Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
19/01396/B Page 1 of 13
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 19/01396/B Applicant : Hartford Homes Ltd Proposal : Erection of seven detached dwellings with integral garages including access roads, drainage and landscaping Site Address : Ballagarey Nurseries Greeba Avenue Glen Vine Isle Of Man IM4 4ED
Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 22.01.2020 Site Visit : 22.01.2020 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 22.06.2020 __
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. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling within the development, the developer shall provide the visibility splays shown in plan ITB15248-GA-001 and these shall be retained as such thereafter.
Reason: in the interests of highway safety.
C 3. Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling the respective car parking as shown in the approved plans shall be provided and remain as such for the duration of occupation of the approved development.
Reason: to minimise on-street car parking that could be detrimental to the operation of the highway.
C 4. The recommendations of the Protected Species Report February 2020 must be implemented in full.
Reason: to mitigate the impact of the development on the ecology of the area.
==== PAGE 2 ====
19/01396/B Page 2 of 13
C 5. Prior to the undertaking of any built development, the applicant must have had approved in writing by the Department:
i. a lighting plan which will demonstrate that any proposed lighting will minimise the impact on any bats that commute and/or forage in close proximity to the new development
ii. the location and design of at least two starling nest boxes
iii. the design and location of at least two bat boxes suitable for a maternity colony for species known to occur in the area
iv. the design and location of a bee brick in each proposed dwelling
v. an amended planting scheme which incorporates native species as recommended in the Protected Species Report February, 2020
and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these approved details.
Reason: to mitigate the ecological impact of the development.
C 6. 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.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Whilst the development will have an impact on the environment and those living near to the site, it is considered, having regard to General Policy 2, Environment Policies 3 and 4 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guidance, that this impact is acceptable.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This decision relates to the following drawings and documents:
The Protected Species Report prepared by Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy Services and dated February 2020 Manx Roots Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Arboricultural Method Statement drawings TRS-291119r1, TPN-291119r1, TPS-291119r1 and TRN-291119r1 all dated 29.11.19 the i-Transport Highways Statement dated 28.11.19
01A, 02B, 06B, 07B, 09A, 13A, 14 all received on 06.05.20 03, 04B, 05B, 08, 10, 11, 12, all received on 12.12.19 and 15 received on 26.05.20. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
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):
==== PAGE 3 ====
19/01396/B Page 3 of 13
2, Greeba Avenue Roylea, 4, Greeba Avenue Auldyn, 6, Greeba Avenue Sunhill, 7, Greeba Avenue 9, Greeba Avenue Jesswin, 11, Greeba Avenue 13, Greeba Avenue 15, Greeba Avenue 17, Greeba Avenue
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN RECEIVED INCLUDING ONE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
THE SITE 1.1 The site is a parcel of land which sits to the south west of Greeba Avenue, backing onto a number of existing properties: 7-19 (odd numbers only), and Garey Beg, all off Greeba Avenue, the end of a developing estate on the site of the former dwelling, Ballabeg which is accessed from the A1 Main Road (TT Course) and to the south west the site backs onto Reayrt Aalin, Timberwoods, Ballacosney, The Elms, High Rigg, Ballagarey Bungalow and Ballagarey House. To the south east is 5, Greeba Avenue and the entrance to the site sits between 5 and 7, Greeba Avenue. A greenhouse sits to the south east of the site between 5, Greeba Avenue and Ballagarey Bungalow.
1.2 The existing properties which abut the site from Greeba Avenue are predominantly single storey, some with accommodation in the roofspace. The properties on the Main Road are a mix of single storey and two storey dwellings. The approved dwellings on the Ballabeg site are two storey.
1.3 There is an existing access onto Greeba Avenue serving the nurseries which currently occupy the site.
1.4 The site falls into three distinct parts: the entrance leads into an open area that has greenhouses on its south eastern side and residential properties looking into the site from this direction (5, Greeba Avenue and Ballagarey Bungalow) as well as a timber shed to the north west of the entrance. The view from and of 7, Greeba Avenue is currently screened by significant vegetation - ivy, trees and bushes.
1.5 There is a line of leylandii running northeast to southwest from midway on 7, Greeba Avenue and on the other side of this, adjacent to the other half of 7, Greeba Avenue, is a more formally managed area which has a central area where it looks like things were planted surrounded by small fruit trees planted in lines on either side. There is access into this area from the Main Road alongside Ballagarey House. The final and largest part of the site is currently unmanaged field where the Greeba Avenue properties abut the site with boundaries which comprise fencing with some planting and where the Main Road properties have more substantial, planted boundaries.
THE PROPOSAL
==== PAGE 4 ====
19/01396/B Page 4 of 13
2.1 Proposed is the development of the site for seven dwellings. The applicant makes the point that the number of dwellings falls below the requirement for affordable housing (Housing Policy 5) or the provision of Public Open Space (Recreation Policy 3).
2.2 The dwellings take five different forms - all but one are two storey, five with gable ended roofs and two with hipped roof, one being a bungalow (plot 4, closest to 9, Greeba Avenue) and all having attached or integral garages. The style follows that of the Ballabeg site to which this will be joined, forming a through route from the TT Course to Greeba Avenue. Where the two roads join there will be a speed table.
2.3 The dwellings will be separated from the existing properties round about by a variety of distances ranging from 16m between 9, Greeba Avenue and the garage of the property on plot 4 to 40m between the rear of the dwelling on plot 1 and the nearest house. The level of the site and the houses will fall as the development proceeds north west towards the approved development and the properties on Greeba Avenue are higher than those on the development site which in turn are higher than those fronting onto the Main Road. The applicant has provided a drawing, 13A, which shows the distances between the proposed and existing dwellings and the current boundary treatment abutting the site
2.4 An existing access from Ballagarey House is to be blocked off with fencing and hedging. A new access to Ballagarey Bungalow is to be provided to link in to the proposed estate road along with a new access to the rear of 5, Greeba Avenue. The existing boundary of the site with the rear of the A1 properties and those on Greeba Avenue is to be reinforced by additional planting "as required". The planting schedule shown on drawing 04 shows the boundaries to be planted with field maple, hawthorn, beech, holly, honeysuckle, blackthorn and rose at 450mm centres in a double staggered row with each row being 450mm apart with a random mix of species with 3-7 of the same type together.
Access and transport 2.5 The applicant has provided a transport statement which describes Greeba Avenue as a lightly trafficked residential street which serves 30 dwellings directly as well as forming a link to other land beyond. It describes the provision of footways, the proximity to services and the regularity of the bus service. It refers to Greeba Avenue as being subject to a 20 mph limit and the visibility available at the entrance to the site onto it being 2.4m by 33m in both directions which accords with the requirements of Manual for Manx Roads. It confirms that two spaces in addition to garaging, will be provided for each property and cycle parking will be available in sheds and garages on each site. The link with the adjacent site will remove any requirement for a refuse vehicle to need to turn within the site but suggest that it could safely access and egress the development and having passing opportunities for other vehicles whilst parked on the proposed estate road.
2.6 They estimate that the development will result in around 4-5 two ways vehicle movements in the weekday morning and evening peak periods equating to one vehicle every 12 minutes.
Trees 2.7 An Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been provided which details the need to remove 7 Category C trees, 1 Category B group, 5 Category C groups and the partial removal of one Category B group resulting in the removal of a further 75 Category C trees. 6 further trees are recommended to be removed in the interests of good management. This removal will result in the loss of975 sq m of canopy cover within the boundary of the development. The trees to be removed are birch (5), elm (6), ash (10), plum (12), pear (13), leylandii (15) and sycamore (21). The groups involve pines, sycamore, fruit trees, ash and hawthorn. The trees to be removed sit on the boundary of the site with the development site alongside, alongside the access onto Greeba Avenue and two rows between 7, Greeba Avenue and Ballagarey House and High Rigg. They confirm that there are no Cat A trees on the site and any tree loss will be mitigated by new planting that has been approved by Forestry Amenity and Lands Board. In
==== PAGE 5 ====
19/01396/B Page 5 of 13
response to concerns expressed by the owners of 7, Greeba Avenue the existing trees on that rear boundary have been shown accurately and included in the Root Protection Areas.
2.8 A planting scheme has been produced as shown in drawing 04 and supported by a Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement.
Drainage 2.9 The development will be connected to the existing drainage system installed in the adjacent development.
Fencing 2.10 The plots will have 2.4m high fencing behind the fronts of the buildings and separating the development from 7, Greeba Avenue with a lower section of brick walling running towards Greeba Avenue along the new boundary of number 7 from a distance of 15m.
Affordable housing 2.11 The applicant confirms on 21.02.20 the position on the non-provision of affordable housing:
"o The approval for seven plots at Ballabeg has been consented, with no AFH, since Nov 2016. o Hartford purchased the Ballabeg site in August 2018, with the benefit of the outline approval. We secured a reserved matters approval in October 2018; commenced our site works with demolition at the end of 2018 and drainage works commencing in early 2019. o We had no involvement with the Ballagarey site until June 2019. Our first Pre application submission was on 10th July. We do not own this land (please see attached ownership certificate) but we do have an option to buy, that we entered into only 3 months ago (Dec 2019).
You can see from the above sequence, spanning over 4 years, there was no anticipation from the outset that the two sites would be joined. If we had known at the time that Ballagarey was available, our approach to their development would have been entirely different, perhaps at a higher density, and not as complicated as it has been.
When we met last September (2019), to look at our developed sketch proposals for the Ballagarey site, we agreed that, as the Ballabeg site was under construction, the two sites would be treated as being separate. We also discussed the benefits of linking the sites roads, to provide an emergency access during TT, and that provisions should be included to prevent it being a shortcut.
The sketch proposal we tabled originally, in July of 2019, was for 12 plots, including 3 affordable homes. Subsequent sketch proposals, not tabled, included as many as 16 plots. However, after numerous site visits and in considering the relationship of the denser proposals in relation to the existing homes, we felt a more sympathetic layout and lower density would reduce the impact dramatically on the surrounding dwellings. This became all the more acute when the land owner reduced the site area we were planning on using in order to maintain access to Ballagarey Bungalow, located to the south eastern end of the land. Following sympathetic preplanning to address the privacy issues, the reduced site area and market enquiries, the final design arrived at 7no new homes which we felt was ultimately more in keeping with existing densities.
We understand the Commissioners concerns of why no affordable housing is being provided on the site. Hopefully the above helps to explain, but ultimately this development is only for x 7 dwellings and the adjacent site of seven dwellings is, as stated above, separate. Indeed the Ballagarey Nurseries site is entirely capable of being developed on its own, by anyone, though that would eliminate the gain in linking roads to add permeability to the network.
==== PAGE 6 ====
19/01396/B Page 6 of 13
We work very hard to ensure our schemes fit into their locations and comply with planning policy, and we provide affordable homes and public open space when this is appropriate."
2.12 Wildlife 2.12.1 Additional information has been provided on 04.03.20 which includes a Protected Species Report incorporating a bat report by Manx Bat Group and that all concludes that with the implementation of the biodiversity recommendations, adequate compensation will be provided to address the impact from the development. The PSR was undertaken by Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy Services. It reports that there is one Wildlife Site within 2km of the site - the Central Valley. 327 species are recorded within 0.5km of the site including 6 specific species of bat, some other unidentified bat species and common frog where adults and spawn were recorded within 150m of the survey site.
2.12.2 They undertook a survey of the buildings and vegetation on the site observing some potential access points for bats in one of the buildings and noting the vegetation currently on the site. They identify a potential bat roost within one of the trees shown to be removed and they recommend that prior to the removal of any tree, a bat risk assessment must be undertaken before any works can proceed. If any bats are encountered including when buildings are to be removed, all work should stop and advice sought from the Department, Manx Wildlife Consultancy or the Manx Bat Group. They recommend that two bat boxes suitable for a maternity colony for species known to occur in the area be erected on an existing mature tree on the western boundary or alternatively, a pole mounted box could be employed in a relatively dark and sheltered part of the site close to potential foraging and commuting habitat. A lighting plan should be submitted to minimise impact on any bats that commute and/or forage in close proximity to the new development and a bat roost feature should be incorporated into a new property near eaves level with a sunny aspect (west, south or east) and away from direct artificial lighting.
2.12.3 Six species of bird were recorded using the survey site - starling, song thrush, herring gull, rook, siskin and coal tit with the first two on the Red List. They recommend that shrub and tree removal is undertaken outside the bird nesting and breeding season (typically March to August inclusive) and any shrub or tree clearance required within the season must have a pre-clearance check and any active nests found must be safeguarded until all young are fledged and independent of the nest.
2.12.4 No common frog were recorded although a precautionary working method is recommended with the clearance of vegetation conducted during the hibernation period (typically November to January) and if this is not possible a pre-clearance check for common frog must be undertaken and any frogs encountered must be transferred to a receptor site agreed with DEFA and when moving rubble and log piles, particular care should be taken and must avoid the hibernation period (typically October to February inclusive). Any frogs encountered during work must result in all work stopping and advice sought.
2.12.5 They advise that the presence of legally protected and high conservation status species and significant assemblages is unlikely. Mature boundary features will be an important consideration for associated species including the potential for standing deadwood and habitat connectivity. No rare or nationally rare and scarce plants were recorded and are considered unlikely. No invasive species were recorded. They advise that particular care should be taken when removing rubble and log piles and this should avoid the hibernation period (typically October to February) and if any lizards are encountered during site work, all work must stop immediately and advice sought. The development must integrate a bee brick into each new dwelling.
2.12.6 They conclude that simple avoidance measures will enable the project to achieve legal compliance and intelligent design and implementation of pro-biodiversity recommendations are
==== PAGE 7 ====
19/01396/B Page 7 of 13
required to compensate for the impacts of the development and to achieve a no net loss result. They recommend that landscaping should include native woody species that are matched to soil conditions and which are beneficial to birds for food, shelter and nest sites and they recommend common hawthorn, blackthorn, sessile oak, holly, elder, ash and honeysuckle.
Construction Activity 2.13 They are aware that the construction will create inconvenience and disruption to local residents but they advise that they had a duty under Health and Safety Executive regulations to ensure the safety of both operatives and the general public. They envisage the primary access during construction will be from the Main Road but at some point, it may be that this is blocked off and construction traffic has to use Greeba Avenue to access the site. They will undertake a pre-commencement survey of the road and boundaries affected as a record of their condition.
2.14 They comment that covenants are not a material planning consideration and that if approved, those with the power to enforce a covenant would be welcome to discuss the matter with them. They acknowledge that new development is seldom welcomed by those close by but they emphasis that this site is sustainable and designated for development which makes it suitable for development subject to the design being appropriate. They did consider a higher density of development but discounted this as they felt that was not in keeping with the area.
2.15 For further clarification of the distances between the bungalow and 9, Greeba Avenue, the applicant submitted drawing 15 which shows a section between the properties and stating that the proposed bungalow will be 1.16m lower in floor level than number 9, the eaves will also be 1.16m lower and the highest part of the proposed house being 740mm lower and the proposed garage 1390mm lower. The plan also shows the distances between various parts of the proposed house and number 9, at furthest being 21.4m away and at closest 18.4m and angled 30 degrees from being parallel with number 9. The section shows the planted hedge between the two screening bothy ground floors from the other.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Residential. On the Area Plan for the East, the site was identified for residential development in the first draft but following Cabinet Office's preparation of a document for the public inquiry, responding to issues raised by others, the site was downgraded to a reserve site for release at some time in the future. However, the inspector considered that the residential status of the site should be reinstated, stating the following:
"Site MH023 - Ballagarey Nurseries, Glen Vine 393 This vacant area of 0.9ha was initially allocated as a specific housing site in the draft Area Plan, as published in May 2018. However, the Cabinet Office subsequently proposed that it be rezoned as Strategic Reserve land. In a written representation, Hartford Homes argued that it should be washed over as predominantly residential, to enable its early development as a windfall site. I agree. This unused land is within the built-up area of Glen Vine. In my view, it should be restored to beneficial use as soon as possible. Its designation as a strategic reserve would impose an unnecessary restriction on its development, prior to its formal release. I recommend that Site MH023 be washed over as part of a predominantly residential area, in the Area Plan."
3.2 As such, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant:
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:
==== PAGE 8 ====
19/01396/B Page 8 of 13
(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; (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".
3.3 Affordable housing and Public Open Space are referred to in Housing Policy 5 and Recreation Policy 3 respectively. Ecology is further protected in Environment Policy 4 and trees given further protection in Environment Policy 3.
3.4 The Department has recently published the Residential Design Guidance (March 2019) which provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site has not been the subject of any previous applications which would be relevant to the consideration of the current proposal. The adjacent redevelopment of Ballabeg was approved most recently under 18/00995/REM.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1.1 Marown Parish Commissioners submit a number of letters noting that the draft Area Plan for the East washes over the site with a residential zoning but in advance of the plan being approved, suggest that the development is perhaps premature. They also consider that the development will result in an overbearing presence on the properties on Greeba Avenue and the dwellings on plots 5, 6 and 7 are too close together and constitute over-development. They consider the access from Greeba Avenue to be inadequate with poor splays and turning sweep and considering that the development is to be connected to Ballabeg Grove, it would not appear that there is a need for this access. If the access from Greeba Avenue is considered essential then steps must be taken to ensure it does not become a through road with a gate part way down: this would require a turning head and note that there is a small hammer head approved as part of the Ballabeg Grove development (16.01.20).
5.1.2 They submit a further letter on 04.02.20 seeking additional time to comment on the amended plans and then comment on 20.02.20 such that they have no further points to raise.
5.1.3 They submit further views on 19.03.20 stating that they do not accept the applicant's argument in favour of there being no affordable housing noting that 18/00995/REM for Ballabeg Grove had the current applicant as the owner and on the current application they are the prospective purchasers for the current application and considering that the two developments have been conceived as a whole with consistent house types and layout and a continuous road linking the two. They note that on drawing 4B the top left hand dwelling is shown as existing whereas it is at best under construction and identical in every way to plot 3 of the proposed development. They draw a comparison with an application for 21 houses in Crosby which was approved only on the basis that affordable housing was being provided in association with this, albeit through a separate Reserved Matters application. They state that they are committed to the provision of affordable housing in the parish and this estate of 14 houses must contain 25% affordable units (3 dwellings)[affordable housing is generally calculated to the nearest single decimal place so in this case the requirement would be for 3.5 units provided either wholly as a commuted sum or partly on site and partly as a commuted sum].
==== PAGE 9 ====
19/01396/B Page 9 of 13
5.1.4 Further comments were received on 16th April, 2020, reiterating the points raised previously, adding that only something, like a wall, that physically separates the two developments would enable them to be considered as two separate entities and on 18th June, 2020 the Commissioners had no further comments to add above what had already been submitted in respect of the amended plans.
5.2 Highway Services comment on 15th January, 2020, concluding that they have no objection subject to the attaching of conditions which require the provision of visibility splays and car parking prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings. They consider that visibility is acceptable as is the impact of the additional vehicles on the highway network, the internal layout of the road.
5.3 Arboricultural Officer, DEFA comments on 13.01.20 that of the 12 individual trees and 8 tree groups to be removed, the majority are not prominent to the public and are of poor form. G2 is located close to Greeba Avenue and the canopies are overhanging the road and starting to cause access issues which pruning will not address. He considers that this group are not suitable for retention. These trees sit around the existing and proposed entrance to the site. He notes that the proposal will result in a loss of canopy cover to the site but the landscape drawing (04B) shows adequate mitigation planting and this should be required by planning condition. He considers the tree protection plan acceptable and will afford appropriate protection to the proposed retained trees.
5.4 Ecosystems Policy Officer, DEFA comments on 17.01.20 and again on 10.03.20 requesting a bat suitability study is undertaken by a licensed bat ecologist to determine whether bats could be using any of the trees which are to be removed to facilitate the development. If any are found suitable then a bat roost survey should be undertaken by a licensed bat ecologist and a report detailing the findings should be approved prior to the determination of this application. If bats are found to be using the site then a mitigation plan for their protection should also be submitted for agreement prior to determination and the development must be undertaken in accordance with the agreed mitigation plan. Reference is made to the Wildlife Act 1990 in respect of its protection of bats and breeding birds and they recommend that vegetation and tree removal is undertaken outside of the bird breeding season (March to August) and thorough checks for nests and eggs even outside the bird breeding season, should be undertaken prior to the removal of vegetation. Finally, they recommend the installation of bird boxes are integrated into the design due to the habitat being removed as a result of the proposed development, with numbers and locations to be approved prior to the determination of the application and the development undertaken in accordance with these details. Their later submission recommends that the development should be undertaken strictly in accordance with the Protected Species Report of February 2020 in respect of bats, birds, common frog, common lizard and invertebrates and the identified measures shall be adhered to and implemented in full and maintained thereafter. They request in addition to these recommendations that at least two starling nest boxes are erected on the new properties as mitigation for this Red Listed and Schedule 1 species. They advise that boxes should be placed on north/north east facing elevations at least 2.5m above ground level, ideally high up under the eaves of the buildings. They recommend that the planting schedule incorporates rowan and elder to mitigate the loss of other habitats on the site and that native planting would be better than ornamental planting shown on the plans. They note that there is no lighting plan and as such a low level lighting plan in line with the Bat Conservation Trust Guidance Notes on Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK should be submitted to and approved by the Department. The location of the proposed bat boxes should also be shown on an approved plan to ensure that they are located away from artificial light sources.
Local Residents 5.5 The owners of the following properties have objected to the application: a number of residents sought additional time to submit comments due to changed working and lifestyle practices due to the CV19 situation: these requests were generally granted:
==== PAGE 10 ====
19/01396/B Page 10 of 13
2, Greeba Avenue (16.05.20) Roylea, 4, Greeba Avenue (14.01.20, 09.04.20 and 10.06.20) Auldyn, 6, Greeba Avenue (16.01.20 and 20.04.20) Sunhill, 7, Greeba Avenue (14.01.20 and 09.04.20) 9, Greeba Avenue (15.01.20, 25.03.20, 09.04.20 and 14.04.20) Jesswin, 11, Greeba Avenue (23.01.20) 13, Greeba Avenue (14.01.20) 15, Greeba Avenue (14.01.20) 17, Greeba Avenue (14.01.20 x 3)
The objections relate to the following:
i. the loss of ecological habitat noting owls, pheasant, robins, crows, storks, blue tits on the site as well as bats and the Wildlife Act 1990 and Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan are cited
ii. the loss of so many trees is not acceptable and replacement planting will take time to have effect
iii. the development does not include affordable housing
iv. prematurity as the Area Plan for the East has not yet been adopted
v. reference is made to an appurtenance title for 9, Greeba Avenue which may be affected by this development
vi. potential overlooking of existing dwellings on both sides, many of which are single storey having two storey dwellings directly behind and adverse impact on the privacy of existing residents and the enjoyment of their gardens and maintenance of boundary fencing
vii. the additional light pollution is not acceptable
viii. the existing drainage system already struggles to cope with existing loading in terms of surface water and some properties flood in periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall
ix. the additional traffic is unacceptable on Greeba Avenue, particularly in TT race and practice periods when the additional 7 dwellings in Ballabeg Grove will also be using the access: has thought been given to the installation of a gate to prohibit through traffic for all but essential times?
x. the increased use of the access will adversely affect the living conditions of those directly opposite the entrance
xi. Greeba Avenue is a bus route and vehicles parked on both sides will adversely affect visibility for those emerging from the site
xii. if the site is to be used as a cut through for pedestrians, there are no footpaths within the development and this will not be safe
xiii. properties in Greeba Avenue will have less available light
xiv. two storey dwellings will not be in keeping with the area as Greeba Avenue accommodates mostly bungalows
==== PAGE 11 ====
19/01396/B Page 11 of 13
xv. construction vehicles will adversely affect the road surface in Greeba Avenue and whilst the development is being undertaken there will be a diminution of existing residents' privacy
xvi. if Manx stone walls are to be demolished, they should be replaced with stone walls
xvii. the development will result in the loss of a pond which accommodates frogs, fish and newts and the loss of half of the existing garden of 7, Greeba Avenue
xviii. A request is made that should planning approval be granted, a condition should be attached to prevent netting being applied to trees and bushes to prevent birds nesting and also that existing trees within adjacent sites should be protected during construction.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The site is shown on the only adopted plan for the area (the 1982 Plan) as Residential and the latest version of the Area Plan for the East which will eventually replace that part of the 1982 Plan which relates to the Area Plan area, indicates that the site should be considered as residential as part of the surrounding area. It is therefore considered that the principle of the development of the site for residential purposes is acceptable and the development is consistent with the adopted and emerging development plans.
6.2 The issues in this case are whether the development complies with the standards set out in General Policy 2. Whilst the development adjoins a site being developed by the same developer, and cumulatively the combined sites would generate sufficient dwellings to warrant a requirement for public open space and affordable housing, the sites are different, were in different ownerships, were put to different uses and were originally proposed for development by different parties. As such, whilst the sites are now to be joined with a through route which will benefit the 7 dwellings approved on the adjacent site, it is not considered appropriate in this case to require the provision of POS or affordable housing either on site or by way of a commuted sum. Reference to the site in Crosby is not relevant as the two reserved matters applications - one for 21 dwellings and the other for 7 related back to a single approval in principle for the whole conjoined site.
6.3 Impact on the character and appearance of the area 6.3.1 The dwellings proposed will not be prominent from a public perspective in the vicinity: whilst they may be visible from Greeba Avenue, they will be seen behind and within existing residential development. The proposed dwellings are not the same in size or design, as those next to it but the properties in Greeba Avenue are very different to those fronting onto the main road and whose being built on the site alongside. As such, it would be impossible for the development to be consistent with all of the development next to it.
6.3.2 The proposed access will have an impact on the appearance of the area in that the entrance will be widened and trees and vegetation will be lost. The latter does not meet with any objection from the Arboricultural Officer of DEFA and the trees lost will be replaced by new ones although it will take some considerable time for the new trees to go anywhere near providing the impact that do the existing which are to be removed. It is relevant that the AO notes that some of the trees near to the entrance are encroaching onto the road and "are starting to cause access issues which pruning will not fully solve. These trees are not suitable for retention."
6.3.3 The proposed development contains a variety of dwelling shapes and sizes and it is considered that this variety will provide an acceptable impact on the area.
6.4 Impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent property 6.4.1 The requirement for new development to be in a sustainble location automatically means that new dwellings will be next to existing ones. Furthermore, the requirement in Strategic Policy 1 to make the best use of unused or underused land means that there is also an aim to
==== PAGE 12 ====
19/01396/B Page 12 of 13
make the best use of this type of land: the more dwellings that are built in sustainable locations, the fewer will need to be built in locations that are not considered sustainable.
6.4.2 That is not to say that developments should be over-dense or uncomfortably close to others and the Residential Design Guidance provides advise on how new dwellings should be developed so as not to cause an unacceptable impact on others nearby. To avoid dwellings resulting in overlooking and intruding onto other dwellings' privacy, a distance of 20m should be maintained where elevations containing windows look directly towards each other. The closest proposed dwelling to an existing property is that on plot 4 which backs at an angle to 9, Greeba Avenue and the closest elevation which contains a window or patio door, is 19.2m from the closest point of 9, Greeba Avenue but 1.5m lower. Every other part of that property, and all other dwellings in the development are more than 20m from existing dwellings front ot back or back to back.
6.4.3 In terms of outlook, as the proposed dwellings are mostly two storey and those in Greeba Avenue are single storey - some with dormer accommodation - it is important to consider whether there would be an impact on the outlook of the existing properties from these new, taller properties. Again, the RDG provides advice on how to calculate this relationship and suggests that a rule of 25 degrees from the existing property windows should be maintained free of obstruction. The applicant demonstrates in drawing 07B that the 25 degree guidance is being observed.
6.4.4 Whilst it is completely understood that those people next to the site who currently have an unobstructed outlook over open space will have that changed to a landscape which has two storey buildings within it, removing the openness and possibly removing some of the view available from the rear elevations, this impact needs to be balanced against the need for development to be located in sustainable locations and to make best use of available land. Having regard to the advice in the RDG it is considered that the impact that the proposed development will have on the existing properties around the site - in Greeba Avenue and those which front onto the Main Road, is acceptable.
6.5 Impact on the highway 6.5 Highway Services consider that the development would have an acceptable impact on the local highway network. Their recommended conditions relating to the provision of the car parking spaces and the visibility splays prior to the occupation of the first dwelling, are supported.
6.6 Other environmental impacts 6.6.1 There will be an impact on the loss of open space and trees and a resulting impact on ecology. Any site which is designated for development and which is not presently actively used or built upon will have this impact and a balance needs to be struck. This balance comes with an appropriately designed development which tries to retain as much beneficial vegetation as possible whilst still providing a sustainable development which makes best use of the site. Also, appropriate mitigation through how the development is undertaken and the incorporation of ecology-friendly features is also important. The Protected Species Report should be conditioned to be accorded with in full and further plans of the proposed lighting, the location of bat and bird boxes, bee bricks and amendments to the planting scheme to incorporate native species should be approved prior to the commencement of any works.
CONCLUSION 7.1 Whilst the development will have an impact on the environment and those living near to the site, it is considered, having regard to the policies in the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guidance, that this impact is acceptable and the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions as referred to in the body of the report.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
==== PAGE 13 ====
19/01396/B Page 13 of 13
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: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.
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: 27.07.2020
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
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