SUTHERLAND COUNTY COMMITTEE – 19 MARCH 2007
Agenda
Item
Report
No
2.4
56/07
Erection of dwelling house. Improve/upgrade existing access (In Outline)
at
Plot 1, Adjacent to No. 1 Strathnaver Street, Helmsdale
(05/00310/OUTSU)
Report by Area Planning and Building Standards Manager
SUMMARY
This report provides the background to consideration of the above application. It sets out the
relevant Development Plan provisions, publicity and consultation procedures involved, and the
views of the applicant, if any, prior to an appraisal of those issues material to determination.
There is a RECOMMENDATION to REFUSE.
1.0
PROPOSALS
(a)
DEVELOPMENT
Erection of dwelling house. Improve/upgrade existing access
(In Outline)
(b)
LOCATION
Plot 1, Adjacent to No. 1 Strathnaver Street, Helmsdale
(c)
APPLICANT
Mr B Arthur
(d)
GRID REF
ND 302659 915632
(e)
RECEIVED
18 August 2005
2.0
SITE DETAILS
(a)
DESCRIPTION
The site lies within the historic core of Helmsdale, characterised by
its formal grid pattern of streets in the original planned village. The
site lies towards the north western corner of this area at a key junction
and focal point of the A897 Strath Road to Melvich and the Old
Caithness Road/Sittenham Road.
The site is formed from the large rear garden of the original house at
No. 1 Strathnaver Street. This garden is bounded to the west by the
road junction and delineated and characterised by a number of mature
trees along its north and west boundaries as well as by various
smaller, yet mature trees within the garden space itself.
(b)
PREVIOUS
DECISIONS
None known for the site.
Pre-application advice provided in January 2005 indicating significant
difficulties with redeveloping the plot due to trees, access issues and
planning policy.
Tree Preservation Order (No. 68, 2006) was confirmed for the trees
on 21 December 2006, following a Report to the Sutherland County
Committee on 12 December 2006.
3.0
PUBLICITY, REPRESENTATIONS AND CONSULTATIONS
(a)
ADVERT
(b)
EXPIRY DATE
(c)
REPRESENTATIONS
The following letters of representation have been received:
1
Robert Mackay, ‘Rosemount’, Helmsdale, KW8 6JW (25.08.05). (House lies to
north east side of site)
Representations relate to the following matters:
(d)
•
Helmsdale is a well laid out village with a nucleated street plan. There is already an
unoccupied house on the site that is part of the old street plan. This has a garden of
high amenity with mature mixed woodland. This mature woodland is not common
in Helmsdale and this amenity must not be lost.
•
Consider that the proposal will invade privacy of both my house and garden,
reducing the amenity of the area and the value of my property. The proposal will
cause a blocking in effect of my property with a new density housing profile that was
never part of the original village plan.
CONSULTATIONS
Scottish Water – No objections.
Area Roads and Community Services Manager – No objections subject to the provision
of parking and turning for 2 cars within the curtilage of the site.
Highland Council Forestry Officer – 5 October and 25 November 2005 - The site is in
prominent location on the main approach from Kinbrace and at the junction of four roads.
The area currently forms the rear garden to the existing property and contains some mature
Sycamore along the north west boundaries, two mature Scots Pine to the north boundary and
a number of Gean and fruit trees on the footprint of the proposed building. The two Scots
Pine currently ‘frame’ the property to the north, ‘Rosemount’, as viewed from Strathnaver
Street.
Although not exceptional specimens, collectively trees are an important feature at this
prominent location. The proposed development would almost certainly necessitate the
removal of all but one or two of the mature trees, which would detract considerably from the
character of the area. What are the plans for the existing uninhabited house and would it not
be preferable to see this restored?
Protection of the trees as suggested by the Agent would not be realistic through either a
short term construction period or over the longer term.
The existing house has been vacant for a while and the garden has been tended on a care and
maintenance basis. Would agree that there is potential for improvements as a garden, which
would no doubt occur should the property be occupied once again. I do not, however,
consider this to be a reason for development.
BS5837:1991 (Trees in relation to Construction) referred to by the Agent has now been
superseded by BS5837:2005, which includes a number of significant changes. Regardless
of this, the proposal does not conform to either version of the British Standard and I would
not consider this to be achievable on such a site. Should the Agent disagree, we would be
happy to consider a tree constraints plan as specified in Section 5 of BS5837:2005, which
would need to be produced by a qualified arboriculturist.
The Agent acknowledges the fact that the owner wishes to retain the principle trees. I would
reiterate that I would not consider this to be achievable. If the Agent is implying that there
are mature trees within a similar distance (less than 5m) from existing houses within
Helmsdale, I will not accept this as a precedent for a new development in such close
proximity to trees in clear contravention of the British Standard.
The mature trees which are claimed to screen the view from ‘Rosemount’ could not be
retained so close to the proposed development.
20.3.06 – Letter from Scottish Woodlands (8 February 2006, received under cover of a letter
dated 14 February 2006) does not constitute a Tree Constraints Plan in accordance with
BS5837:2005. Strongly suspect that such a report will only compound the issues relating to
trees. Would highlight aspects from the South and East Sutherland Local Plan:
• The Council will seek to maintain and enhance the established character of residential
areas (General Settlement Policy S2)
• The Plan seeks to: consider designating the historic core of the village as a Conservation
Area (p49)
• Proposals for infill development within the historic core should respect existing building
lines and the traditional form, scale and materials of adjoining properties (p50)
The proposed development is not consistent with the objectives of the Local Plan and it is
not consistent with the existing pattern of development within the periphery of the village.
Furthermore, the development will detract considerably from the residential amenity of both
the existing house immediately to the south and to ‘Rosemount’ to the north.
A Tree Preservation Order was confirmed on 21 December 2006 following a report to the
Sutherland County Committee on 12 December 2006. Would strongly recommend that the
application be recommended for refusal.
(e)
VIEWS OF APPLICANT
Letter received from Agent on 14 September 2005, 23 November 2005, 16 February 2006,
20 April 2006, 15 February 2007
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The owner of the existing house hopes to reinvest the proceeds of the site sale into a
refurbishment of the original house, including the construction of a garage to simulate a
traditional cottage in terms of its proportion and materials which could be a positive
contribution to the townscape of Strathnaver Street.
The existing house garden is extensive and under-utilised. It is tended on a care and
maintenance basis. There are various different types of trees on site. The more mature
trees are located adjacent to the boundary walls and will be retained with suitable
construction period protection in accordance with the British Standards. (BS5837:1991
Tree protection during Construction)
Client wishes to retain the principal trees for their amenity benefit. There are an
appreciable number of treed gardens throughout the village, with many of them
containing mature specimens.
Location and configuration of the proposed site has been specifically selected so as to
avoid being located squarely in front of the house at ‘Rosemount’. It occupies an
elevated location some height above client’s property. Any dwelling built on the site
will occupy an appreciably lower profile than ‘Rosemount’, and in any event, the mature
trees would screen out this part of client’s garden. Would expect any new house on the
site to have its principal windows on the south facing elevation as opposed to facing
back towards ‘Rosemount’. There would be a separation of 20m between any building
and ‘Rosemount’, which in any high density housing development would provide
enough space for another dwelling site.
Sycamores along Strath Road form a pleasant landscape feature and are important to the
village. The two Scots Pines are sited in an appropriate location in relation to
‘Rosemount’, framing up the Southerly aspect from the house. We wish to fell one of
the regenerated Sycamores together with all the self-seeded saplings. The Sycamore
trees would have been planted for amenity purposes such as the specimens on Strath
Road and perhaps two of the trees planted close to ‘Rosemount’ boundary wall. The
gean and apple trees are well past their sell by date, with the geans in particular suffering
from advanced degradation.
We disagree with the Forestry Officer and we suggest that we need to remove only one
mature tree; albeit that this is based upon a slight adjustment to the location of the
proposed house on site.
Letter with photo montage illustrating a design solution (indicative) for a house on the
site received (28 November 2005).
Letter with supporting information from Scottish Woodlands Ltd (16 February 2006).
Amended indicative house position detailed complying with the advice from Scottish
Woodlands, effectively allowing for the retention of the Sycamores on the west
boundary and the Scots Pines to the north east. The poorer quality specimens he refers
to could be removed and replaced as suggested. Feel that the amended alignment will
provide a good outlook for the house and it will also blend in with the townscape.
Obviously there will be no windows in the southern gable.
Letter from Agent (15 February 2007) – By virtue of not being instructed otherwise, our
client has intimated no objection to the application being considered on the basis of the
information you currently have to hand.
4.0
PLANNING POLICY
4.1
The site is covered by the Highland Structure Plan and South and East Sutherland Local
Plan.
4.2
The Highland Structure Plan March 2001 and Policy G2 Design for Sustainability in
particular requires that developments will be assessed on the extent to which they, amongst
other factors:
•
•
•
demonstrate sensitive siting in keeping with local character and historic and natural
environment
impact on individual and community residential amenity
are compatible with service provision such as water and sewerage, drainage and roads
Developments which are judged to be significantly detrimental in terms of the above criteria
shall not accord with the Structure Plan.
4.3
The South and East Sutherland Local Plan notes the formal grid pattern of the planned
village, suggesting that consideration should be given to the designation of the historic core
of the village as a Conservation Area. Furthermore, it seeks to safeguard the setting of the
village from encroachment by sporadic development.
4.4
The site is specifically covered by the General Settlement Policy S2. This notes that:
‘The Council will seek to maintain and enhance the established character of residential
areas’.
4.5
Furthermore, the Local Plan notes that:
‘Proposals for infill development within the historic core area should respect existing
building lines and the traditional form, scale and materials of adjoining properties’.
5.0
PLANNING APPRAISAL
5.1
Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 requires that applications
are determined in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise.
5.2
Members will note that the application is in Outline and seeks to establish the principle of
building a house within the rear garden of an existing house. Accordingly, the existing plot
would be subdivided with the current access onto Strathnaver Street being used for both
properties.
5.3
The existing character of the site and this part of the village is provided and maintained by
the historic street pattern, with its characteristic well proportioned stone houses, mainly
fronting onto the pavement edge and large generously proportioned and well established
gardens, many of which have mature trees within or surrounding their curtilage. This site
does show these key characteristics, with some mature Sycamore along the north west
boundaries, two mature Scots Pine to the north boundary and a number of Gean and fruit
trees on the footprint of the proposed building. These help to form the individual character
of the garden and add to the wider collective character of this part of the historic core of
Helmsdale.
5.4
Highland Structure Plan policy G2 Design for Sustainability assesses proposals on the
extent to which they:
• Demonstrate sensitive siting in keeping with local character and historic and natural
environment
• Impact on individual and community residential amenity
5.5
In my assessment, the proposal does not demonstrate sensitive siting in keeping with local
character and historic and natural environment, and therefore would, if approved, have a
significantly detrimental impact on individual and community residential amenity.
Accordingly, the proposal does not accord with these aspects of Structure Plan policy G2.
5.6
In addition, the South and East Sutherland General Settlement Policy S2 Housing seeks to
maintain and enhance the established character of existing residential areas. Members
should note that the Forestry Officer advises that development will almost certainly
necessitate the removal of all but one or two of the mature trees, thus detracting
considerably from the character of the historic core of the village. Members will note that a
Tree Preservation Order was confirmed on the trees on 21 December 2006. It is my view
that the proposal would not therefore maintain or enhance the established character of the
existing residential area as required by the South and East Sutherland General Settlement
Policy.
5.7
TEC Services and Scottish Water confirm that the proposal can be adequately serviced and
therefore accords with this aspect of policy G2.
5.8
The subdivision of an existing curtilage can be difficult to successfully achieve and yet still
retain ample amenity space and privacy for both the original and new property. Whilst the
submitted site plan shows only an indicative building location relative to the existing house,
I would advise Members that the separation distance of approximately 10m between the
back of the existing property and front of the proposed would not be appropriate in terms of
the character, setting or amenity of the existing curtilage or the properties in the wider area.
Accordingly, the proposal would have a significantly detrimental impact on both individual
and community residential amenity and would not accord with policy G2. Furthermore,
subdivision would not maintain and enhance the established character of the existing
residential area as required by policy S2.
5.9
Objections have been received from the occupier of the adjacent property, ‘Rosemount’.
The representations highlight the amenity value of the existing woodland to the wider area
as well as the privacy that they provide to ‘Rosemount’. The Forestry Officer has advised
that the proposal is not consistent with the Local Plan or existing pattern of development
within the village. He has indicated that any development of the site would inevitably result
in the removal of existing trees.
5.10
Members should note that representations relating to value of property are not material
planning considerations.
5.11
The proposal does not accord with Development Plan policy and refusal is recommended.
6.0
RECOMMENDATION
Refuse Outline planning permission for the following reasons:
1
The proposal would have a significantly detrimental impact on individual and community
residential amenity as it does not demonstrate sensitive siting in keeping with local character
and historic and natural environment as required by Structure Plan Policy G2 Design for
Sustainability.
2
The proposal would not maintain and enhance the established character of a residential area
as required by the South and East Sutherland General Settlement Policy S2 Housing.
3
The proposal would prejudice the existing trees within and forming the curtilage of the site
to the detriment of individual and community residential amenity and contrary to Policies
G2 and S2.
4
Approval of the proposal would establish an unwelcome precedent thus making it difficult
to refuse similar proposals in the future.
Signature:
Designation: Area Planning and Building Standards Manager
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
As referred to in the report above and case file reference number 05/00310/OUTSU
Author: Bob Robertson
80
ck
Tra
Helmsdale
Secondary School
El
Sub Sta
Surg
Altonsy
de
ery
Tennis
Court
Mo-hiah
c
Dha
-naTighruaich
B
Site Location
Rosemount
16.1m
iele
a
Log
Cra
igle
a
Ex
Tel
15.2
m
12.8
m
LS
T RE
ET
Feranich
Hea
th
Mr B Arthur
per Future Plans
The Barnyard Studios
Garmouth
SUPPLIED BY THE HIGHLAND COUNCIL
Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office. © Crown Copyright.
Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. The Highland Council LA09036L.
Date: 10 April 2006
STR
A
Shangri
-La
ESH
AL
C
Houorner
s
Kind e
a le
LI LL
Path (um)
h
Mean Hig
05/00310/OUTSU
Erection of dwelling house. Improve / upgrade
existing access (In Outline) at Plot 1, Adjacent to
No.1 Strathnaver Street, Helmsdale.
Suth
Hoeurlan
se d
m
Bail
e-a
Rae -Or n
ba
Gar nk
Mho tir
Hall
Dun
-i
STI
A
Hou nvil
se
AD
STITTENHAM RO
le
Bridge
Cottage
13.2
bh- ir
o
a
T -Sco
nan
L ille
Hou shall
se
Stra
th
Cot naver
tage
R
Lynoth
n
BM 14.85m
T
h
a
PW
Tao
b
Greih-nane
Morven
14.9
m
AM
S
da
Helms
Chu
rc
TTE
NH
River
The
Old
Man
se
lvin
Da
hlai
r
Sunnyhill
Tos
Heathcote
Ardene
er
N
Scale
1:1250
TH