Loading document...
The site represents the curtilage of an existing dwelling located on the western side of the Glen Road past the entrance to the Ballachrink estate. The existing house sits at the top (northern) end of the site alongside another dwelling, "Glenarm" to the east and an electricity substation to the west. To the west of the garden is the rear of three dwellings - 2, 3 and 4, Ballachrink.
The site lies within an area designated as Residential on the Arbory and East Rushen Local Plan which was adopted by Tynwald in 1999.
PA 98/1490 proposed approval in principle for the erection of two dwellings to replace the existing dwelling, "Silverbeech", Glen Road, Colby, Arbory and was refused initially and on appeal. The reasons for this decision was related 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 increased usage of the site and the movements generated on or around the site" (his paragraph 4). The Inspector agreed 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 05/01047 proposed the principle of the replacement of the existing property with a new one. The application, whilst in principle contained a proposed plan which showed the replacement dwelling facing west/east with dormers in the front and rear pitches. Once tree would have needed to be removed and was shown on the site plan. There are other trees very close to the house.
The neighbour at "Glen Arm" expressed concern not at the principle but at the suggested size of the new property and its possible height and the new garage, with an implication on light on their property which lies to the east/north east of the new dwelling. The neighbour at 4, Ballachrink expressed concern at the location of the new dwelling, its height, trees to be lost as part of the replacement and the asbestos tiles on the roof. The neighbour across the road to the north of the existing dwelling, was also concerned about the asbestos on the existing roof. I visited the site and spoke with Dr. Paul at 4, Ballachrink. His rear garden has as its eastern boundary only a low hedge which gave little privacy now: in the winter months there is unlikely to be substantial coverage to provide any privacy at all. The current situation does not pose a problem as the property on the site looks down the site towards the south. The replacement dwelling as proposed in would, however look towards and have its longest elevation towards both this property and to "Glen Arm" affording little privacy either to the existing two dwellings or the new one. The property would also have fewest of its windows facing south, towards the best view and the most light. The Forester visited the site and advised that the most important of the trees on the site is the left behind the existing building and that more than one tree would be compromised by the development either during construction or after occupation. The application was refused for reasons relating to neighbourliness, privacy and tree loss.
This latest application proposes the principle of the replacement of the existing bungalow with a new dwelling to be sited on the footprint of the existing property with dormers facing north and south and a detached garage between the new dwelling and the road to the north. Building on the footprint of the existing dwelling will minimise tree loss and the impact on adjacent properties even if the new dwelling has dormer accommodation: it is not directly facing any other property.
There is a view submitted from 4, Ballachrink. This time the neighbour has no objection to the application although he points out that there is no height provided so he retains the right to object to the application for reserved matters should the height of the new dwelling be excessive. He also points out that there is a need to protect the existing trees and to deal with the asbestos roof tiles.
Department of Transport Drainage Division raise no objection to the application subject to conditions regarding connection to the main sewer and no surface water discharging to the main sewer.
This application overcomes the concerns expressed in respect of the previous application and represents a development which will not adversely affect the amenities of neighbours, the existing trees on site or the appearance of the area.
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 28.12.2005
C: Conditions for approval N: Notes attached to conditions R: Reasons for refusal O: Notes attached to refusals
C 1. This approval is in principle only and will remain valid for a period of two years within which time no development may take place until such time as details of the reserved matters (design, external appearance, internal layout, means of access, landscaping) have been approved by the Planning Authority. Such reserved matters should form the subject of a single application.
C 2. This permission relates to the principle of the replacement of the existing dwelling with a new property sited and generally as shown in drawing 05/26/01 Rev A and the location plan both received on 17th November, 2005.
C 3. The proposed development must be connected to the main foul sewer.
NOTE: A Drainage Connection Fee will be payable to the Drainage Authority on this development
C 4. There must be no discharge of surface water to the main foul sewer.
C 5. Prior to the commencement of any building work on site all existing trees on site must be fenced off to the extent of the dripline and thereafter protected during the course of development. No works may be undertaken nor items stored between this fencing and the tree trunks.
Note: the advice of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is recommended in this respect.
N 1. The applicant is advised to consult the Environmental Safety and Health Directorate in respect of the removal of the existing asbestos tiles.
I confirm that this decision accords with Government Circular Nos 44/05 (Delegation of Functions to Director of Planning and Building Control) and 47/05 (Delegation of Functions to Senior Planning Officer)
Decision Made : Permitted Date: 16/1/06
Signed: [Handwritten signature]
M. I. McCauley Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown