Plot 1 Approval Notice 08/00222/B

Isle of Man Town and Country Planning Act 1999

The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005

Penketh - Millar 23 West Quay Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 1DL

In pursuance of powers granted under the above Act and Order the Department of Local Government and the Environment does hereby APPROVE the following application made on behalf of:

Name: Mr J F Keenan Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling with integral garage (comprising an amendment to the development refused under 07/01868/B) at: Plot 1 Field 224254 Station Road Ballaugh Isle Of Man

which was considered on 30th April 2008, subject to compliance with the conditions specified below.

Date of Issue: 2nd May 2008

Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas

Schedule Of Conditions:

1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.

1. This approval relates to the erection of a detached dwelling with integral garage as shown by the plans and information 06/0040/3, 06/0040/4, 06/0040/9, 06/0040/8, Additional Information and Photographs x 4 submitted and date stamped 5th February 2008.

1. The proposed dwelling must be connected to the foul sewer which was approved under planning application 06/1898 in a manner acceptable to the Department of Transport Drainage Division. All drainage works must conform to the requirements of the Department of Transport’s "Manx Sewers for Adoption" and all necessary inspections/surveys (including CCTV are to be carried out at the developer’s expense.

In accordance with the Sewerage Act 1999, a communication fee will be payable to the Department of Transport in respect of this property being connected (directly or indirectly) to the public drainage system.

Note: Under section 4(3) of the Sewerage Act 1999 the applicant must give 21 days notice, in writing, to the Drainage Division, prior to making any communication to the public sewer. The applicant is therefore advised to contact the Development control section of the Division to discuss this matter.

1. There must be No discharge of surface water (directly or indirectly) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s) so as to comply with the requirements of the Department of Transport Drainage Division and the Sewerage Act 1999.

It is noted that the surface water from the property is to be discharged via a soakaway. The use of soakaways are subject to Building Control approval and if this approval is not granted, the Drainage Division would not give permission for the discharge of surface water into the existing foul system and an alternative means of disposal would have to be sought.

1. No development may commence until there has been approved by the Planning Authority a scheme of landscaping which includes indications of all existing trees and hedges within the site and details of new planting to reinforce the existing screening along the south east boundary of the site.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwellings, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

NOTE For single connections to a water main (i.e. a single dwelling) the applicant should contact Isle of man Water Authority Customer Services, tel. 69 59 49

NOTE The Chief Fire Officer recommends the installation of mains wired interconnected domestic smoke detection.

NOTE Contact the Manx Electricity Authority Planning Department (Tel. 687781), to discuss the electricity supply for this application.

This decision was made by the Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority delegated to her under Article 3(13) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005.

---

Guidance Note

This permission refers only to that required under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005.

Ballaugh Parish Commissioners

1. The Parish Commissioners have stated that they have no objection to the proposal.

Assessment and Conclusions

1. The main issue raised by these appeals is the effect of the proposed development on residential amenity, with particular reference to the privacy and outlook of the properties south of the site at Thie McPhail and No 2 Faaie Craine.

1. There was considerable discussion at the inquiry about site dimensions and the position of the boundary between the appeal site and the properties to the south. The differences between the parties appeared to arise mainly because there are several features along and near the boundary including the hedge-line, a bund, a wall, and a post and wire fence. Different dimensions could be quoted depending on which feature was regarded as defining the boundary.

1. In considering privacy, an important dimension in this case is the window-to-window distance between the rear elevations of the existing and proposed dwellings. The precise position of the common boundary, within a metre or so, is not crucial. I established that the minimum distance between the rear elevations of the dwellings would be about 24 metres. The distance between the first floor rear elevation of the proposed house and the rearmost part of No 2 Faaie Craine would be about 25 metres. The lesser 24 metre dimension would be from the ground floor projection in the proposed house.

1. As was pointed out on behalf of the planning authority, a distance of about 20 metres is generally recognised as providing adequate privacy between two storey dwellings. That dimension is normally about a minimum and a greater dimension may often be required. In my judgment a greater dimension is appropriate here, taking into account that a two storey house would face towards bungalows and that the proposed development would be imposed on existing occupiers, rather than being designed as part of an overall development as would normally happen, for example, where a new residential area is being planned from scratch.

1. Even so, the distance between proposed and existing dwellings would be well above the normal minimum. It would be sufficient to maintain reasonable privacy between the dwellings. The depth of the gardens would also be sufficient to prevent undue overlooking or loss of privacy in the gardens. In making this assessment I have taken account of the presence of intervening vegetation, which would provide a partial screen although it is mostly deciduous.

1. The proposed house would be much larger than the dwellings to the south. However, there is nothing seriously objectionable about the design of the house. In my view the elevations would have a rather fussy, cluttered appearance but that is largely a matter of taste. The main roof height would be a little lower than a normal full two-storey house. In summary, I judge that the design and size of the house would not be so out of character or out of scale with the general area as to justify refusing approval.

1. Under General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, development which accords with the land use zoning for an area will normally be permitted, provided that (among other things) the development does not adversely affect the amenity of local residents or the

character of the locality. For the reasons explained above the proposal would comply with this policy.

1. The access to the proposed house would apparently involve the use of a small part of the existing private road next to its junction with Station Road. Planning approval has evidently already been granted for the access road which would serve the appeal site (and Plots 2 and 3). The matter of visibility at the Station Road junction and related safety issues must have been considered before that approval was granted. Whether there would be a right of way over the private road is a private legal matter between the developer and the owner of the road and is not a planning consideration - a grant of planning approval does not necessarily mean that the development could be carried out, if there were no right of access.

1. The appellants' concern about precedent is a weak objection. As in all development proposals, each case has to be considered on its own merits. The planning authority's decisions to refuse approval for the proposed houses on Plots 2 and 3 while approving the house on Plot 1 shows that the authority considered each of these schemes individually, as I have done. The authority's decision approving bungalow development at Glebe Aalin does not mean that only bungalows would be acceptable on this appeal site. Nor does this case set any precedent applying elsewhere, the assessment of which may be affected by numerous factors such as land levels, compass orientation, design details or vegetation cover.

1. During the inquiry reference was made on the appellants' behalf to human rights legislation. Granting approval for this proposal would not breach such legislation. Some appellants also drew attention to views across the site. The proposed house would intrude into some views, but the preservation of a view from a private property across another person's land is not normally a proper function of planning control, and there is no good reason for the appeal proposal to be regarded as abnormal in this respect.

1. I conclude that the appeals do not succeed and that the planning authority's decision to grant approval should be confirmed.

Recommendation

1. I recommend that the appeal be dismissed and that planning approval be granted subject to the conditions as set out in the planning authority's decision notice dated 2 May 2008.

Graham F Self MA MSc FRTPI Inspector

14 August 2008