Loading document...
The site represents the domestic curtilage of an existing hipped roof bungalow situated to the south of a lane leading west from the northern end of Colby Glen Road (A27). The site has a number of mature trees at its northern end and an existing detached property, "Glenarm" to the west. To the east is number 4, Ballachrink whose rear garden adjoins the western boundary of the site. This boundary also extends to the rear of numbers 2 and 3, Ballachrink.
The site lies within an area designated as Residential on the Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan adopted by Tynwald in 1999.
Planning permission was sought for the principle of the redevelopment of the site for two dwellings (including the replacement of the existing). This application, PA 98/1490 was refused initially and on appeal for reasons relating to the increase in density, the Inspector noting that the Planning Committee's view was that "the proposed replacement of Silverbeech by two dwellings on the gently sloping site would change that character to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area, particularly when viewed from Glen Road when travelling north" and went on to state that "The proposals would result in overdevelopment which would be detrimental to the residential amenities enjoyed by surrounding properties due to the increased usage of the site and the movements generated on or around the site" (his paragraph 4). The Inspector concurred with this and refused the principle of two dwellings on the site although not specifically agreeing with the neighbour's concern regarding the impact of the replacement of "Silverbeech" with a dormer property.
A subsequent application, PA 05/1047 proposed the principle of the replacement of the existing property with a new one. This application, whilst in principle showed a proposed dwelling with its length running north-south. One tree would have needed to be removed and was shown on the site plan although there were other trees very close
| Manx Electricity Authority | Please include a note as follows There are Underground Cables/Overhead Lines present in the area indicated in you Planning Application. Please contact Anthony Kinrade or Ian Horsey, Operations and Maintenance Dept, Network Services, Manx Electricity Authority, (Tel. 687705) to discuss working practices around Cables and Overhead Lines which may be required to be diverted before any work can be carried out on site. Contact the M.E.A. for Electrical Site Safety 5 documents, (Tel. 687766), before any work is carried out on site. All work to be carried out with reference to Health and Safety Executive Guidance Notes HS(G)47 & GS6. |
|---|
| Glen Arm Colby Glen Road Colby Isle Of Man | Objects to the proposal |
| 4 Ballachrink Glen Road Colby Isle Of Man | Objects to the proposal |
| Seacliffe Old Castletown Road Ballaveare | Interest expressed |
| Avistine Glen Road Colby Isle Of Man | Objects to the proposal |
to the new dwelling. This application was refused for reasons relating to unneighbourliness, privacy and tree loss.
A further application, PA 05/92124 proposed the principle of a replacement dormer bungalow and was approved. This was based upon a footprint more or less on that of the existing dwelling and with no obvious tree loss.
Now proposed is the erection of a dwelling. The application is a free-standing one and not one dealing with matters reserved from PA 05/92124.
The application proposes the demolition of the existing bungalow and its replacement with a new detached dwelling which has two storeys. There is no reference to the earlier applications on the application form, despite the planning history being requested (question 10) and no evidence that the concerns in the previous decisions have been taken into account in the preparation of this application.
The house is a very tall hipped roofed dwelling which stands some 9.5m in height, compared with somewhere nearer to half the height of the existing bungalow and will be around 2m higher than the tallest point of "Glenarm" (height taken from PA 98/1855 as 7.4m). The site plan does not include all of the trees and indicates that 2 are to be removed. A new foul sewer connection is to run between other remaining trees along with a route for surface water to a soakaway also alongside existing trees which are indicated as being retained although these works are likely to result in these trees being de-stabilised in the excavation for the pipework.
Since the submission of the application, the applicant has requested from DAFF a felling licence for five fir trees to the south east of the existing and proposed dwellings. This licence was eventually granted following consultation with the local community by Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. These are the trees which would be affected by the route of the proposed new sewer although the felling licence was granted on the basis that the trees are unsafe due to their height and proximity to the existing dwelling, regardless of the proposals to replace it.
The style of the dwelling is unlike any of the properties in the vicinity - not modern nor vernacular and in my view will not fit in to its environment by virtue of its design and size (height and massing). This is also expressed as a concern by the occupants of Glenarm and 4, Ballachrink who are immediately alongside the site and by the occupant of Avistine who also owns other property in the vicinity.
Whilst the loss of the trees is unfortunate, particularly bearing in mind the previous advice of the Forestry Officer and reasons for refusal in previous applications, the trees are clearly close to the existing dwelling and bearing in mind their height and the fact that a felling licence has been granted for some of the trees, then this cannot remain an issue for the planning application. The trees on the other (western) side of the house will be further away from the side wall of the new house than they are from the existing dwelling.
The concerns of the Fire Officer are matters for the Building Regulations not planning.
If the application is permitted, conditions should be attached to address the points raised by the Department of Transport Drainage Division and notes attached addressing the points raised by the Fire Prevention Officer and the Manx Electricity Authority
PC Agenda 11.01.2007
The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The occupants of Avistine are not directly affected by the proposed development other than by the additional traffic from which a larger dwelling on this site may result which is a material consideration although not supported by the Department of Transport. The objectors' properties are not directly alongside the application site although may be affected by any additional traffic to be generated by the proposed new dwelling which is larger than the existing. This compares with the proximity of the objectors' properties and Ballakelly (PA 06/1118) to which he has submitted a similar objection although this property is much closer to the objectors' premises. He also refers to water problems which may be exacerbated by a larger house although this is a matter of supply by the water authority who have raised no objection to the application.
Whilst Manx Electricity Authority and Fire Prevention Officer represent statutory authorities, the points raised in correspondence relate to working practices and Building Control matters and not planning and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The occupants of Glenarm and 4, Ballachrink are directly affected by the proposal due to the proximity of these premises to the application site and as such should be afforded party status.
The occupant of Port Soderick is not directly affected by the development and should not be afforded party status in this instance.
Decision Recommended by the Director of Planning and Building Control: Permitted
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. The proposed dwelling, by virtue of its height and massing and design would be a discordant feature in this landscape and would affect detrimentally the appearance of the area.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
