Loading document...
Application No.: 21/00742/B Applicant: Mr G & Mrs C Daniel Proposal: Installation of a flue Site Address: 21 Springfield Rise Foxdale Isle Of Man IM4 3JX Enforcement/Planning Assistant: Ms Charlotte Gatt Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 18.08.2021 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions 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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposal is considered to comply with the relevant polices of the General Policy 2 and is therefore recommended for approval.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision hereby approved relates to drawings titled; Site Location Plan, Ground Floor Plan and Elevations received by the Department on 17.06.21 _______________________________________________________________
Additional Persons None _____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report SITE
1.1 The site represents the residential curtilage of 21 Springfield Rise, Foxdale, which is 2 storey semi-detached dwelling at the very north-east of the cul-de-sac.
3.2 Due to the zoning of the site and the proposed works the following policies of the Strategic Plan (2016) are relevant in the determination of the application:- - 3.3 General Policy 2 states: "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:
Paragraph 8.12.1 - "Extensions to Dwellings in built up areas or sites designated for residential use As a general policy, in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general."
3.4 The Department has published the Residential Design Guidance (July 2021) which provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property. This specifically refers to flues as follows:
"5.1.4 In recent years the Department has seen a number of planning application for flues serving wood burning stoves, and is broadly supportive of these. Consideration should be given to their placement, height, size, and finish, as the main issue is likely to be the visual appearance of them and whether they would fit with the existing property and the streetscene as a whole.
4.1 There are no previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application. REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 All representations can be read in full online.
5.2 Highway Services comments there is No Highways interest. (08.07.2021). - 5.3 Patrick Parish Commissioners have commented; "The Commissioners are opposed to the installation of a black flue. They believe that the colour should blend better with the colouring of the dwelling and those adjacent to avoid the appearance of an industrial chimney." (13.07.21)
6.1 The principal issue relates to the visual impact upon the street scene and upon the individual property and any impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties. - 6.2 With the property lying at the very end of the cul-de-sac, the flue would be apparent to the immediate neighbour, but would not be a feature which would have a significant visual impact on the wider streetscene given its size and given flue are not unusual features to residential properties. Given the house is in line with the neighbouring property which has no windows in the gable facing the application site, the proposal is not considered to impact on the visual amenities of the neighbouring property. - 6.3 The advice in the RDG suggests that flues can be disguised in a variety of ways and that their impact can be reduced by painting them the same colour as the wall to which they are attached. However, in this case the street scene has a general uniformity in which the roofs of all the properties are a dark grey slate, and all of the drainage features (guttering and downspouts) are of black colour. The black flue would not be out of place. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would be an appropriate form of development within the street scene and to the individual property. - 6.4 There has been a previous application which was approved initially but refused on appeal following an adverse recommendation from the inspector. This application, 18/01125/B at Close Cowley was refused for reasons relating to the appearance of the flue and the effect of its use in terms of smell and smoke nuisance, to the immediate neighbour. The inspector accepted that that flue would only be seen by those living around the site but still considered that an adverse visual impact experienced by them would breach GP2 and the RDG. He was also concerned about the emissions from the flue, regardless of the fact that it appeared to have been installed by a registered installer and that Environmental Health had visited the site and had not experienced any smoke or smell. This flue was installed almost on the boundary of both properties and approximately 1m from the rear elevation, extending around 1m higher than the eaves of the main part of the two storey house. What is proposed here differs from the Close Cowley proposal as the flue would be above the roofline on a detached property meaning any smoke would be likely blown away from neighbouring windows. - 6.5 Discussions with the Head of Building Control and Standards within the Department indicate that in his view, the issue at Close Cowley was not with the location and installation of the flue which would appear to accord with the guidelines in the Building Regulations, but with the operation and it is possible that incorrect fuel was being used. There are procedures for this which would normally involve the installer returning to check the installation. Whilst in the Close Cowley case, the EHI visited the site it is clear that on their visit there was no smoke or smell nuisance. It would appear from the discussions with Building Control that there are both standards for flues and measures which can be taken through Building Control and Environmental Protection which can address issues should they arise.
6.6 As such, in the absence of any evidence that this current proposed flue will result in harm to the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings, it is considered that the application is acceptable. - 6.7 For these reasons, the flue is considered to be in accordance with GP2 as it is and additional mitigation as referred to in the RDG is not necessary.
7.1 The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 and is recommend for approval. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management 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 : Permitted Date : 24.08.2021 Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER Stephen Butler Head of Development Management
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
