Loading document...
Application No.: 18/00758/A Applicant: Estate Of The Late Mrs Mary Quayle Proposal: Approval in principle for erection of two dwellings with new vehicular access Site Address: Land Adjacent To 2 Ballacraine Cottages Ballacraine St Johns Isle Of Man Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 20.08.2018 Site Visit: 20.08.2018 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 24.08.2018 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. It has not been demonstrate that the development would be able to provide visibility splays to the required standard (2.4m by 70m in each direction measured from no more than - 0.5m into the carriageway), taking into account the presence of parked vehicles. The proposal would therefore be contrary to General Policy 2h and i of the Strategic Plan 2016. - R 2. The development will result in the definite loss of all but one of the trees on site as shown in the submitted plans which would be a significant and adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area as well as on the ecology of the site, including bats which are known to be within the area, and which are protected under Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan and the Wildlife Act 1990. The proposal is therefore contrary to General Policy 2b, c, and f. - R 3. It has not been demonstrated that the development could be undertaken, particularly the proposed access which will involve raising the level of part of the site, without adversely affecting the survival and health of the large elm which is shown to be retained. This tree contributes significantly and positively to the character of the area as well as to bats which are known to use the area and which are protected under Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan and the Wildlife Act 1990. The proposal is therefore contrary to General Policy 2b, c and f of the Strategic Plan. _______________________________________________________________
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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):
Heart House and 2, Ballacraine Cottages as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). _____________________________________________________________________________
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE
1.1 The site is a parcel of land which lies on the southern side of the A1 main road through St. John's, just to the west of Ballacraine crossroads. The site slopes downward from north to south and backs onto open land which is used for grazing and there is a stable building to the south of the southern boundary.
1.2 The site contains a number of trees, some self-set and including a large elm which is roughly central and close to the southern boundary of the site and there are two wide pedestrian gates leading into the site from the main road. Neither has a footpath crossing across it. Between the two is a bus stop sign and low voltage electricity lines run across and above the front of the site. - 1.3 The site is presently overgrown with blackberry brambles almost totally covering the ground level and a number of trees of varying heights and species within the site. The trees cumulatively provide a very attractive, natural and green backdrop to the road with Slieau Whallian in the background. The largest of the trees on site, an elm, dominates the rest of the trees and whose canopy spreads to within around 10m from the highway.
2.1 Proposed is the principle of the erection of two dwellings on the site with the means of access for consideration at this time. The proposal is the same as that refused under 13/00385/A (see Planning History) other than the proposed site plan includes trees on the site, not all of which were shown in the earlier application. Four trees in the southern hedge boundary which were shown in the earlier application are not shown on the current plans.
2.2 With the application is a indicative plan which shows the access, the footprint and position of two houses, sectional information which demonstrates that the dwellings will be different heights, reflecting different ground conditions and one being taller than the other (that opposite Old Smithy Garage) and both comprising two complete floors of accommodation with one or two part floors beneath built into the slope. The site plan shows one tree being retained
2.3 The plan includes visibility splays from the new access, of 2.4m by 70 in each direction and there is also a traffic speed survey which indicates that the highest speed of traffic was 38 mph (1 vehicle in each direction) and with the 85th percentile speed measured at 33 mph dry weather spot speed and 31 mph wet weather journey speed. This was measured on 27th July,
3.1 The site lies in an area designated on the St. John's Local Plan of 1999 as Residential. The residential designations in this part of the area are generally dependent upon existing dwellings being in situ - that is, the residential designations refer to existing houses, other than in this case where there is no dwelling on the site. The Local Plan is a little ambiguous in respect of its
stance on housing in this area, stating that, "The responses received confirmed the Office of Planning's view that any large scale new residential development would be inappropriate for the area, and this includes any further housing adjacent to Slieau Whallian Park or the infilling of any of the open space sites south of the Peel Road directly west of the Ballacraine cross roads. However, the principle of infill development is considered reasonable for the village but should be limited to within those areas which are designated as areas of predominantly residential use" (paragraph 2.3). It goes on to identify "infill residential development" which do not include the application site or any of the areas which are not built upon, between Ballacraine and the main part of the village.
3.2 The Plan also states: "It is considered essential in St. John's to limit the future residential development opportunities to carefully selected infill sites in order to preserve the rural character of the village. The sites selected are considered an acceptable balance between preserving the rural character of the local plan area and providing some reasonable development to occur taking into account the community needs and provisions of previous plans. In addition to the infill sites selected for further residential development, it is recognised that other opportunities may exist for additional residential development within existing developed areas either in the form of additions to existing dwellings or the erection of new dwellings. The appropriateness of such development should be judged on individual merit and backland development should generally be avoided.". - 3.3 The following policies suggest that development should accord with various Planning Circulars which dealt with development in the countryside and that no residential development will be permitted where this would adversely affect the historic setting of Tynwald Hill and its associated open spaces. - 3.4 Development in this area will be expected to accord with Strategic Plan General Policy 2 as follows:
General Policy 2: 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:
3.5 Highway Services indicate that Manual for Manx Roads introduced in 2017 does not change the requirements for visibility splays from what would have been required in 2013/14. - 3.6 Environment Policy 4 provides protection of the ecology of the Island and particularly species protected through local or international regulations or protocol.
4.1 Planning approval was sought for the principle of two dwellings on this site under 13/00385/A. This was initially approved by the Planning Committee despite an objection from Highway Services on the basis that the required visibility of 70m cannot be achieved and
therefore the visibility and access are substandard. This followed initial support of the application.
4.2 The decision to approve the application was challenged by local residents and at the appeal the inspector makes the following comments:
4.3 He was advised that the 85th percentile speed of traffic passing the site is between 29 and 30 mph and notes the "hazards" of parked vehicles and the bus stop and concludes that the recommended visibility splay of 2.4m by 70m cannot be achieved, also noting that this is a reduction from the normal requirement of 90m. Whilst the development would provide its own on-site parking and that parked cars can slow traffic down but he did not consider that these things outweighed the detrimental impact of the development on highway safety for driers, pedestrians and cyclists - the inadequate visibility splays and the addition of two more dwellings' worth of vehicles onto Main Road which already has a high volume of traffic which generally travels at around 30mph. - 4.4 The application was refused for the following reason:
The proposal is contrary to General Policy 2(i) as defined by the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, 2007, in that the proposed development, if approved, would have a materially adverse effect on highway safety in Main Road as a result of the existing volume of traffic, the speed at which it travels, the inadequacy of the achievable visibility splays at the new access and the additional vehicular movements that would be generated by 2 dwellings."
REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 German Parish Commissioners object to the application on the basis that the site is not designated for development and that the concerns regarding traffic and highway safety raised in the 2013 application, have not been satisfactorily resolved. They add that the site is close to Ballacraine crossroads and the development will result in more vehicles egressing in a very difficult place. They also suggest that the survey undertaken does not coincide with a similar study undertaken by DoI (07.08.18).
5.2 DEFA Arboricultural Officer objects to the application on the grounds that the proposal will result in the loss of some trees which they consider should be retained, noting that "all of the trees are visible from the road and contribute to the character of the street scene in this area". Whilst the elm is to be retained, he does not believe that this could be adequately protected against damage through the provision of the access and the alteration of the site levels and even if it could, after construction, the occupation of dwellings so close to this tree is likely to pose a threat to it in the future through concerns about shadowing, leaf and branch drop and overbearingness (13.08.18).
5.3 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Biodiversity Office are concerned about the application inasmuch as the proposal will remove a large number of trees in an area which is known to support bats. Whilst the plans show the retention of the large elm, which has bat roost potential, they are concerned that residential development and use of the site may lead to pressure to remove the tree at a later date. If the application is approved they seek a
6.1 The Department could decline to determine the application under 4(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 as the proposal is the same as that which was refused on 9th January, 2015 and the five years has not yet elapsed. Whilst Manual for Manx Roads has been introduced, the standards for vehicular access have not changed through that document. It is not therefore accepted that there has been a change in circumstance or policy which would justify a different decision or the Department considering essentially the same application within five years.
6.2 It is still not possible to provide the required visibility splays if account is taken for vehicles parked in front of or near 2, Ballacraine Cottages. Whilst it can sometimes be acceptable not to take this into account, in this case, it certainly was in the case of the earlier application and also, whilst 2, Ballacraine Cottages has a single on site vehicular parking space (which has its own visibility limited by the potential for on-street parking) number 1 has not and neither have
to be unsafe and the development would therefore be detrimental to highway safety, contrary to GP2h and i.
6.3 It is now clearer than it was in the earlier application that a significant number of existing trees will need to be removed to facilitate both the development and the visibility splay. The actual situation is likely to be worse than is shown in the drawing which indicates that all but the elm will be removed, in that whilst the drawing shows the retention of the elm, the creation of a level access such that the visibility could be achieved (even though this is debatable if vehicles are parked alongside Ballacraine Cottages) will necessitate building up the ground considerably within the canopy spread of the elm and it is not likely that the tree could sustain such engineering operations and the weight of the additional material on its roots, to enable it to survive in the longer term. Even if it could, the presence of the tree is likely to cause the occupants of future dwellings on the site, concern about light, leaf and branch drop such that its future for these reasons could be in doubt. - 6.4 It is considered that the removal of the trees which are shown to be removed on the submitted plans, would result in an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the streetscene, contrary to GP2b, c and f. Whilst it may be possible to develop the site without such an impact for a single dwelling only which is located on the side of 2, Ballacraine Cottages, the provision of an access, which involves building up the driveway within the site, is likely to encroach significantly on the root protection area of the elm to be retained, and its survival through the development process is unlikely. Even if it were capable of surviving the construction process in the long term, it is likely that there will be pressure on the Department by future occupants of the properties, whether this be one or two dwellings, to remove the tree which is sizeable, within falling distance of the property/ies and which will result in leaf and branch drop which could cause nuisance to the future occupants of the site. - 6.5 Given the lack of certainty of the retention of the elm, and taking into consideration the proposed removal of the rest of the trees on site, the proposal will result in a significant impact on the habitat for bats which are known to frequent the area and which would use the trees for feeding, foraging and potentially roosting. The proposal would therefore be contrary to EP4. - 6.6 Whilst the concerns of those in 2, Ballacraine Cottages are understood in that in the absence of information demonstrating how the development would appear, the test for an application in principle is whether it would be possible to accommodate two dwellings on the site without adverse harm. In this case, it could be possible to accommodate a dwelling near 2, Ballacraine Cottages which has no windows in its side elevation and is no higher than the neighbour and in a way that does not adversely affect the living conditions of those in that property. As such it is not considered that this should form a reason for refusal in this case. This does not mean, however, that if approval were granted for the principle of the development of the site, that a development which did result in an unneighbourly impact would be approved: the development still has to accord with the general standards of development set out in GP2. - 6.7 No details of water run off and drainage have been provided, however, it is possible to design drainage systems which control the discharge of water run off from a site to that equivalent to green field dispersal. If the application were being recommended for approval, a condition could be attached which required in the submission of the reserved matters, details of surface water drainage to demonstrate this.
7.1 The proposal is considered to be detrimental to highway safety and would result in the loss of trees which would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the streetscene and to the habitat for bats which are protected under EP4 and the Wildlife Act 1990. The application is recommended for refusal.
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 : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 03.09.2018
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
Application No. : 18/00758/A Applicant : Estate Of The Late Mrs Mary Quayle Proposal : Approval in principle for erection of two dwellings with new
vehicular access Site Address : Land Adjacent To 2 Ballacraine Cottages Ballacraine St Johns Isle Of Man Principal Planner : Miss S E Corlett Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report
Following a verbal update to the Planning Committee at its meeting of 3rd September 2018, it was agreed that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should also 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):
Hillside, Croit Greanagh and Smithy House as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown