Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
17/00992/B Page 1 of 21
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 17/00992/B Applicant : Dandara Homes Limited Proposal : Erection of 45 dwellings with associated public open space, highways and drainage infrastructure Site Address : Fields 314333, 314334, 314335 & 314336 And Parts Of Adjacent Agricultural Machinery Yard, Adjacent Highway And Verge / Footway Off Oak Road Peel Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 19.02.2018 Site Visit : 19.02.2018 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Approve subject to Legal Agreement Date of Recommendation: 16.04.2018 __
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the means of vehicular access has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and shall thereafter be retained for access purposes only.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 3. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the means of access for pedestrians and/or cyclists has been constructed in accordance with the approved plan, and shall thereafter be retained for access purposes only.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
C 4. No works (other than the works identified below) shall be carried out on the site until the following works have been completed in accordance with the approved plans:
a) the access road to Oak Road;
==== PAGE 2 ====
17/00992/B Page 2 of 21
b) visibility splays at the junction of the new access road and Oak Road.
Reason: To ensure that the development will not compromise the free flow of traffic or highway safety.
C 5. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.
C 6. Prior to any construction the highway improvements shall be installed in accordance with a drawing to be approved by the Planning Authority and the visibility splays shall remain unobstructed at a height of 1.05m thereafter.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety
C 7. 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.
Reason: The landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to the following drawings: 020 021 022 and 023 all received on 15th September, 2017
001B and 200A both received on 11th October, 2017
003A 005A 010B 20.02C 20.06C 20.10C 20.11C 20.12C 21.01A 21.02A 21.03A 21.04A 23.01 and 200B all on 23rd November, 2017 and
24.01 received on 13th March, 2018.
==== PAGE 3 ====
17/00992/B Page 3 of 21
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations: Department of Infrastructure Housing Division
It is recommended that the following Government Department and agency should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have not made written representations to the application: Department for Education, Sport and Culture and Manx Utilities
It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
Manx Bat Group, The Old Chapel, Jurby East who make comments relative to a material consideration
7, Close Corlett 10, Close Corlett 11, Close Corlett 12, Close Corlett
15, Close Quane 17, Close Quane 19, Close Quane
1, Fuchsia Avenue 2, Fuchsia Avenue 3, Fuchsia Avenue 4, Fuchsia Avenue
all of whom abut the site and would be directly affected by the proposed development.
It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
2, Close Corlett 5, Close Corlett 14, Close Corlett 15, Close Corlett 17, Close Corlett 10, Close Quane 4, Oak Road 6, Oak Road 11, Aspen Drive 16, Aspen Drive 34, Ballellis 16, Rowan Avenue Sea Peep, Poortown Road
==== PAGE 4 ====
17/00992/B Page 4 of 21
Meadow View, Poortown Road 8, Lhoan Pibbin Vane, Reayrt ny Cronk 9, Lhoan Pibbin Vane, Reayrt ny Cronk 10, Lhoan Pibbin Vane, Reayrt ny Cronk 15, Rockmount Road, Slieau Whallian View Rose Cottage, Derby Road 16, McLeod's Fields 3, Fuchsia Road, Reayrt ny Keylley 10, Fuchsia Road, Reayrt ny Keylley 5, Mona Street 1, Peveril Terrace 3, Lyndale Avenue 27, Creggans Avenue
none of whom abut the site and it is considered would not be directly or adversely affected by the development so as to warrant being afforded interested person status. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR A LEGAL AGREEMENT TO SECURE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND THE NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS RECEIVED
THE SITE 1.1 The site is a parcel of land which lies to the north west of Oak Road and includes a strip of land which is presently grass verge, continuing across Derby Road and into a cul de sac on the other side of Derby Road in front of an existing house. The site has a frontage of around 100m to Oak Road and it is around 108m in depth towards Close Corlett and Close Quane. Immediately to the south west of the site is land associated with and in the same ownership as the JD Faulkner Ltd John Deere dealership which provides machinery sales and service for agricultural, domestic and professional ground care equipment. Access to this site is directly from Derby Road and permission has recently been renewed for a relocated and improved access further away from the roundabout to the south of the site.
1.2 To the north west of the site, on the other side of an existing hedge comprising 33 leylandii cypress, sit numbers 7-12 Close Corlett and the rear gardens of 18 and 19, Close Quane. The Close Corlett properties are two storey detached houses and the Close Quane properties in this case are single storey true bungalows.
1.3 To the immediate north of the site is the side garden of 19, Cushag Drive, a two storey semi-detached dwelling and further along this north eastern boundary of the site are the rear gardens of number 1 - 4, Fuchsia Avenue, all two storey detached dwellings whose first floor windows can be seen from pedestrian level in the application site.
1.4 The site slopes very gently upward from south west to north east by around 3m over 115m. It is a grassed area which does not appear to be actively used.
1.5 The leylandii boundary continues a short way around the northern boundary of the site where, towards the rear of 19, Cushag Drive, it ceases and the boundary becomes gorse and more natural shrubbery. The boundary to Oak Road is formed by hawthorn hedging which has grown to around 3m in height.
1.6 The boundary to the agricultural contractor site is formed again by natural gorse type shrubbery and there is an informal access between the application site and the land alongside the existing contractor's shed and external storage area.
==== PAGE 5 ====
17/00992/B Page 5 of 21
1.7 The site is in the same ownership as the agricultural contractor site.
THE SITE 2.1 Proposed is the residential development of the site for 45 dwellings. The existing boundary hedging around the front and sides of the site will be retained other than where a new 1.8m wide access is to be introduced onto Oak Road and the 33 leylandii currently sitting alongside the north western boundary are all to be removed. The four alongside 19, Cushag Road are to be retained. In the place of the leylandii to be removed will be a 1.8m fence on the site-side of the existing bank which is to be retained along with a series of ornamental trees and a Griselinia hedge will planted between the fence and the existing bank to screen the fence from the outer (Close Corlett) side of the fence. The existing gap in the hedge abutting the remainder of the JD Faulkner site will be filled in with shrubs and bushes to form a continuation of the existing hedge. The applicant describes the leylandii as having been planted some years ago by the land owner in order to provide separation from his business premises and the adjacent dwellings and as there is no longer such a conflict in uses and as they consider the species inappropriate for a wholly residential area due to their rapid growth rate and screening rather than aesthetic or wildlife value, they are proposed to be removed, acknowledging their detrimental impact upon outlook, daylight and sunlight. They consider it unlikely, given the comments made on the application by DEFA Arboricultural and Wildlife Officers, that an application to fell the trees would be looked upon unfavourably.
2.2 The houses are all to be terraced or semi-detached, all two storey and other than 5 affordable units at the north western end of the site are all the same house type (Larch 2 and 3 bed), most with dormers in the front roof plane. The actual houses are three different basic styles with a variety of painted render and facing brick finishes and slightly differing proportions. Whatever the finish on the front, the rears are all plain painted render.
2.3 The houses are arranged around the outside of the site, sitting generally around 12m from the relative rear boundary other than in the case of the plots in the northern corner (plots 29 and 30) and the two plots which side onto Oak Road. Number 29 will have a two storey side gable, at closest, 5m from the rear boundary of 7, Close Corlett and just over 15m from that property itself. The applicant latterly submitted sectional drawings which demonstrate the relationships between the proposed houses and those in Close Corlett and Fuchsia Avenue (drawing 24.01). This illustrates that between 10 and 11, Close Corlett, which are the only houses which face directly towards the proposed houses, there will be 24m separation and the proposed houses are slightly higher and around 2m taller. The relationship between the nearest proposed house and 7, Close Corlett is different in that the existing house is angled towards the application site boundary. The distance between the buildings will be 16.6m and the proposed house overall will be 1.1m higher - the house itself being a similar height but the ground on which it will be built is around 1m higher. There are to be no windows in the gable of this proposed dwelling. In all cases above, the separation between the houses includes the proposed hedge and tree planting. The drawing also illustrates the relationship between the proposed dwellings and those in Fuchsia Avenue. In all cases there will be at least 27m separation and all of the proposed dwellings are set at a lower level but are taller, resulting in an overall increase in height of the proposed dwellings of around half a metre over the height of the existing dwellings. In all cases, the eaves level of the proposed houses are lower than those in the existing houses (although the houses are actually taller) and the pitch of the proposed houses is steeper (38 degrees compared with 30 degrees).
2.4 The area of public open space in the centre of the site is approximately 30m by 42m and is to be planted with 6 trees.
2.5 The site will be drained of its surface water through new pipework and a subterranean storage facility within the public open space area. This will then feed into the existing sw drainage system in Oak Road. A temporary foul water treatment works was initially proposed
==== PAGE 6 ====
17/00992/B Page 6 of 21
which involved the installation of a new treatment system located behind plots 7 and 8 and then fed through a new pipe system in the grass verge parallel with Oak Road and across Derby Road to link into the existing pipework at the end of the cul de sac of Lhoan Pibbin Vane in the Reayrt ny Cronk housing development. The applicant explained that at present, the existing foul system is being infiltrated by surface water and if work to be undertaken by Manx Utilities revealed that the problem has been alleviated then the development can be connected into the main in Oak Road: if not, a temporary by-pass of this part of the system will be installed to connect into the sewer at Lhoan Pibbin Vane as shown on the plans. Following further discussion with Manx Utilities, the applicant has revised this element to take out the temporary treatment works as there is no longer a requirement to pre-treat the sewage going into the mains system.
2.6 The applicant refers to various Strategic Plan policies which are set out below in the Planning Policy section of this report and also refers to current Residential Land Availability Studies, the latest of which indicates that the housing requirement set out in earlier residential land need calculations had been exceeded by 320 dwelling (2001-2016). The most up to date assessment of housing need for the west (the 2016 Strategic Plan) of 770 between 2011 and 2026 and of this, currently 338 dwellings are the number to remain to be provided. They refer to the Strategic Plan requirement for children's play space and amenity space.
2.7 The application includes a brief transport appraisal from Bryan G Hall Consulting Civil and Transportation Planning Engineers who describe Oak Road as performing the function of a local road that connects with the A20 Poortown Road at the roundabout with an additional connection to the wider highway network at Ballaquane Road through Rowan Avenue. Oak Road is subject to a 20 mph speed limit and has various traffic calming measures within it. The road in the vicinity of the application site has a general carriageway width of 6.1m with a segregated footway along the site frontage and is also a bus route. They describe the proposed development as incorporating a simply priority junction with Oak Road and is capable of providing minimum visibility splays of 2.4m by 22m in both directions which is appropriate for areas where the speed of traffic is limited to 20 mph. They suggest that typical residential development generates between 0.6 and 0.8 vehicle movements per dwelling during the morning peak period, three quarters of which are likely to be leaving the development. This would result, using the higher figure, of 27 vehicles departing and 9 arriving in the morning peak - equivalent to 1 vehicle every 1-2 minutes using Oak Road. They consider this level of additional traffic to be unnoticeable and as such the development is not considered to have a significant impact on the local highway network.
2.8 The development provides car parking in the form of 2 spaces per unit (in addition to any garages) with six guest spaces available around the area of public open space. Almost all of the spaces are provided in front of the units, some separated from the neighbouring spaces by small areas of grass but others in longer rows of four, six and fourteen spaces. This is a not uncommon form of parking arrangement in cases of higher density development.
2.9 The applicant has also provided clarification of why the access points were chosen; explaining that the only possible access is directly from Oak Road and its position was chosen so as not to conflict with the entrance to Magher Drine which is opposite the site. An additional pedestrian access is proposed between plots 6 and 7. There is potential for a further footpath link from the site through to Poortown Road through the land to the south west between plots 15 and 16, should this land ever be proposed for development.
2.10 They explain that the roads are generally provided on the basis of the 4.8m wide shared surface which is referred to in Manual for Manx Roads and it is anticipated that the estate will become a Home Zone in common with the existing developments off Oak Road. The shared surface makes pedestrian access available along with those in wheelchairs or with prams as there are no steps up and down from pavements. Refuse collection vehicles need not reverse for more than 12m, as recommended in Department of Infrastructure guidance. They consider
==== PAGE 7 ====
17/00992/B Page 7 of 21
that the width should deter speeding and on-street parking. Where parking spaces is no greater than 4.8m in length, the width of the road has been increased to 6m to enable vehicles to be able to manoeuvre in and out safely. Where spaces are so close together that pedestrian access between the vehicles is not practicable, a pedestrian footpath has been provided.
2.11 It is recommended that the existing speed cushion, located immediately to the south of the proposed access, on Oak Road, is relocated further to the south west to avoid difficulties for those in vehicles exiting the site and trying to turn right and this is shown on the proposed plans. Branches which overhang the proposed footway running alongside Oak Road will be trimmed back so that leaves do not become a slip hazard for pedestrians. A wheelchair accessible dropped kerb crossing point will be provided to allow access over the existing grass verge opposite the bus stop.
2.12 The applicant has provided additional information relating to the Public Open Space in the form of data relating to the use of the QEII formal sports facilities to address whether the development should be expected to provide formal recreation or formal Public Open Space or a contribution thereto. The information suggests that the school has regular bookings for the grass sports pitches, sports hall and gymnasium on Thursday evenings and Saturday afternoons. In respect of the two synthetic half pitches at the school, they appear to be fully used on Wednesday evenings, most of Tuesday and Thursdays evenings and between 1100- 1700hrs on Saturdays and 0930 - 1230hrs on Sundays.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Peel Local Plan of 1989 as Predominantly Residential, with notation in the Written Statement that land on the outskirts of the town will be allocated for development, that the areas so designated would be sufficient for the town's needs at that time and that developments should include comprehensive landscaping.
3.2 Peel is referred to in the Strategic Plan as one of a number of Service Centres which, outside Douglas will provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services and where "Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such centres so as to provide a range of housing and employment opportunities at a scale appropriate to the settlement."
3.3 The site is therefore suitable for residential development in land use and sustainability terms. Strategic Policy 5 requires that development makes a positive contribution to the environment of the Island and Strategic Policy 1 requires that:
"Development should make the best use of resources by:
(a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under- used land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."
Strategic Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.
Strategic Policy 3 goes on:
"Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by:
==== PAGE 8 ====
17/00992/B Page 8 of 21
(a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character."
3.4 General Policy 2 sets out general standards which development is expected to achieve and the relevant parts of that are as follows:
"Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
3.5 Housing Policy 5 requires that 25% of houses in developments of 8 units or more, should be delivered as affordable housing.
3.6 Appendix 6 of the Strategic Plan requires that in developments of 10 dwellings or more, public open space should be provided, with children's play areas and amenity space respectively at ratios of 12 sq m and 16 sq m for two bedroomed units and 18 sq m and 24 sq m for dwellings with three or more bedrooms. This development comprises 12 two bedroomed units and 33 three bed units, resulting in a requirement for 738 sq m of children's play space and 984 sq m of amenity space. The Plan also requires there to be a provision for formal recreation space, 2,214 sq m in this case. Recreation space usually takes the form of pitches or courts and requires a reasonable amount of land to be provided with appropriate space around them so as not to be unneighbourly.
3.7 13/91389/B proposed a larger scale residential development on the southern side of Poortown Road and the inspector considering the appeal against the approval of this, made the following comments about alleged deficiencies in the provision of formal open space:
"Open Space 77. Strategic Plan Recreation Policy 3 states: "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan."
==== PAGE 9 ====
17/00992/B Page 9 of 21
order to provide accessible, safe places for young children to play and socialise and also green landscaped settings for people's homes. The appeal scheme fully meets both these requirements. The seemingly gross under provision in children's play space referred to by the Commissioners (paragraph 18) identifies only the enclosed area of permanent play equipment, not the wider areas available.
Access to leisure/recreational open space can be more flexible, provided that there is sufficient available in the wider locality to meet the needs of the existing population together with the development's residents. Appendix 6 lists categories of provision that may be taken fully into account and others that may be seen as making a complementary contribution. At Peel the former includes the school grounds, facilities at the Promenade and at Peel AFC. The latter includes the seashore, golf course and other private sports facilities, since these all contribute in a general sense to leisure and recreational opportunities for the town's residents. On any measure, Peel is not deficient. Any review of the policy regarding public access to school grounds would be a separate matter for the Education Minister and doubtless Tynwald.
The proposal accords with the aims of Recreation Policy 3."
3.8 Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan sets out car parking standards as follows:
"Typical Residential 2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling. Residential Terraces 2 spaces per unit, if not within curtilage then located as close to units as possible without compromising residential amenity. Parking spaces should not be provided in front of the dwellings where this would result in a poor outlook for residents and would detract from the amenity of the area."
It goes on: "These standards may be relaxed where development:
(a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or (b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape; or (c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area. (d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There have been no planning applications submitted for the development of the application site. The existing residential development to the north, west and east was developed in the 2000s with Close Quane in existence before then.
4.2 The planning applications for the development of land on the other side of the road, have resulted in useful conclusions regarding the principle of development and the provision of infrastructure and public open space which are set out below.
13/91289/B - development of land for 144 dwellings, which is now Slieau Whallian View "Inspector's Assessment Introduction 60. This proposal accords with the site's Predominantly Residential land use designation in the Peel Local Plan 1989. Accordingly it benefits from the initial favourable presumption in General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. The appeal turns, therefore, on whether there are material considerations against the proposal sufficient to warrant refusal - either in principle or because of specific aspects of this particular scheme."
==== PAGE 10 ====
17/00992/B Page 10 of 21
"79. Access to leisure/recreational open space can be more flexible, provided that there is sufficient available in the wider locality to meet the needs of the existing population together with the development's residents. Appendix 6 lists categories of provision that may be taken fully into account and others that may be seen as making a complementary contribution. At Peel the former includes the school grounds, facilities at the Promenade and at Peel AFC. The latter includes the seashore, golf course and other private sports facilities, since these all contribute in a general sense to leisure and recreational opportunities for the town's residents. On any measure, Peel is not deficient. Any review of the policy regarding public access to school grounds would be a separate matter for the Education Minister and doubtless Tynwald.
Sewerage 81. Strategic Plan Infrastructure Policies 1 and 2 limit all but very minor development to areas that will ultimately be connected to the IRIS system, with full details to be provided for interim arrangements. Environment Policy 22 includes safeguarding aims regarding sea pollution. Environment Policy 10 requires a Flood Risk Assessment with applications where the Department considers that there is a potential risk of flooding.
The private treatment plant proposed is a robust and well attested system. It would duplicate and sit alongside that serving Reayrt ny Cronk but with additional on-site storage, so that the rate of effluent discharge to the public sewer would be no more than now. The problems graphically described by Mr Cowin with respect to the Peel outfall arise because the older extent of the town has combined sewers, carrying surface water and foul water. The volume of surface water during wet weather is very many times higher than the foul water, but of course mixed with it, leading to polluted discharges to the sea. The relatively speaking minute volume of treated effluent from the development would have a negligible impact. The proposals are agreed by Manx Utilities and would be subject to a licence from the Environmental Protection Unit. The phrase that they do not "anticipate" any problem seems to me to be no more than the normal formulation of a regulatory body that is satisfied with a proposal.
Surface water drainage, from roofs and hard surfaces, would be entirely separate, again with on-site storage and subject to an attenuated rate of discharge to a water course at a rate no higher than the land's existing greenfield run-off. It is evident from correspondence that there were run off problems affecting the QE II School during an earlier phase of development, but also that that has been resolved.
The question of who would pick up the tab for running the treatment plant instead of Heritage Homes Ltd, if the need ever arose, is an interesting one. But having concluded that the system itself would be satisfactory, and accepting the consensus view that one way or another the plant would be maintained, the issue is a financial one for Manx Utilities and the Environmental Protection Unit as an aspect of the required discharge licence, rather than a material planning consideration. It may be that those bodies would view the risk as a low probability/low impact one that could simply be borne. Other options might be a financial bond, insurance cover or the escrow promoted by the Commissioners. However, these are matters for Heritage Homes Ltd and the public bodies concerned.
From a planning point of view, satisfactory measures are proposed with respect to foul and surface water drainage.
The development's residents would require educational, medical, policing and other services wherever they live on the Island. The need, as such, would not arise in any absolute sense because of this development. That public services on the Island, as in the UK, face pressures of constrained budgets with growing demands, is not a consequence of the appeal development or a reason for disallowing it. Rather the reverse in fact. Services can generally be
==== PAGE 11 ====
17/00992/B Page 11 of 21
provided more efficiently by being concentrated at designated Service Centres, including Peel, as intended by the Strategic Plan Spatial Strategy. It is for service providers to seek to respond to the needs of their users, so far as possible; doing so will be that bit less challenging when focussed rather than dispersed. I do understand that people in Peel having to wait for medical appointments, say, or faced with crowded schools, may not welcome this new development. But looked at broadly, there would be more scope for an additional medical practitioner, say, or more classrooms and teachers, than if the same 144 new households lived in less sustainable locations. It should be borne in mind too, that the 144 households would not all arrive at once, but over a period as the development progressed and likewise their children would not all need school places simultaneously. There would be at least some opportunity for service providers to respond in advance.
REPRESENTATIONS Peel Town Commissioners 5.1.1 The Commissioners initially (12.10.17) sought a deferral to enable them to consider the impact on their requirement for the provision of street lighting on Poortown Road and play facilities. They expressed at this time, their growing concerns about the capacity of the sewerage treatment facilities and other supporting Government infrastructure in the town. They report on 18.12.17 that they have no objection to the application. They submit further comments on 19.01.18, advising that they have concerns about street lighting along Poortown Road and the provision of play equipment in this part of Peel but that the applicant has agreed to make financial contributions to the Commissioners to address these matters and their earlier concerns regarding the local sewage treatment plant and the removal of a boundary hedge, have been resolved. The confirm again on 06.04.18 that they do not oppose the application.
Department of Infrastructure Highway Services 5.2.1 Highway Services have raised concern about the layout of the site and its compliance with Manual for Manx Roads (20.10.17). However, following discussion with the applicant, Highway Services confirmed on 12.04.18 that they do not oppose the application subject to the imposition of a number of conditions as follows:
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
a) the access road to Oak Road; b) visibility splays at the junction of the new access road and Oak Road.
Reason: To ensure that the development will not compromise the free flow of traffic or highway safety.
==== PAGE 12 ====
17/00992/B Page 12 of 21
be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.
Reason: In the interest of highway safety
Manx Utilities 5.3.1 Manx Utilities were contacted in respect of the drainage elements of the development but have not responded (23.03.18 and 12.04.18).
Department of Education 5.4.1 Similarly, Department of Education were contacted on 27.12.17 and 17.01.18 to ascertain whether there were any Departmental concerns about the capacity of the schools to accommodate the children from the proposed development but no response has been received. The last contact indicated that if no response was received prior to 31st January, 2018 it would be assumed that there were no issues.
Department of Infrastructure, Housing Division 5.5.1 This Division of the Department advise that there are currently 9 people on the first time buyer register with a further 53 on the first time buyers' register who wish to buy a home at some point in the future. There are currently 70 people on the General Housing Waiting List who are seeking public sector housing and a further 55 persons who are on the Sheltered Housing waiting list. They request that an agreement is entered into to provide 25% of the housing proposed provided as affordable housing or equivalent (11.10.17). A legal agreement is currently being drafted to secure 5 affordable homes on site and a financial contribution towards the provision of 5 further units elsewhere in the area. They supplement this on 26.01.18 to add that there are likely to be 5 first time buyers each seeking to purchase an affordable home on this site and the local authority do not require any affordable rental properties as they have recently taken delivery of 23 new homes at Beary Close in Ballawattleworth and wish to assimilate these into their housing stock portfolio before proceeding with any further acquisitions. They are content with the incorporation of 5 affordable homes into the development with the remainder of the requirement (they suggest 6.25 units) being provided as commuted sums.
Department of Environment Food and Agriculture 5.6.1 The Senior Biodiversity Officer welcomes the applicant's statement that existing hedges are to be retained as much of the wildlife interest will relate to these features although due to the lack of management of the field itself, the wildlife interest may extend into that. He seeks clarification that the bank which is shown to be retained but which others suggest will be lost, will be kept. The applicant has confirmed that this is the case (29.12.17). He comments on the line of leylandii which are to be removed and suggests that there may be habitat for nesting birds within it. He notes that whilst there have been comments about the loss of wildlife habitat and privacy have been raised, matters of on-going maintenance and light do not appear to have been raised. Whilst bird habitat and the presence of birds can give people a sense of place and a revitalising connection to nature and can be a valued resources of local interest, there are many tree species which he would consider to give much greater benefits to nature conservation than leylandii and their replacement with other species is often beneficial. He suggests that leylandii are not native and provides little interest to foraging animals but does provide a wind break which can aid hawking animals such as bats. The value of the trees to wildlife should be further investigated from Manx Birdlife. He notes that no information has
==== PAGE 13 ====
17/00992/B Page 13 of 21
been provided in the application about wildlife and if an EIA were required, it would have been provided in that. He suggests that he would find it difficult to argue for the retention of the leylandii for wildlife conservation and he would be surprised if there is more than local wildlife interest on the site other potentially, than frogs as there is a pond nearby and care should be taken in the implementation of any development as these are a protected species although he notes that gardens can provide habitat. He has no objection to the introduction of a griselinia hedge which is acceptable for planting in a garden, although not in the wild, although he would not recommend it. Flowering and native trees within a planted hedge could provide added wildlife interest (28.12.17).
5.6.2 The Arboricultural Officer comments on 28.12.18 that the leylandii trees are poor specimens of little amenity value to the wider public and there would be no objection from them for their removal. The only issue is in respect of the loss of screening on the residents of Close Corlett.
Local residents 5.7.1 Due to the number of representations received and the commonality of many of the points raised, the local residents' views have been summarised together with the individual representations listed together with the date of submission, at the end.
5.7.2 There are a number of objections expressed by people living close to and some further away from the site. These concerns relate to the impact on those in Close Corlett from the removal of the trees and the fact that the Strategic Plan presumes against the loss of existing landscape features (paragraph 7.4.1), the impact of construction traffic and construction noise on those living around the estate including reference to a local nursery, close by. Concern is also expressed about the loss of hedges (some of which are not shown on the plans) and other trees and shrubs including blossom trees on the Oak Road boundary. There are concerns that the local schools and facilities such as the doctors' and dental surgeries do not have the capacity to service additional population and that there is no parking in the town centre which in part has led to the decline of the town centre. Concern is expressed that there is no Environmental Impact Assessment, despite the Strategic Plan requiring one at paragraph 7.18.1 and Appendix 5 point J. They query what is meant by the statement that existing hedges will "largely" be kept and that they should be clearly shown on the plan, in accordance with paragraph 7.4.21 of the Strategic Plan and there is reference to previous hedge removal in nearby estates. Similarly the reference to "cutting back" existing bushes and shrubs is queried: what exactly does this mean?
5.7.3 There is a query as to what the Planning Statement is and should be and whether the Transport Statement is as it should be as it appears short and there is no reference to traffic on Oak Road, Poortown Road or Ballaquane Road. Concern is expressed that the development will result in additional traffic which will reduce the quality of life for those alongside the access roads. Residents request clarification of how the drainage will be provided and concern is raised as to the capacity of the system to accept more sewage as there were issues in the existing system when Cronk Reayrt was developed. It is stated that there is still surcharging in the existing system which results in flooding around the junction of Ballaquane Road and Derby Road and that monitoring will not alleviate this problem. Photographs are provided of this surcharging occurring.
5.7.4 Concern is expressed by near neighbours that their property will be overlooked and that their presently open view will be removed along with a loss of wildlife. It is suggested that a permit would be required for the felling of the trees (although the Tree Preservation Act 1993 contains provision for the existence of a planning approval which explicitly approves the removal of trees to be a defence should trees be removed without the relevant permit). They consider that the density of housing is inconsistent with what is around the site. Whilst objecting to the loss of the leylandii trees there is also a suggestion that the development will
==== PAGE 14 ====
17/00992/B Page 14 of 21
result in a loss of light to existing property as the existing trees allow light to permeate through to the properties behind.
5.7.5 Concerns have been expressed about the temporary sewage treatment plant but this is no longer proposed, and potential water logging of properties in Close Quane as a result of the diversion of the natural water soakaway, which occurred when Close Corlett was constructed. There is general concern that the development should not be permitted until the town is connected to the planned regional treatment facility. Reference is made to comments made during a planning application in 2010 where the then Drainage Division would not permit any discharge from the proposed development until both IRIS is commissioned and necessary upgrading works have been carried out along with further comments made in 2010 about the then Drainage Division's view that downstream in the Derby Road, sewer and surcharging in flooding during rainfall events necessitated upgrading works which were not undertaken and given this, how can further sewage be satisfactorily added to the system. Reference is also made to the Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee (undated) and their discussions of the regional strategy for sewage management in Peel, suggesting that the decision not to extend the outfall pipe potentially exposes bathers and other sea users to unnecessary risk and that a regional sewage treatment facility in Peel without an adequately extended outfall pipe involves too many compromises and significant risks. In the event that the regional treatment facility is not pursued, it is unacceptable to increase the amount of raw sewage disposed of in Peel Bay.
5.7.6 Suggestions have also been made that the site would make a very good public park or for recreation facilities and that the lack of footpaths within the estate will be unsafe for pedestrians and children crossing the estate road to get to the recreation area. Residents query whether the increased traffic will be "noticeable" by other road users and that there is no mention of footways in the local highway network assessment or change in air quality as a result of the additional vehicles.
5.7.7 They query whether the appropriate level of affordable housing is being provided and whether the houses are to an appropriate standard as many appear to fail the affordable housing regulation standards.
5.7.8 Other points raised concern heavy traffic using Derby Road and a request that heavy construction traffic be allowed to use Oak Road or directed along Poortown Road as the sustained use of Derby Road, Peveril Road and Church Street has resulted in damage to the old gas pipes and also this route is used by people going to the school and swimming pool and those using the various junctions en route.
5.7.9 Reference is made to a previous application, 04/02025/B, submitted by one of the objectors to a lower density development of the application site with the land to the south west also included, which generated no local objections but was refused by the highway authority as the proposed access onto the Poortown Road was considered unsafe and unacceptable. He points out that the site as defined includes a strip of land which will prevent the owner of the rest of the land between the application site and the agricultural yard from accessing Oak Road without the developer's permission (it should be noted that the applicant is actually the owner of the remaining land, not the developer and any sale of land is a matter between the purchaser and the owner and not a material planning consideration).
5.7.10 Concern is expressed that there is no provision for sheltered housing, the inclusion of which could reduce density and that the design is not Manx nor sympathetic to the design of the properties close by. Some suggest that the housing is identical to the other houses already built on the outskirts of the town. Also, there is insufficient recreation/formal open space provided and the reference to the use of the QEII fields is inappropriate as they are in use for most of the time, including weekends and evenings and they are unlit. If the central open space is to be used for recreation then ball games must be allowed there. There are concerns
==== PAGE 15 ====
17/00992/B Page 15 of 21
that there is no children's play facilities provided and the amount of area provided for this is inadequate, as it has been on other recently built estates and that the equipment in some other play areas, including that at Peel Clothworkers' School, are unfit for use through lack of maintenance.
5.7.11 Comment is made that the two bedroomed dwellings are annotated Bed 2 and Bed 3 when there are only two bedrooms.
5.7.12 Comment is also made that there is no street lighting included in the application and that the consideration of the application by Peel Town Commissioners was not thorough and that comments made at the Commissioners' meeting had not been communicated to the Department, and even that the notification by the Clerk on 18.12.17 that the Commissioners had no objection did not actually reflect what was determined and what the members suggested was that there was no information on street lighting and that the provisions for dealing with sewage was inadequate.
5.7.13 There are non-material concerns raised, such as the cost of the maintenance of the areas of public open space should the local authority adopt them and the impact of the development on the value of neighbours' houses, which are not relevant to the consideration of the application. Reference is also made to the target figures in the Strategic Plan for housing provision as a maximum and exceeding this will be contrary to the Strategic Plan objectives. These concerns refer to the figures set out in the 2007 version of the Strategic Plan which provided an assessment of housing need from 2001 to 2016, not the updated figures in the 2016 Plan which revised the figures to take the assessment from 2011 up until 2026.
5.7.14 Concern has also been raised about the vires of the Department to make a Development Order (a development procedure order rather than one which itself proposes development) under section 2A of the Act. Also, concern was expressed that amended plans which sought to address concerns raised about the proximity of the housing to 7, Close Corlett and the loss of trees in this area, were not re-advertised and that these plans have no validity as there is no vires to consider amendments to originally submitted plans other than by re- advertising them. Subsequently the plans, together with further amendments were the subject of a re-advertisement notice.
5.7.15 Finally, there is a concern that there is no need for the dwellings as there are many properties currently available for sale and according to the Strategic Plan, the west already has 56% of its target achieved between 2011 and 2026.
2, Close Corlett (16.10.17) 5, Close Corlett (06.10.17) 7, Close Corlett (06.10.17) 10, Close Corlett (11.10.17) 11, Close Corlett (03.10.17, 20.11.17) 12, Close Corlett ( two separate letters dated 04.10.17) 14, Close Corlett (11.10.17) 15, Close Corlett (06.10.17) 17, Close Corlett (28.09.17) 10, Close Quane (10.10.17, 10.11.17, 14.11.17, 20.11.17) 15, Close Quane (10.10.17) 17, Close Quane (11.10.17) 19, Close Quane (04.10.17) 1, Fuchsia Avenue (13.10.17) 2, Fuchsia Avenue (12.10.17, 19.11.17) 3, Fuchsia Avenue (10.10.17) 4, Fuchsia Avenue (11.10.17) 4, Oak Road (10.10.17)
==== PAGE 16 ====
17/00992/B Page 16 of 21
6, Oak Road (09.10.17, 16.12.17) 11, Aspen Drive (11.10.17) 16, Aspen Drive (12.10.17) 34, Ballellis (13.10.17) 16, Rowan Avenue (09.10.17) Sea Peep, Poortown Road (03.10.17, 12.10.17, 13.10.17, 15.10.17, 17.10.17, 19.10.17, 28.10.17, 29.10.17, 03.11.17, 04.11.17, 07.11.17, 17.11.17, 20.11.17, 22.11.17, 13.12.17, 28.12.17, 29.12.17, 30.12.17, 31.12.17, 02.01.18, 03.01.18, 09.01.18, 10.01.18, 22.01.18, 23.01.18, 30.01.18, 01.02.18, 05.03.18, 11.03.18, 25.03.18) Meadow View, Poortown Road (13.10.17) 8, Lhoan Pibbin Vane, Reayrt ny Cronk (two similar letters both dated 11.10.17) 9, Lhoan Pibbin Vane, Reayrt ny Cronk (11.10.17) 10, Lhoan Pibbin Lane, Reayrt ny Cronk (09.10.17) 15, Rockmount Road, Slieau Whallian View (29.09.17) Rose Cottage, Derby Road (25.09.17) 16, McLeod's Fields (10.10.17) 3, Fuchsia Road, Reayrt ny Keylley (09.10.17) 10, Fuchsia Road, Reayrt ny Keylley (16.10.17) 5, Mona Street (13.10.17) 1, Peveril Terrace (12.10.17) 3, Lyndale Avenue (11.10.17) 27, Creggans Avenue (10.10.17)
Other organisations 5.8.1 The Manx Bat Group were asked to comment on the use of the site by bats. They advise that there are 6 records of bats in the immediate vicinity of the application site but none on the site itself. Some of the bats recorded were found within houses. In respect of the leylandii hedge, they advise that this species tend not to form cavities or cracks which bats look for as places to roost and in any case are rather resinous which would mitigate against a fastidious mammal crawling over it and getting its fur matted. They suggest that bats also use hedgerows and lines of trees as travelling routes and as foraging sites, picking off insects sheltering in the lee of any wind. In such instances, however, the species of tree matters very little unless it is one that is especially attractive to insects in which case native species are usually to be preferred (15.01.18).
ASSESSMENT 6.1 Principle of residential development 6.1.1 The site is designated for residential development and has been since 1989, importantly prior to the construction of Close Corlett and all of the houses off Oak Road. Unless there are site specific reasons why the site should not be developed, the principle of the residential development of this site should be taken as acceptable. There is no known ecological reason why the site should not be developed, confirmed by DEFA Senior Biodiversity Officer and the response from the Manx Bat Group. It is important that it is demonstrated that the site can be serviced - accessed and drained - and that the design and layout complies with the general standards of development as set out in General Policy 2 and these elements will be dealt with later.
6.1.2 Not only should there be a presumption in favour of residential development of this site because it is so designated, it is also important that where land is designated and in a sustainable location, it is developed to avoid the proliferation of additional dwellings in the countryside to meet the housing need of the Island's population, as referred to in the Strategic Aim: To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage, Strategic Policy 1 and Strategic Policy 2.
==== PAGE 17 ====
17/00992/B Page 17 of 21
6.2 Access and highways 6.2.1 Following discussions between the applicant and Highway Services, the latter's conclusion is that the proposal meets with the requirements of Manual for Manx Roads, a newly issued document with which development on the Island should comply.
6.3 Drainage 6.3.1 The proposal is no longer to utilise a sewage treatment facility and to discharge the development's sewage directly to the main system either directly into Oak Road, or if surcharging issues have not been resolved, via a bypass using the existing sewer in Lhoan Pibbin Vane. There is no indication from the sewerage authority that this is unacceptable. Prior to a development being connected to any main sewer, permission is required from Manx Utilities, the Island's drainage authority and if the system is incapable of accommodating it, permission will not be given. There is clearly a wider issue in Peel to address the matter of untreated sewage being discharged into the sea, reflected in the Environment and Infrastructure Policy Review Committee conclusion. However, this is a matter for Government and not the decision maker in this instance. If it is resolved that additional sewage should not be discharged to the main sewer until either the lengthening of the outfall pipe or a regional sewage works is undertaken, then Manx Utilities will take this into account when considering whether to allow further connections to the main sewer.
6.4 Other infrastructure 6.4.1 As has been the case with earlier applications for residential development in the vicinity of this site, concern has been raised about the capacity of schools, doctor's and dentist's surgeries and their ability to cope with additional users. The inspector commenting on 13/91289/B, referred to above and particularly his paragraphs 86 and 87 cited above provide useful advice about this element of impact, noting that it is for these services to adapt and expand to accommodate a planned expansion of the town's population, not the other way around. He saw no reason to refuse that application for this reason and the same conclusion is reached here.
6.5 Visual impact 6.5.1 The proposed development will be seen as a continuation of the existing built development in Close Corlett and along Oak Road and will not appear out of keeping in this particular area. The houses are similar, but not identical to those alongside, introducing a little variety but not so different as to stand out or be otherwise objectionable.
6.6 Impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent property 6.6.1 There will clearly be an impact on the occupants of Close Corlett, Fuchsia Avenue, Cushag Drive and Close Quane some of whose properties currently look out at the rear and side to open land and a stand of tall conifers. The conifers will be removed, arguably improving light to the Close Corlett and Close Quane properties, but in their place will be new trees and buildings along with people living on the other side of the mutual boundary. Whilst this is understandably going to be seen as a retrograde step for these residents, the fact remains that the site is designated for development and aside from the matter of the leylandii which will be dealt with later, what remains to be demonstrated is that the development is in all other respects acceptable from the point of view of an urban development, referring to heights and levels, distances between dwellings and the position of windows and potential for overlooking and detrimental impacts on privacy of all the residents concerned.
6.6.2 The properties will be more than 20m apart where the backs of properties look directly at each other. The shorter distance applies where the rear of a property looks towards the side of another and where the latter has no windows. It is not accepted that different standards of neighbourliness should be applied in this instance where these standards are accepted elsewhere in this general built up area. The rear gardens of plots 16 to 28 are longer than those of the properties on the other side of that rear boundary although the dwellings on plots
==== PAGE 18 ====
17/00992/B Page 18 of 21
31 to 45 are generally shorter than those of the Fuchsia Avenue properties. For these reasons it is not accepted that the development would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent dwellings.
6.7 Affordable housing 6.7.1 The proposal would secure five affordable houses on the site and a further contribution equivalent to five further dwellings, towards the provision of affordable units elsewhere which cumulatively comply with the Strategic Plan requirement and Department of Infrastructure's Housing Directorate for such provision. The development itself will require 11.25 affordable units and the development will provide for ten units on and off site, however, the development of Slieau Whallian View, Reayrt ny Keylley and Reayrt ny Cronk and the various changes that have been made to the type and numbers of housing has resulted in one affordable dwelling's overprovision. the Department's requirement for affordable housing is therefore satisfied.
6.8.Public Open Space 6.8.1 The development will provide the required amount of public open space as it relates to amenity and children's play space between the central area, the short strips alongside plots 1 and 6 and the amenity planting alongside Oak Road. However, there is no provision for formal recreation facilities nor is the site large enough to achieve this. Whilst previous applications have been accepted without such provision (see the previous inspector's comments at his paragraph 79 above), in this case, the applicant has provided information which demonstrates that the local secondary school, whose playing fields are the principal source of formal outside playing fields in the town, has opportunities for bookings at some point every day and the only regular bookings for the grass sports pitches are on Thursday evenings and Saturday afternoons. In addition, there are facilities at the recently built and to be extended Tommy Clucas Community hall across the road from the QEII school. It is therefore difficult to argue that there is a deficit in formal recreational play facilities such as to justify refusal of the application for that reason.
6.8.2 Peel Town Commissioners have indicated in their e-mail of 19.01.18 that they have discussed the provision of children's play facilities with the applicant who is making a financial contribution to other children's play areas in the town. No further details of this have been provided and it would appear that this will not form part of the legal agreement entered into with the Department in respect of the affordable housing.
6.9 Landscaping and the impact of the removal of the leylandii 6.9.1 The site presently appears as an undeveloped piece of open land within a largely otherwise developed area. The introduction of built structures will significantly change this, but given its residential designation, this should not be considered objectionable in principle. The development will retain most of the existing natural hedging and will reinforce this with additional trees and griselinia hedging which, whilst not the best ecologically, will provide denser screening for enhanced privacy.
6.9.2 The removal of the leylandii is not considered objectionable by the Government's Arboricultural Officer. Whilst a felling licence is required for this, it is generally adopted practice for trees which are to be removed to facilitate a development or are in conjunction with it, to be first the subject of scrutiny through the planning application process before being the subject of a felling licence, although in law, it can be a defence in any subsequent prosecution for the felling of trees without the appropriate licence, that planning approval was granted which would have resulted in the removal of the trees (Tree Protection Act 1993 Section 4 paragraph 4 a, b and c). The views of the Arboricultural Officer were sought and he indicated that he would not find objectionable the removal of the leylandii as they had little wider amenity value although clearly are valuable to local residents for screening.
6.9.3 The Department often comes across instances where leylandii are introduced to provide screening of something and in many cases, the speed at which leylandii grow can result in such
==== PAGE 19 ====
17/00992/B Page 19 of 21
planting becoming unduly tall and can block out light. The Trees and High Hedges Act 2005 refers to the following:
"(1) In this Act "high hedge" means so much of a barrier to light as - (a) is formed wholly or predominantly by a row of 2 or more trees or shrubs; and (b) rises to a height of more than 2 metres above ground level.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) a row of trees or shrubs is not to be regarded as forming a barrier to light if the existence of gaps significantly affects its overall effect as such a barrier at heights of more than 2 metres above ground level."
6.9.4 Trees of any species can also cause issues where their height results in the tree being within falling distance of buildings. As the trees lie within the applicant's property it is for them to decide whether they are to be retained. The owners of the Close Corlett properties would be within their rights to plant their own leylandii hedge if they so wished. Similarly, the applicant could have shown the trees to be retained and if and when the housing was erected either the developer or the individual land owners could request a licence for the removal of some or all of the trees. If it is likely that the trees are going to be the subject of discussion for removal at any point, it is fairer to determine this now, not later.
6.9.5 In the absence of professional advice that the trees are of amenity value in themselves or offer significant habitat for birds and animals, it is considered that the area would be improved through the removal of the trees and their replacement with deciduous trees and a dense hedge as is proposed. The removal of the trees will certainly provide an immediate opening up effect on the properties in Close Corlett, and arguably there may be a positive impact through more light being available to them, but as stated previously, the distances between the properties and the absence of windows in some cases results in a development which accords with general standards of residential development. In addition, given time, the proposed planting will result in a more manageable and more ecologically and visually beneficial boundary.
6.10 Impact on ecology 6.10.1 Whilst the Senior Biodiversity Officer suggested that an EIA would have provided useful information on the ecological value of the site, this is not a requirement of the Strategic Plan. There is no overriding ecological interest or value of the site which would justify the development being refused for these reasons or that the development would be contrary to EP4 which provides protection for sites of ecological value.
6.11 Other matters 6.11.1 Reference has been made to the comments made by Peel Town Commissioners and the suggestion that what was reported in the response to the Department was not what was actually determined by the Commissioners at their meetings. This is a matter for the Commissioners although the submission dated 19.01.18 indicates that their previous concerns regarding sewage and the removal of a boundary hege had been addressed with the amended plan and their issues around street lighting and play equipment have been addressed through discussions with the applicant.
6.11.2 It has been suggested that the development should have been the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment due to the fact that the development proposes more than 30 dwellings. The main body of the Strategic Plan at paragraph 7.18.1 describes the EIA process as an important procedure for ensuring that the likely effects of new development on the environment are fully understood and taken into account before development is allowed to go ahead. This refers to the nature, size of location of a development as being important in considering whether one is required, and Appendix 5 of the Plan provides more information in this respect, and part j, which is referred to in the submission states the following: "Residential development of more than 30 homes and commercial development of more
==== PAGE 20 ====
17/00992/B Page 20 of 21
than 500sq metres outside identified settlements." Whilst this development proposes more than 30 dwellings, it is within an identified settlement, on land designated for development and no EIA has ever been required for earlier adjacent phases. It is not, therefore accepted that in this case, an EIA is required. That is not to say that all relevant and material issues should not be considered, of course they should as set out in the other policies of the Strategic Plan set out above.
CONCLUSION 7.1 The introduction of built development on land which has been appreciated by neighbours and which provides an uninterrupted outlook is always likely to be contentious but if development is to be truly sustainable and result in an efficient use of land, then it will inevitably result in housing being next to other housing. The site in question has been designated for residential development since the late 1990s and in fact the site appears to be designated for Proposed Residential development in the 1982p, and the proposal adheres to the requirements which would be applied to any other development in a similar position. As such, the application is supported.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
__
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 : ...Permitted.. Committee Meeting Date:...23.04.2018
Signed :...S 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 See below
==== PAGE 21 ====
17/00992/B Page 21 of 21
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal