Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
20/01025/B Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 20/01025/B Applicant : Dandara Homes Limited Proposal : Removal of existing dwelling and erection of seven detached dwellings with associated drainage, landscaping and highway works Site Address : Residential Curtilage Of Knock-E-Tholt And Parts Of Gardens Of Adjacent Dwellings Court Hey, Ty Hesq & Westlands Douglas Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man
Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 15.10.2020 Site Visit : 15.10.2020 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 09.11.2020 __
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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. Prior to the commencement of any excavation or building work on site associated with this approval, there must be implemented a scheme for the protection of the existing trees to be retained on site in accordance with plans to be approved by the Department.
Reason: to ensure that the trees which are shown on drawing 07.05A to be retained are kept and protected from damage during construction.
C 3. Prior to the occupation of the proposed dwellings on plots 1, 3 and 4 the bat or sparrow nest boxes must be installed on the respective property and retained as such thereafter. Prior to the occupation of any of the proposed dwellings, the bat nest box shown to be installed on Court Hey must be installed and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: to ensure that there is adequate mitigation for the loss of habitat resulting from the development.
C 4. 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,
==== PAGE 2 ====
20/01025/B Page 2 of 11
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.
N 1. There is no requirement for the installation of the high friction surfacing shown in the proposed plans by Highway Services. This is outside of the application site so no approval could be granted to it through the approval of this application in any case.
N 2. The applicant should liaise with the Ecosystems Policy Office in respect of the demolition of the existing dwelling which may contain a bat roost which is protected by the Wildlife Act which also protects nesting and breeding birds which may be affected by site clearance.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is considered that the development accords with the relevant Strategic Plan policies - General Policy 2, Environment Policies 3 and 4, Transport Policies 4 and 7, the Residential Design Guidance and the Kirk Michael Local Plan
Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the following drawings and information:
203.01A and 203.02A both received on 30th October, 2020 07.05A received on 22nd October, 2020 ADR-500, 07.03A, 07.04A, 12.01, 304(C), 304(SP), 316(C), 317.1(C), 317.2(C), received on 8th September, 2020.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that although they have made written submissions these do not relate to planning considerations:
Manx Utilities as they have not clarified what the material consideration is which represents their interest
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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 4(2):
Ballachrink Beg, Slieau Dhoo, Cooil Beg and Sartfell House as they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
THE SITE
==== PAGE 3 ====
20/01025/B Page 3 of 11
1.1 The site is the curtilage of an existing dwelling - Knock-e-Tholt which sits on the eastern side of the A3 TT Course as it approaches Kirk Michael village from the south. The site also includes land which is currently the rear elongated gardens of properties to the south - Court Hey, Ty Hesq and Westlands which are all currently in the ownership of the applicant together with land to the rear of Greystones and abutting the rear corner of Briarfield.
1.2 To the rear of the site is field 234267 which separates the site from Lhergy Vreck Farm which has been the subject of an application for the development of a complex accommodating the rearing / husbandry of goats with associated dairy, butchery, cafe, farm shop and visitor centre along with parking, access alterations and landscaping (17/00678/B). This has not yet been implemented with a small kiosk having been approved (19/01432/B) and erected on the land immediately to the south of Westlands to provide the retail element of this larger approval to test the market before the applicant embarks upon the larger scheme.
1.3 Across the road is Glendale which is set back from the highway more than are the properties on the application side, together with Ballachrink Beg and Reayrt ny Glionney - all single storey, and to the north, The Warbuck a two storey dwelling in its own grounds with a field in between which had planning approval in principle for the erection of three dwellings (17/01023/A) although this has now expired as no reserved matters application was submitted within the appointed period of two years from the date of the approval (14.11.2017).
1.4 Westlands is a single storey property with accommodation in the roof but without dormer windows as are Ty Hesq and Court Hey which are semi-detached. Knock-e-Tholt is a hipped/mansard roofed bungalow; Greystones is a single storey dwelling whose ridge is at right angles to the road. Briarsfield is a two storey dwelling with all the abovementioned properties set in a line with the same distance between them and the highway.
1.5 The site is relatively flat from front to rear. The rear boundaries of the adjoining properties are presently timber fences.
1.6 There are trees to the rear of Knock-e-Tholt - palms, oaks, eucalyptus, cypress, pine, maple and larch. There are two trees in the front garden both low level deciduous trees.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of Knock-e-Tholt, works which themselves would not require planning approval, and the creation of a new access onto the A3 which will continue to the rear of the existing dwellings and the erection of seven dwellings - six two storey houses and a bungalow which will sit immediately to the rear of Ty Hesq and Westlands and separated therefrom by a hedge comprising hawthorn, blackthorn, Guelder rose, Field maple, elder, broom and common fuchsia. Two of the existing trees in the group at the rear of Knock-e-Tholt are to be retained and one at the front boundary next to Court Hey with new tree planting within the front garden areas (crab apple, weeping cherry, hawthorn, mountain ash, and weeping birch) and at the rear of plot 1 behind Greystones and Briarfield (to be selected from the following - fastigate rowan, mountain ash, crab apple, plum, whitebeam, pear, maple, birch, oak, silver birch).
2.2 The proposed access will feature a carriageway of 5.5m with an overall opening onto the A3 of 15m with footpaths on both sides and continuing almost to the north eastern boundary of the site and including a turning head partly included in plot 3. An area of public open spaces will lie on the right on the way into the site, beside Court Hey where there will be the existing tree and an area of grass with the boundary of this with Court Hey provided by hedging with the species noted in 2.1 above.
2.3 The houses are mostly two storey with a large Oak type and five Maples with a variation on the front and rear elevations all with optional rear sun rooms of various types. The roofing will
==== PAGE 4 ====
20/01025/B Page 4 of 11
be finished in slate coloured tiles and the walling stone, cladding and render. The bungalow is a three bedroomed dwelling and the two storey houses all four bedroomed.
2.4 Drainage will collect surface and foul water from the dwellings and drain this to the existing system in the A3.
2.5 The applicant considers the site to be an opportunity to create a discrete pocket of houses which are visually and physically linked to recent neighbouring developments and minimising the potential visual impact on the landscape. They refer to previously refused schemes which included this land but consider that what is now proposed is different in that the site is much smaller and further from the Conservation Area and will not include any length of by-pass road but will at the same time not prevent such being implemented at Douglas Road Corner if this is deemed appropriate in the future.
2.6 They believe that the development complies with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
2.7 The application includes an Energy Impact Assessment which explains that additional insulation will be applied to the construction of the houses which will comply with Building Regulations and energy efficient appliances will be installed. Nothing to generate renewable energy will be installed as standard.
2.8 A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal has been undertaken by the Manx Wildlife Trust's Consultancy Services, dated August 2020. The survey work was undertaken between 30th June and 8th August with a range of weather conditions. They note that the Cooil Dharry nature reserve is 150m to the south and there are small patches of woodland 300m to the north with other habitats connected by the Heritage Trail which is 150m to the west of the site.
2.9 The report records wildlife in the area within 500m of the site. It describes the site as grassland which has been managed with patches of amenity grassland. They identify a number of key ecological features including bat and bird foraging habitat including for protected species and numerous roost features in the existing buildings and vegetation for bats. The potential for frog and lizard breeding populations is low but with a likely moderate assemblage of breeding invertebrates.
2.10 They recommend the retention of hedges, grassland and scrub as far as is possible and prior to the clearance of the site or any development, the site should be appointed to identify any Schedule 8 species. Ideally the copse of trees should be retained and if this is not possible, trees and any buildings to be removed must be checked for bats by an experienced ecologist, prior to removal. If any invasive species are found they should be dealt with appropriately. The development should incorporate artificial bat roosts for any loss of significant roost features and lighting should be installed in accordance with best practice for mitigating any impact on bats. Any removal of trees should be undertaken outside of the bird breeding season and dead wood and trees should be retained if possible for their value to saproxylic species. Further planting should be of native species which support wildlife and further hedging could enhance habitat connectivity.
2.11 They recommend the retention of areas of unmanaged grassland along south facing hedges to provide foraging habitat for common lizard and the planting of trees or trees in the south west corner of the site. The creation of a wetland habitat would increase biodiversity and small piles of logs created for saproxylic species.
2.12 The bat report provided reports usage of the site by bats is low overall and the gardens of any new houses will provide greater diversity of vegetation than do the grass fields at present. Mitigation is required to offset the potential attic roosting space in Knock-e-Tholt and further detailed survey would be required to establish the nature of the roost and mitigation could be
==== PAGE 5 ====
20/01025/B Page 5 of 11
built into the new housing by the incorporation of roosting spaces or bat boxes in them with appropriate roof membranes. They advise that lighting should avoid impact on bats.
2.13 The trees surveyed on site are mostly Category C with one B (turkey oak) and two U (small leafed limes). No information is provided to demonstrate how the existing trees to be retained will be protected so a condition requiring this should be attached to any approval.
2.14 The Transport Assessment submitted with the application confirms that there will be visibility splays of 2.4m by 90m in both directions to the nearside channel. They describe the site as being within walking distance of all of Kirk Michael and its facilities which makes it likely that residents will walk to local amenities. The same conclusion is reached in respect of cycling.
2.15 A further Ecological Mitigation Plan for house sparrows and bats has been submitted indicating the inclusion of a Habibat Externally mounted bat box on the gable of Court Hey, the installation of a Habibat Integrated bat box on the gable of number 1 (drawing 203/01A), the installation of two double entrance house sparrow nest boxes on plots 3 and 4 and an external nest box on an existing tree alongside plot 1 (drawing 203.02A). The landscaping plan has been updated to refer to native species (07.05A).
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Kirk Michael Local Plan of 1994 as Predominantly Residential. The Written Statement confirms this designation as "the most significant development area" and that any development should take into account the possibility of a by-pass route with no estate road access being permitted to the by-pass (paragraph 5.7). It adds that appropriate areas of open space should be included in any developments and housing for first time buyers in addition to semi-sheltered and sheltered housing. It adds that if at the end of five years, detailed applications for the development of allocated land, have not been approved then consideration should be given to the removal of such land for development purposes.
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:
(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; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (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 and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
3.3 Some of these issues are also dealt with in other policies in the Plan - Environment Policy 3 (trees), EP 4 (ecology), Transport Policies 4 and 7 and Appendix Seven (access and parking).
==== PAGE 6 ====
20/01025/B Page 6 of 11
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. It states:
"2.2.3 The character and context of any residential development is created by the locally distinctive patterns and form of development, landscape, culture and biodiversity. These elements have often built up over a considerable time and tell a story of the site's history and evolution - the creation of a 'sense of place'. The character and context of a site should influence design positively so that development does not simply replace what was there but reflects and responds to it, for example by allowing the long-term retention of existing mature landscaping features or water features. The initial site context should also identify established building heights, lines and orientation of buildings that are adjacent to the site and should have a positive relationship with established housing and other development, including ease of pedestrian and vehicular movement.
2.2.4 If the context to a development has been compromised by earlier development, this should not be seen as a reason to perpetuate what has been done before. Opportunities should be sought to deliver high quality sustainable development that reflects up-to-date technologies and aesthetics and creates a strong "sense of place".
3.5 The Strategic Plan sets out guidance on when affordable housing and public open space is required and both apply to developments of greater numbers of houses than are proposed here - 8 in the case of affordable housing and 10 in the case of public open space.
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There have been no planning applications which were submitted solely for the application site but this was part of two previous applications for more significant residential development schemes, both of which were refused.
4.2 12/00573/B was refused for reasons relating to the fact that it would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and that the development could prejudice future decisions about the relief road/by-pass.
4.3 Prior to this, 11/01250/B had been refused by Council of Ministers as whilst the scheme had "much to commend it" according to the inspector, creating 100 homes including 25 affordable homes although it was noted that there were no public sector rented homes to be included and there would be net benefit in the creation of public open space which would be more than is required by the Strategic Plan. However, the change in the sense of place, combined with the concern about the prematurity of committing to a bypass and the damaging impact of the development on the visual linkage between the village and the open countryside and hills and the loss of view behind the Old Fire Station would harm the key qualities of the Conservation Area. He did note that generally the development would not have an unacceptable impact on existing residential properties.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1.1 Highway Services consider that the proposal raises no significant road safety issues. There few recorded collisions in the vicinity of the site for the five year period to April 2018 referenced in the TA and none are recorded for the available data in the intervening period to June 2020. The Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and Designer's Response contained within the TA raise issues with potential rear end shunts into right turners waiting to enter the site leading to the proposal for a high friction surface. Given the location where there are multiple accesses on both sides of the road, 30mph speed limit, existing and predicted relatively low to moderate traffic flows and potential maintenance liability, there is no reason for such provision and it should be omitted.
==== PAGE 7 ====
20/01025/B Page 7 of 11
5.1.2 They conclude that the proposal is acceptable from the highway viewpoint on omission of the high friction surface from the vehicle access which would not result in highway safety or network efficiency being compromised. This allows Highway Services to raise no opposition subject to conditions to cover a development cap of 72 units, the provision of junction with the A3 minus the high friction surfacing, and the internal and pedestrian and vehicle areas, including parking and garaging within the site to accord with a minor revision to the site plan, Drawing no. 09.01. An advisory for s4 and s109(A) Highway Agreements to apply too (23.09.20).
5.2 Michael Commissioners request a deferral pending them having sufficient members available to be quorate (29.09.20). They confirm on 05.11.20 that they have no objection provided that if further development is proposed, the applicant would need to discuss this prior to submission and they note that the local plan discusses the area being suitable for up to 65 dwellings, of which the current application would be 7.
5.3 Manx Utilities seek a deferral to further assess the proposal (02.10.20). No further correspondence has been received.
5.4 DEFA's Ecosystems Policy Office confirm on 07.10.20 that an adequate level of assessment has been undertaken in the PEA but they consider a couple of alterations need to be made to the proposed mitigation measures. They confirm that the main ecologically important features for this site are the roosting bats within Knock-e-Tholt, bat foraging and commuting habitat, bird nesting and foraging habitat and invasive species.. House sparrows were not picked up in the report and mitigation for house sparrows should be included in the form of house sparrow nest boxes in appropriate locatrions aropudn the site or the incorporation of additional Manx native hedges along the back gardens of 4-7 or ideally a mixture of both. They acknowledge that the demolition of the existing dwelling will not need planning approval but that this may endanger a feature which is protected by the WIldlife Act 1990. Due to the level of information provided in the report it is not possible to recommend at this stage appropriate mitigation as it is not known what sort of roost may be in the property. They recommend conditions which relate to the demolition of the property which are not possible as this is not subject to planning control and conditions which require an invasive species eradication plan and a mitigation plan for house sparrows prior to the undertaking of any works. They also required details of any lighting prior to the installation of the same to ensure that it does not affect nocturnal wildlife. They also recommend a note relating to the timing of works and the provisions of the Wildlife Act in respect of breeding and nesting birds. They add on 26.10.20 that there are 2 Schedule 8 Part II invasive plant species on the planting list - Cotoneaster sp. and Griselinia littoralis and advise that it is an offence to plant, or otherwise cause to grow in the wild any plant listed on Schedule 8. They request that both of these species are removed from the proposed planting list. They also advise that for the Manx Hedgerows - Common fuchsia, Guelder Rose and Field Maple are included on this list and they are not Manx native species. If these are to be Manx Hedgerows (and ideally all hedges around the boundary of the site should be native) then these species should be removed and replaced with Manx native species.
5.5 DEFA's Arboricultural Officer comments on 06.11.20: "The trees on the site are small garden trees, many of them early mature and in good condition. The majority of the trees are located in the rear garden and provide little value to the landscape. The Cherry located adjacent to Douglas Rd (A3) is over mature and due to historic management is in fair to poor condition. No tree survey has been submitted with the application however it is questionable if one is required due the size and condition of the trees. The 15 trees proposed for removal, are mixed ornamental broadleaf and coniferous trees. As these trees are small in size they will be easily mitigated and I feel the landscape plan will provided an adequate level of mitigation."
5.6 Residents
==== PAGE 8 ====
20/01025/B Page 8 of 11
5.6.1 The owner of Sartfell House which is 3.5km from the site to the south east, objects to the application, stating that 18/00504/B was refused as the application did not follow the traditional line of the houses on the A3; as this application is next door, this application should have the same objections applied to it. They state that the current strategic plan for Kirk Michael does not include this area as a development land, it is agricultural land.
The provision for eco efficient energy sources are not provided (the heating boilers are not sufficiently eco efficient), although the applicants do make recommendations for buyers. This is contrary to the Climate Change drive by the Government for energy efficiency which should be integral to the building of housing and not advisory.
They consider that the population of Kirk Michael is not increasing even with available houses for sale, so it is arguable that there is no appetite for more housing of these proportions. They consider that what Kirk Michael needs is single, affordable housing which this application was careful to point out was not a requirement, hence the low number of houses being built.
They conclude that there is no benefit for the residents of Kirk Michael now, no mention of section 13 provision and finally, the outlook of the Hills of Kirk Michael is inspirational to all residents and are hugely beneficial to the well being of residents and children of Michael School. This development will dilute this and much to the detriment of mental and sociological well-being of all (30.09.20).
5.6.2 The owner of Cooil Beg, Douglas Road whose access is opposite the application site but which is separated from the highway by two other properties - Glendale and Yn Fea, does not object to the seven proposed dwellings but is concerned at the references in the documents to future development and reference to 65 additional dwellings which is not acceptable to them and would increase the number of vehicles having direct access off the TT Course. They also note that the majority of vehicles are not adhering to the speed limit (30 mph). They also wonder whether people will actually walk to local facilities (09.10.20).
5.6.3 The owners of Slieau Dhoo, Main Road which sits in the centre of the village some 360m away from the site, refer to the previous applications and express concern that what is proposed, if approved could establish a presumption in favour of further development. This is confirmed by the comments from Highway Services which refer to additional dwellings. In previous appeal decisions, it was considered unwise to allow further development until the future of the relief road was determined (16.10.20).
5.6.4 The owner of Ballachrink Beg, Douglas Road which is across the road from the application site (approximately 35m away) encourages the Department to require all future developments to consider wildlife and make provision for it with green spaces and flowering shrubs, increasing biodiversity. They consider that the new development should be in keeping with the existing dwellings here and be single storey and houses should have garages and drives for off road parking (17.10.20).
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The land is designated for development and as such the principle of development is acceptable. Whilst an existing dwelling is being demolished, it is being replaced by seven new properties so there is no nett loss of habitable accommodation. The issues are therefore whether the proposed development has an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area having regard to General Policy 2 and the Residential Design Guidance and the loss of existing trees, whether there is any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in nearby dwellings or ecology, whether the proposal meets highway safety requirements and whether it complies with the other policies in the Strategic Plan. The site is is outside the Conservation Area and does not propose sufficient numbers of houses to justify the requirement for affordable housing or public open space, although, should further development
==== PAGE 9 ====
20/01025/B Page 9 of 11
follow from this which creates an access for such, affordable housing and public open space requirements may need to be revisited.
Character and appearance of the area 6.2 Douglas Road forms the approach to Kirk Michael village and sits just before the Conservation Area. The primary school and its playing fields mark a separation between the linear development to the south and the main part of the village, much of which alongside the main road, comprises interesting and old buildings whether these be the traditional Manx cottages or the larger community halls, the former Courthouse which is also Registered and the Mitre Hotel. What precedes this is a mix of different house types - some two some single storey. As such, it is not considered that the streetscene is so heavily characterised by single storey properties to warrant a requirement here that any new dwellings are also single storey. The proposed dwellings will be screened by the existing dwellings alongside the highway and whilst it is a pity that there were not a variety of house types proposed here to reflect the variety of existing properties in the area, this is not considered so significant as to warrant refusal of the application.
6.3 Whilst the Residential Design Guidance suggests that the context of a site should form the basis of new development but also that development should create a sense of place, in this case the variety of the existing dwellings makes it difficult to establish a prevailing style or character and as such it is considered acceptable to simply decide whether what is proposed would sit comfortably in the streetscene and it is considered that it would given all of the above.
Loss of trees 6.4 The development would result in the loss of a number of trees within the site. None is Registered and few, if any, are visible outside of the site, most, if not all being screened by the existing dwellings. There would be a marginal loss of habitat through this although the application includes replanting of native species. DEFA's Forestry Officer has no objection. It is not considered that the loss of trees in this case merit refusal of the application.
Living condition of those in nearby dwellings 6.5 The development has been designed so as not to have new windows which will look directly towards existing properties within a distance of 20m in accordance with the RDG. The Hawthorn single storey property has windows in the side elevation but they are at ground floor level and offer no greater view than could be availble from the land outside the house at this point. There will be a new Manx hedgerow introduced between the properties to mitigate any potential inter-visibility. Whilst the development will change what is beside Greystones and Court Hey from the sides and curtilage of a residential property to an access road serving seven dwellings, it is not considered that there will be an adverse impact from the development on the living conditions of those in adjacent property given the scale of the development and the additional space to the sides of these properties where there is currently a building and associated activity.
Ecological impact 6.6 The proposed development will have an effect on ecology from the removal of the trees and also the demolition of the existing house which potentially accommodates a bat roost. It is not known at this stage whether there is an active roost there and if so, what type of roost. The applicant has provided a mitigation plan which introduces two types of bat roost whose positions have been considered by the Manx Bat Group and Ecosystems Policy Office. This is considered acceptable. The development could also impact ecology through the demolition of the existing house although this work does not require planning approval under the Town and Country Planning Act (Section 6(2)e. As such, it is not possible to attach a condition to any approval to control how the property is demolished. It is also relevant that the protection of roosts is the responsibility of the Wildlife Act 1990 and the applicant is aware of the potential roost (as they commissioned the report that revealed it). As such, it is considered appropriate
==== PAGE 10 ====
20/01025/B Page 10 of 11
to not require details of the demolition as a condition which would unenforceable but to attach a note drawing attention to the provisions of the Wildlife Act 1990 in respect of the protection of bat roosts.
Highway safety 6.7 There is no evidence that the proposed access is not satisfactory in highway safety terms and there is no objection from Highway Services. The development provides sufficient parking to satisfy the Strategic Plan in that all the properties have at least two parking spaces with a number also having garages which could only be converted to additional living accommodation if there remained two parking spaces which are 3.25m wide and 6m long, which some plots may be able to achieve.
Other issues 6.8 A number of representations refer to the possibility of the proposed development leading to further development which they find objectionable. Whilst it is understandable, particularly as previous applications were refused, and the development of the wider area brings issues which are not applicable to this site - a greater landscape impact, impact on the adjacent Conservation Area and impact on highway safety - an application cannot be refused because of something else happening in the future. This development is a self contained scheme for seven dwellings which could easily remain as such with no further development emanating from it. If the land alongside is designated for development, which it is, this development should not prejudice the future development of it although the suitability of this as an access to more housing is a matter for that future application not this.
CONCLUSION 7.1 It is considered that the development accords with the relevant Strategic Plan policies - General Policy 2, Environment Policies 3 and 4, Transport Policies 4 and 7, the Residential Design Guidance and the Kirk Michael Local Plan and is recommended for approval.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
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 above 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. __
==== PAGE 11 ====
20/01025/B Page 11 of 11
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 10.11.2020
Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
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