applicant began excavating on site) and the impact of the proposed tennis court and rogue balls straying into their property as the applicant's son's footballs do on a regular basis. They recommend that the tennis court is moved further from the rear of their properties. They recommend that any planning approval granted restricts development to a shorter than usual time to limit the impact of construction traffic, noise and activity, on those in neighbouring property and seeks clarification of how the tennis court is to be drained as there is currently problems of water drainage in this part of the site (19.02.15).
5.5 The owner of Traa-dy-Liooar which lies directly east of the site, objects to the application on the basis that their property is a traditional Manx cottage which lies below the level of the site and the proposed development will look down upon their two bedrooms, lounge, dining room and kitchen. He also believes that the recent APS presumed against further houses in Derbyhaven (received on 04.03.15). This party submits a further letter dated 27.03 15 which confirms their objection and suggests that the APS "specifically excluded" the application site "in recognition of the special nature of the Derbyhaven and its environs". The tennis court will exacerbate the impact of the approved scheme. He too is concerned about drainage and the impact of the tennis court, any associated netting or fencing and floodlighting and considers that this should be moved elsewhere on the site.
5.6 The owner of 4, Chapel Court considers the tennis court to be obviously and significantly intrusive and notes that the Lawn Tennis Association requires a surrounding fence to be a minimum of 10 feet high (3m) and preferably 12 feet (3.6m). He also notes that hedging requires maintenance and as the site has recently become neglected and uncultivated despite objections to the relevant authorities and as such he believes that any planting will also be left to grown unhindered and unmanaged causing a detrimental impact on the properties in Chapel Court. He is concerned about the lack of information on drainage which could have an impact on the Chapel Court properties if water drains towards these properties as it does already. If the adjacent houses become more damaged through flooding they will expect damages to be paid accordingly. His preference would be to move the tennis court away from the fence line (24.02.15).
5.7 The owners of 4, 5 and 6, Chapel Court have submitted a joint letter which purports not to be an objection which is prevented by a covenant which they may challenge under the Human Rights Act (27.03.15). They are pleased to see the inclusion of information on drainage but consider the information imprecise and does not provide them with the confidence to believe that they will not be adversely affected by the water from the proposed tennis court. They note that the recently approved APS "outlaws construction of any sort" on the application site, including the tennis court. As there was concern in the previous application for the impact of the proposed dwelling on properties which were around
away, they feel that the tennis court, which is much closer, should also be considered. They are concerned that there will be no effective access to the tennis court and that the tennis court and associated enclosure will have an adverse impact on their outlook and light and are concerned about the prospect of flood lighting to enable the use of the court. They consider what has approval to be appropriate to the plot but what is proposed now is not and which they consider unnecessary and unneighbourly.
5.8 Manx Utilities Authority (Electricity) notes that there are existing electricity supplies on the site and request consultation with them (13.02.15). This is not a material planning consideration and should not be referred to in the planning decision notice.
5.9 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services indicate that they do not object to the application subject to the imposition of the following conditions:
The following conditions should be attached to an approval:
Reason: in the interest of highway safety
Reason: to ensure that the parking standards of the strategic plan are met.
5.10 Malew Parish Commissioners indicate that they do not object to the application (05.03.15).
6.1 There are a number of issues which have been raised by third parties and which should be considered in respect of the policies which are applicable to this development: these are:
6.2 As stated in paragraph 3.2, the principle of development of this plot is not considered unacceptable. In addition to the comments made by the inspector in respect of the earlier application, the opportunity was available within the Area Plan to exclude this site along with any other piece of land which was not currently developed, or to remove the residential designation of the whole of the settlement, thus preventing development within existing curtilages where there may otherwise be a presumption in favour of further dwellings. This was not done and the site remains part of the Residential designation. The principle is also supported by the owners of Midway House who are proposing a new dwelling alongside their property. Whilst it is referred to as a housekeeper's dwelling, it has its own curtilage, access and cannot be described as ancillary and is effectively a further dwelling within the residential designation area.
The height, mass and impact of the proposed dwelling on those in adjoining dwellings
6.3 The development will have an impact on the dwellings to the east which are the closest to the dwelling, as well as Midway House and 4, 5 and 6, Chapel Court. As the eaves level is higher than the previous scheme and there are first floor windows in this elevation then there may be an impression that the building is higher and with more opportunity for overlooking. Even though the building is sited so as to provide what is generally considered to be a minimum acceptable distance to prevent inter-visibility between existing and proposed windows which look directly towards each other across private land, this is not the same concern as the impact of potential domination and overbearing and there are no rules of thumb for separation distances for this element of assessment.
6.4 The previous scheme was clearly designed to have less of an impact than the current scheme whose striking design elements and angles are interesting and designed to be looked at. It is sometimes difficult to reconcile such a design approach, which is generally to be encouraged, in a location where there are constraints from existing property, particularly property which is smaller and/or lower than what is proposed. In this case, there will be higher windows than were proposed previously and ones which, due to the raising of the ridge level appear as first floor windows, perhaps making the dwelling appear taller than it actually is. Whilst it could be argued that at least one of the windows - the landing window will not be used on a regular basis, this does not lessen the perception of being overlooked, by those closest to the site, particularly Traa dy Liooar which is only two storeys high, the other properties in the row being at least a storey higher. This impact is exacerbated by the proposed dwelling being 3-4m closer then was the previous scheme.
6.5 It is considered that the design of the dwelling, particularly the presentation of a full two storey elevation the rear of the properties to the east will have an unacceptable impact on these properties in terms of being overbearing and creating the impression of being overlooked, contrary to GP2g of the Strategic Plan.
6.6 The impact on Midway House will be increased over and above that of the previous scheme, through the increase in the height of the eaves and the introduction of higher level windows. As the previous decision involved the requirement for the upper floor windows to be fitted with obscured glazing, there is clearly a perception that the higher level windows will have an impact and if applied to the current application, the majority of the large bedroom window, clearly designed to be a feature of the room, allowing view and light to that room, will be obscured. The mass of building closest to the boundary with Midway House will be similar to what has approval and will have less of the projection set back from the side than was shown previously. Given the distance to Midway House, it is not considered that this is such a difference to what has approval to warrant refusal of this application although it is clear that the new dwelling has not been designed with regard for the need to prevent an adverse impact on this property as there are higher level windows facing in this direction, windows which would very likely be required to be fitted with obscured glazing.
6.7 The owners of Midway House have suggested that the dwelling will have an adverse impact on the ability of them to legitimately develop their property and have submitted an application to demonstrate this effect. It is the case that as approved, the dwelling would have an impact on this potential property and it is not accepted that this will be significantly changed with the dwelling now proposed.
6.8 It is not considered, given the design of the proposed dwelling and the distance between the proposed dwelling and 4, 5 and 6, Chapel Court that these properties will be so affected by the proposed dwelling as to warrant the refusal of the application.
The impact of the proposed dwelling on the streetscene and general environment
6.9 The dwelling will be more striking and with more glass at the higher level than the approved scheme. However, given the comments of the inspector on the previous application,
it is considered that the dwelling now proposed would not have an adverse impact on the streetscene, particularly given the distance from which most of the public will view the building and the fact that it is set amongst other buildings of a variety of style, age, height and mass.
The impact of the proposed tennis court on the adjacent dwellings
6.10 The tennis court is position very close to the rear of 4, 5 and 6, Chapel Court. It is likely that the court will be fenced to prevent balls from escaping into the adjacent gardens although the height of the fence is not annotated on the plans. There is reference to hedging but no details and thus it cannot be known how high this could grow. Given the proximity to the rear of these properties, and the fact that their rear walls are only around 4m from the rear boundary, it is considered that the tennis court will have an adverse impact on the amenities of these properties, either by the planting and/or fencing required or the activity itself with the associated noise so close to others' rear gardens. The issue of drainage is a very real one for those so close having the prospect of an area of hard standing so close and with existing drainage issues. As such, it is considered that the proposed tennis court is an unacceptable element of the scheme and should not be permitted. The applicant is aware of these concerns and wishes the tennis court to be removed from consideration.
Implications of the drainage of the development and the tennis court.
6.11 Drainage is usually an issue left to the responsibility of the Building Regulations which will control whether the ground is suitable for particular types of drainage systems. It is also relevant that permission has already been granted for a dwelling on the site. It is therefore assumed that the site can be satisfactorily drained. It is recommended that the tennis court is not permitted and as such there should be no issue with the drainage of that part of the site, which would be part of the overall garden. See previous comments about the removal of the tennis court from the scheme.
7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
7.3 The owners of Midway House, Traa dy Liooar and 4, 5 and 6, Chapel Court are immediately alongside the site and as such should be considered interested persons for the purpose of the current application.
7.4 Manx Utilities Authority does not raise material planning issues and as such should not be afforded interested person status in this case.
If the application is approved, consideration should be given to the following conditions:
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.
C 2. All windows above ground floor level in the northern elevation should be fitted with obscured glazing to Pilkington Level 5 or equivalent and retained as such.
Reason: to protect the living conditions of the occupants of Midway House.
C 3. Prior to the commencement of any work the applicant must have approved by the Department a landscaping scheme which illustrates how the area which is shown as proposed tennis court on the proposed plans, is to be landscaped and used.
Reason: to protect the amenities of those in Chapel Court.
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT The Planning Committee approved the application at its meeting of 5th May, 2015 subject to the conditions set out in the report and those recommended by Highway and Traffic Division.
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1. 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.
C 2. All windows above ground floor level in the northern elevation should be fitted with obscured glazing to Pilkington Level 5 or equivalent and retained as such.
Reason: to protect the living conditions of the occupants of Midway House.
C 3. Prior to the commencement of any work the applicant must have approved by the Department a landscaping scheme which illustrates how the area which is shown as proposed tennis court on the proposed plans, is to be landscaped and used.
| Recommendation | |
|---|---|
| Recommended Decision: | Refused |
| Date of Recommendation: | 24.04.2015 |
Reason: to protect the amenities of those in Chapel Court.
C 4. Prior to construction of the approved dwelling the access shall be constructed in accordance with drawing no 13 1034 3 date stamped 06/02/2015 and retained thereafter.
Reason: in the interest of highway safety
C 5. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved the garage, parking and turning areas shall be available for the parking of vehicles associated with the dwelling hereby approved and remain free from obstruction and thereafter be available for the parking of vehicles associated with the dwelling.
Reason: to ensure that the parking standards of the Strategic Plan are met.
N 1. It should be noted that the proposed tennis court has been removed from consideration in the scheme following objections raised to this element of the development. It is considered that the inclusion of a tennis court and any associated landscaping and/or fencing so close to 4, 5 and 6, Chapel Court would be unneighbourly and would adversely affect the privacy, outlook and enjoyment of these properties.
This approval relates to drawings 01 and 3 received on 6th February, 2015 and 13 1034/1A and 13 1034/2A received on 27th February, 2015.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made: A Committee Meeting Date: 05.05.2015
Signed: [Handwritten signature] Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph).
Signatory to delete as appropriate ☐ YES ☑ NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
