Loading document...
Application No.: 15/00678/A Applicant: Mr Roy & Mrs Susan Tilleard Proposal: Approval in principle to demolish existing dwelling and erection of a replacement detached dwelling with detached garage addressing siting and means of access Site Address: Thie Ny Chibbyr Glen Road Colby Isle of Man IM9 4HW Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 07.07.2015 Site Visit: 07.07.2015 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS RECEIVED
1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing dwelling, Thie ny Chibbyr which sits on the western side of Colby Glen Road (A27). The site extends to 0.3 ha and accommodates a single dwelling which sits at the northern end of the site with the land to the south, other than providing a vehicular driveway to the northern end of the site is heavily treed. Thie ny Chibbyr sits within a walled area which is outwith the area accessed by the existing driveway. There is a pond and steps within the southern part of the site, suggesting that it is a domestic garden, albeit with a significant number of trees, although with which house it is associated is not immediately apparent from looking at the site. - 1.2 To the north is another property, Avistine which sits at the southern end of its site, both dwellings being curiously close to each other. Both properties are currently owned by the applicant although Avistine is currently being offered for sale. To the south of the site is another dwelling, Horizon House which is currently around 90m away from Thie ny Chibbyr. - 1.3 Thie ny Chibbyr is a handsome, traditional dwelling which has a slated roof with substantial chimney stacks at each end, ornate windows in each floor, including the dormers and at ground floor level the windows project into a flat roofed bay. - 1.4 The property has three points of access onto Colby Glen Road - one to the north of the building close to the rear of the house, another to the south of the house which gives access into the enclosed front garden and finally the main vehicular access which leads up through a land to the west of the house. - 1.5 There are trees along the boundary of the site with the main road - a mixture of broadleafed and coniferous trees which dominate and give character to the streetscene. Many of the trees are mature and extend over the road including a large copper beech which has been identified by DEFA Forestry as of particular amenity value. - 1.6 The existing dwelling is not protected by Registered Building or Conservation Area status and could be demolished without the need for any planning consent.
2.1 Proposed is the principle of the demolition of the existing dwelling which as stated, would not itself require planning approval, and the erection of a replacement dwelling which is not on the footprint of the existing dwelling. Following lengthy discussions between the Planning Office, the Forestry Office and the applicant, and the employment by the applicant of an arboriculturist, the originally submitted plans have been revised to relocate the proposed vehicular access and relocate the dwelling in order to reduce the number of trees to be removed and to provide a development which sits more comfortably on the site. The dwelling now faces south and its vehicular access is to the north, utilising an existing pedestrian access in a position which has fewer trees than the original proposal and where is the existing vehicular access, which is to be retained, but which provides poor levels of visibility for those emerging from the site. This access is to be retained but the lane/drive leading from it into the site is to be removed and the access modified to provide pedestrian only access. - 2.2 The applicant describes the existing house as substandard in terms of modern standards of energy performance and sustainability and the existing access is described as not meeting current design guidelines in terms of visibility for drivers of emerging vehicles. The proposal will result in an access which provides visibility of 36m by 2.4m in both directions. A garage is also shown to the north of the access. This sits next to an existing garage which is to be demolished. - 2.3 The applicant has provided a tree constraints plan which illustrates that 16 trees will need to be removed to make way for the house in terms of conflicting with its footprint: these are palms 14 of which are reported in the Tree Survey as suitable for removal. Three are structural category A, one is B and the remainder are category C: two are retention category B the remainder are lower than that. Access will need to be available for construction traffic and whilst not shown on the drawing, there are two trees between the proposed access and the proposed house - a yew and Chilean lantern tree. The Tree Survey, prepared by a qualified arborist, concludes that little work has been done on the tree stock at Thie ny Chibbyr with the majority of the trees on site being mature but without having had any formative tree management to ensure their longevity. Thinning of the trees earlier in their life cycle may have allowed retained individual trees to mature into noteworthy specimens. Some trees have poor overall condition and are struggling to compete for light and some would benefit from thinning. The report concludes by hoping that it provides a basis for discussion in order to find an amicable design solution for the site. - 2.4 The existing dwelling is said to have a floor area of around 190 sq m. The proposed will have around 280 sq m of accommodation. Both measurements exclude the dimensions of the existing and proposed garages. As such, what is shown represents an increase of somewhere in the region of 47%. - 2.5 The applicant refers to Policy 8 of Planning Circular 3/91 which refers to larger houses. They consider that the relocation will result in a reduced visual impact due to increased screening from the road and public view. - 2.6 The applicant has provided further information in January, 2016 which does not change the substance of the proposal from the original proposal, but with the removal of three further trees, to the north east of the dwelling - a Category B tree (Taxus Baccata - Yew) and two Category 3 trees according to drawings 10 and 11 submitted on 9th October, 2015) (Crinodendron hookerianum Chilean Lantern tree) which are now categorised as Catgegory U (drawings 10A and 11A received on 25th January, 2016). They also note that tree removal may be complemented by new tree introduction. - 2.7 The applicant has also identified a progressive loss of trees through tree management, ultimately resulting in the loss of all but four of the trees alongside the highway and the majority of tree cover to the south of the proposed dwelling. The final plan, taking into account the trees to be removed to make way for the dwelling, together with those recommended for removal on the
grounds of good arboricultural management, indicates that of the 107 trees currently on site, 34 will remain with a further 4 for future removal in the interests of good tree management. No new trees are shown to be introduced to replace those lost.
3.1 The site is outwith the area identified as Residential on the Area Plan for the South adopted in
Housing policy 12 provides for the replacement of dwellings in the countryside provided they have not lost their residential use by abandonment and provided it would not result in the loss of a dwelling which is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation.
Housing Policy 14 states: "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91 (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in generally, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.
Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling which involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design and or siting, there would be less visual impact."
4.1 Planning approval was granted for the installation of replacement windows and doors under PA 00/02171/B. Permission was also given for the extension of the property under PA 98/01882/B. REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Forestry Officer has expressed concern at the lack of information on the existing trees and those to be affected by the proposals and recommends that prior to any decision being taken, details are provided in accordance with BS 5837: 2012 Trees in Relation to Demolition Design and Construction (25.06.15). Following the submission of further plans, the Forestry Division indicate that this presents the greatest challenge of all for the developer in terms of the three applications for development in the vicinity of this site (PA 15/00690/B and 15/00679/A). They advise that they have no issue with the loss of the spruce, sweet chestnut and laburnum which will be lost as a result of the provision of the visibility splay. These trees are located at the southern end of the site alongside the boundary wall. They advise that the pine number 63 indicated as being retained, should be kept as should the other pines between this and the existing house. The Forester does not consider that the loss of the palms in the centre of the site will result in significant impact on the visual amenity of the area. He notes that the development now avoids direct impact through excavation of root protection areas, of a number of important trees and that whilst there are some where a no-dig method should be undertaken, this need not result in the loss of the trees at the construction stage and there will be no disturbance to the trees between the building and Horizon House to the south. He advises that it is important that the root protection areas of the trees to remain should be protected during construction by appropriate fencing. They advise however, that after completion, any occupants of the proposed dwelling may well seek permission from DEFA to remove trees on the grounds of loss of light and/or risk of trees falling and if so, DEFA would be likely to grant approval to such approaches (20.08.15 and 23.11.15).
5.2 The Forester comments further on the additional information provided in respect of the impacts of tree management within the site, commenting that some trees have changed categories without any explanation as to why, nor is it explained whether the constraints leading to the loss of some of the trees are above or below ground and he comments that he is concerned at the accuracy of the circular protection areas, which are generally drawn as polygons, particularly the roadside trees whose root protection areas will almost certainly not be circular and would be a greater area but on the inside of the wall. He is not convinced that the tree constraints plan is in accordance with BS
5.3 He comments that even if all of the trees shown in the submitted drawings are removed, there still remains a relatively small area in which to build the dwelling of the size proposed and cannot assure the Department that further issues will arise in relation to those remaining trees through concerns about light, shade etc.
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services indicate that they do not oppose the application (01.07.15). - 5.3 The owner of Middlefield which lies to the east of the site objects to the application on the basis that the site is not designated for development, suffers from issues relating to drainage, water pressure and highway safety, school capacity, whether there is a demand for further housing and notes the change in attitude of the applicant who has previously been opposed to further development. He would prefer not to have to endure the inconvenience of building works (10.07.15, 24.07.15, 06.11.15 and 15.02.16). - 5.4 The owners of Ballajuanvark, Malew oppose the loss of the existing house and significant alterations to the garden and tree stock. He is concerned that there is no need for the development as many properties in the vicinity have been available for sale for some time (15.07.15). - 5.5 The owner of the Malt House in Castletown objects to the loss of the existing house which, in his view is a mature feature in the landscape, is attractive and in good condition. What is proposed is of a different size and character and we should take care not to destroy the Island's natural and attractive appearance in contributing to the loss of attractive buildings and trees (11.07.15). - 5.6 The owner of Ballakelly which lies to the south of the site and across the road, objects to the application on the basis that the building has recently been restored and to demolish the property would undermine the investment and would compromise the unique garden with mature trees and plantings which date back over a century and is an integral part of the character of the existing building (13.07.15, 02.11.15 and 15.02.16).
5.7 The owners of Nhee Aalin which lies to the immediate south of the property, object to the proposal on the basis that the house on the site has been there for 175 years and it and its garden are notable features of the area. They do not believe that there is justification for the replacement of the dwelling which they believe has architectural merit and question whether any works are required to the access and if it is, lowering the existing wall may be the most appropriate option. They do not believe that the proposal complies with the provisions of Housing Policy 14 in that the change in location will possibly adversely affect trees and the express concern that what is proposed is larger than 50% greater than the existing. The requisite information relating to trees has not been provided. Finally they are concerned at the proposals for the disposal of foul sewage from the site which is higher than theirs and has springs which drain directly onto their property (14.07.15, 22.07.15, 27.07.15, 05.11.15 and 15.02.16). - 5.8 The owners of Reayrt Aalin which is on the other side of the road to the application property, below Arbory House, object to the application (17.07.15, 23.07.15 and 01.11.15). They are concerned that the development will result in the loss of an old and attractive house and garden the latter of which provides a natural break between the village and the countryside. They do not believe that the existing house is substandard and question why the house is not to be connected to the main sewerage system. They do not understand why the access is being changed. They point out that a tree was removed in the recent stormy weather (15.02.16) - 5.9 Arbory Parish Commissioners regret the loss of mature trees (01.08.15).
6.1 The site is not within a Conservation Area and despite the attractive nature of the property, it is neither Registered nor on the list in the Area Plan of buildings to be researched for such purposes. As such, there is nothing to prevent the demolition of the property at the present time, although its residential status would be lost at that point. The lack of formal public acknowledgement of the architectural or historic quality of the building would make it difficult to argue that the house cannot be replaced, despite the fact that the existing building is attractive. The issue therefore is whether the proposal complies with the provisions of Housing Policy 14 in terms of siting and if not, whether there are any other material considerations which would justify the application being approved as proposed (siting and access). The size of the dwelling appears to comply with the guidance provided in HP14 in relation to the existing.
6.2 The proposed siting is not on the footprint of the existing. However, as it stands, the existing dwelling is close to both the highway and the neighbouring property, Avistine. As such, it is understandable that the owner would wish to move the property further from both. Whilst there is some character in the position and orientation of the existing dwelling in that Arbory House is also abutting the road and has charm and character, these are the only two properties in the streetscene which demonstrate this feature and as such, it is not considered essential in itself that the property is positioned right alongside the road. It is also relevant that the property sits between and opposite existing dwellings within a cluster of existing development rather than within open countryside where the exact siting in relation to the existing may be more important. As such, it is considered that the principle of the relocation of the dwelling within the site is acceptable per se. - 6.3 It is relevant that all of the other properties in the streetscene are orientated such that the principal ridge runs west to east. It is perhaps not surprising that this is the case as most properties tend to be orientated such that they face, or have their private space with a southern aspect to take greatest advantage of the light and sunshine. As such what is proposed would not be completely contrary to this general character. If approved a condition or note should be attached to suggest that the orientation should follow that of the existing properties in the area. - 6.4 The footprint of the proposed dwelling as shown looks a little uninspirational and without elevations it is not possible to judge whether the shape and size of the dwelling would result in something of equivalent quality as that to be replaced. However, this is a matter for the reserved
"I would also mention that within the internal housing layout, some of the mature trees appear to be either very close to new dwellings or in a position that is not practical to ensure their retention. It would be far better for the applicants to review all trees within the appeal site and produce a long term management plan in accordance with suggested condition 16. Although I usually deplore the loss of any healthy tree on a development site in the interests of visual amenity and wildlife, I am satisfied that given the extensive number of trees within the site, the loss of the trees I have mentioned would not cause significant harm to those interests. Of course, DOLGE should ensure that any trees removed should be replaced as part of the landscaping scheme" (his paragraph 147. PA 02/00712/B).
6.9 On balance therefore, it is considered that the construction of the dwelling is likely to result in damage to the existing trees which could threaten their future retention and the presence of a tree in the middle of the treed area is more likely to result in the management style shown in the latest drawings, resulting in a significant loss of trees compared with what would be likely to happen if
7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
The Forestry Division is part of the same Department as is the planning authority and as such cannot be afforded interested person status in this case under the Order.
In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
In this instance, it is recommended that the owners of the following properties have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13:
Middlefield, Nhee Aalin Ballakelly Reayrt Aalin
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest to be awarded the status of an Interested person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13: it may be useful to explain why.
Ballajuanvark The Malt House
With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused
Date of Recommendation: 19.02.2016
R 1. It is considered that the construction of the dwelling is likely to result in damage to the existing trees which could threaten their future retention. In addition, if the dwelling could be constructed without adversely affecting the trees shown to be retained, either in the short or long term, it is likely that, given the proximity of the remaining trees to the proposed new dwelling, that the future of these trees cannot be assured, given their proximity and the potential implications for loss of light, leaf drop and damage through trees falling towards the building. The loss of further trees would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area and potentially render the proposed new dwelling more visible, interrupting an existing continuous stand of trees, to the detriment of the appearance of the area and in conflict with Housing Policy 14.
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 : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 29.02.2016
Signed : S E Corlett Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
