Loading document...
Oik yn Ard-Scrudeyr
Our Ref: DF11/0002 Planning Application Ref.No: 10/01693/B
| Planning Secretary | | | --- | --- | | Planning And Building Control | | | Murray House | | | Mount Havelock | | | Douglas | |
| Applicant: | Heritage Homes Ltd | | --- | --- | | Proposal: | Widening of highway and creation of priority junction at existing section of single carriageway (alternative to dual carriageway previously approved under PA's 03/00790, 03/01846, 10/00392), Highway, Roadside Hedge, Land Adjacent To Highway Gardeners Lane Ramsey Isle Of Man |
In accordance with paragraph 10 of the above Order, the person appointed by the Council of Ministers to consider this application has submitted his report. In accordance with paragraph 10.3(a) and (b), a copy of the appointed persons report is enclosed. On the 2nd June 2011, and after consultation, the Council of Ministers accepted the recommendation contained within that report and the application was approved subject to compliance with the conditions specified below.
Date of Issue: 7th June 2011 Chief Secretary's Office Government Offices Bucks Road Douglas
Mr A Johnstone Planning Appeals Administrator
shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the first occupation of the EMI unit or any additional dwelling. Any trees and shrubs which within 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species unless the Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
Crown Division Government Offices Douglas Isle of Man
16 May 2011
The Council of Ministers
Sirs
CASE REFERENCE DF11/0002 PLANNING APPLICATION 10/01693/B
SCEIVED
-8 JUN 2011
REPRINTED
Application by Heritage Homes Ltd for the Proposed widening of highway and creation of a priority junction at the existing section of single carriageway (alternative to dual carriageway previously approved under Pas 03/00790, 3/01846, 10/00392) Highway, Roadside Hedge, Land adjacent to Highway, Gardeners Lane, Ramsey.
I have the honour to report that on 10 May 2011 I held an inquiry into the above application. This followed a site visit held the previous day.
This report contains descriptions of the site and the development proposed, the gist of the arguments made by the parties, my conclusions and a recommendation as to the decision which might be made in the case.
At the inquiry the following persons appeared:
For the Applicant: Mr V Fraser, QC, who called: Mr D Humphrey BA(Hons) MCD MRTPI Mr B G Hall BSc MSc CEng MICE
For the Planning Authority: Mr C Balmer MA(Hons) MTCP MRTPI Mrs H Fletcher
Interested Parties: Mr D N Sykes, Greenlands, Gardeners Lane, Ramsey Mr & Mrs G Smith, 2 Gardeners Lane Mr & Mrs J Lawson 8 Gardeners Lane Mrs SM Dowie, Ivy Cottage, Gardeners Lane Mr I R Walker, 124 Greenlands Avenue
THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS, AND THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED.
carriageway operates independently as a two way road. Beyond the railway the road becomes a single track.
Land either side of Gardeners Lane to the north of the railway land has permission for 209 dwellings, a nursing home, shops, nursery and pub. These permissions were all predicated on the continuation of the dual carriageway improvement of Gardeners Lane, but the permission for the nursing home has been varied to allow access "by any approved highway scheme"[^1].
The planning permissions concerned are as follows:
a. 03/01846[^2] - 49 dwellings and neighbourhood centre to the west of Gardeners Lane
b. 03/00790[^3] - 179 dwellings on land to the east of Gardeners Lane
c. 10/00392[^4] - EMI[^5] Nursing Home in place of 16 dwellings east of Gardeners Lane
The proposal now under consideration is to provide access to the nursing home and 50 dwellings without providing a dual carriageway. The proposal was the subject of an amended plan GL1.02 revision A. Plan of the larger area is at appendix BGH1 of the Applicants traffic proof. The salient features of the plan are that a dual carriageway would run from Lezayre Road to the former railway, with a break in the central reservation at Greenlands Avenue. At the railway the carriageway would narrow to 3.5m, with a footway of 1.35m to the east, and a margin of 0.45m to the west. The carriageway would then widen to 5.5m, with land left to its east for a second carriageway. The footway would return to the eastern edge of this reservation. Markings and speed humps would complete a traffic calming measure at the crossing.
The only access from this part of Gardeners Lane would be to the nursing home. At the north, the lane would terminate at a roundabout, from which roads with 6.3m carriageways would run to east and west. The works would require the removal of an overgrown hedgerow. The development proposals include landscaping.
THE CASE FOR THE APPLICANT
The material points are:
[^1]: Applicant's evidence Appendix 3 [^2]: Ibid 2 [^3]: Ibid 1 [^4]: Ibid 3 [^5]: Elderly and Mentally Infirm
The Ramsey Local Plan set out the land use zoning. Gardeners Lane separated areas to the north of the railway into land for mixed residential and industrial use to the west, and residential use to the east. Policy R/R/P2 set out area development briefs, of which areas D and E related to Poylldooey/Ballachrink and Lezayre Road/Gardeners Lane respectively. In respect of E it states that the feasibility of a crossing of the Sulby River should be examined. In respect of Environment and Nature Conservation the plan considered it important to retain existing trees and hedgerows in those areas allocated for development. In identified wildlife sites there was a presumption against grubbing out of hedgerows, or felling of trees, but the area of the application site was not so designated.
The West Ramsey Development Framework (WRDF) had been approved as supplementary planning guidance in March 2004. The permissions a) and b) implemented the WRDF. A need for generous landscaping along the railway land and the river was identified. There is a presumption in favour of retaining trees. In respect of highways, the WRDF concluded that there was no need for a crossing of the Sulby River; that a new distributor road should link Poylldooey Road and Gardeners Lane; that Gardeners Lane should be improved between the former railway line and its junction with the new distributor road with existing roadside trees retained; and that the former railway line should be formally established as a public footpath.
The WRDF requires measures to be taken against flooding due to exceptional tides; for a comprehensive approach to sewerage, and phasing of the whole 7 stages of development envisaged by the framework.
The present application is for a scheme to be approved to meet the condition applied to permission c) for the nursing home. Originally it was considered that a single carriageway of 7.3m width with a localised narrowing at the railway would suffice. This would have required removal of trees and hedges to the north of Greenlands Avenue, but not to the south. Objection was made by local residents on the grounds that removal of trees and hedges from the land between the two carriageways south of Greenlands Avenue would be detrimental to amenity. Ramsey Town Commissioners objected on the grounds that removal of trees north of the railway would not conform to the WRDF. The Highways department considered it preferable to construct a 5.5m carriageway as the first step towards the dual carriageway. They considered that the scheme could incorporate a narrowing at the crossing, to be removed when the full dual carriageway was built. The purpose of the dual carriageway was to enable access to be maintained in the event of a carriageway blockage.
The capacity of the road had been assessed using standard approaches based on observed household traffic generation and UK capacity standards. The 5.5m carriageway would have a capacity adequate to cater for traffic from up to 300 dwellings. In the short term the road would remain a cul-de-sac, serving the developed areas and a nature reserve. Under the policies of Manx Roads the carriageway of this width, plus a narrowed carriageway over a short length would still permit traffic to be carried from up to 100 dwellings, the nursing home and the nature reserve. The width would be adequate to allow a stopped vehicle to be passed, or roadworks to be carried out.
Copy included in documents
The material points are: 21. Planning policy appropriate to the proposal was General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. The WRDF provided an overall development framework to ensure the appropriate infrastructure was provided. The WRDF strategy was to produce a new distributor road between Gardeners Lane and Station Road, giving access to areas 27 identified for development in the Framework { }^{8}. Area 1, to the east would also be
[^0] [^0]: { }^{7} Applicant's proof Appendix 5 { }^{8} Extracts from the WRDF, including a plan, are in the inquiry documents.
served from a road connecting to Gardeners Lane. Gardeners Lane would meet the distributor road at a roundabout north of sites 2 and 3.
The planning history of the area permitted development to the east and west of Gardeners Lane, and a number of variations to the originally proposed plans, notably for the EMI nursing home. Conditions required the completion of various infrastructure works before occupation<sup>9</sup>.
Representations had been made by the Highways Division; Ramsey Commissioners; Manx National Heritage; the Forestry Amenity and Lands Directorate; and 11 local residents.
In relation to the performance of highways, the access had to be capable of serving 159 dwellings and the EMI nursing home on areas 2 and 3 identified in the WRDF. So far a total of 214 dwellings had been approved where the permissions were subject to the implementation of the road in accordance with plans submitted at the time. There was no condition linking the roadworks to the occupation of the first 55 dwellings now completed or close to being completed in Auldyn Walk.
The WRDF required that development of the areas shown in the Framework must include highways to support the level of development, but no stipulation was made as to the nature of works required. The applicant and the highways division are agreed that the presently proposed roadworks could support 100 dwellings plus the EMI home on areas 2 and 3, which would necessitate a new planning permission for 45 dwellings to add to those at Auldyn Walk. The additional dwellings could be on areas 2 or 3. The Highways Division was of the view that the single carriageway would not be adequate to serve all 214 dwellings and the EMI home. This would require the dual carriageway. The function of the proposed road would be as a local access<sup>10</sup>, rather than a distributor road<sup>11</sup> originally considered.
The visual impact of the proposal would include the removal of the 20 hawthorn trees presently on the eastern boundary of the lane. This was not to be confused with removal of the mature trees to the south of Greenlands Avenue, which was not proposed. The WRDF expected retention of trees here, and their incorporation into the central reservation, if possible. The proposal included new tree planting on the verge and central reservation behind the visibility splays for the EMI home. Details of the landscaping were not shown, but details could be required by condition, so that the loss of the hawthorn trees was mitigated.
In conclusion, the scheme now proposed was a reasonable interim design solution to a genuine problem of land availability. It would not prejudice the long term plans, and would allow residential development and the EMI unit to proceed. If permission was to be granted, it should be subject to conditions which, apart from the standard time limit and specification of drawings, should require submission and implementation of a landscaping scheme.
<sup>9</sup> Full details are in the Planning Authority statement p3
<sup>10</sup> Predominantly local traffic, generally with a presumption against through traffic and the needs of local residents taking priority over those of the moving vehicle.
<sup>11</sup> Distributes traffic within sectors of the town, connecting those sectors of the town with the primary and district network
The material points are:
The material points are:
Manx National Heritage Whilst the advice of the Government forester that the removal of hawthorn trees was unlikely to have a detrimental landscape or aesthetic impact, such species and hedgerow vegetation were of value to wildlife. The scheme should include planting of native trees and shrubs to enhance the appearance of the road and encourage hedgerow wildlife back to the area.
Mr D N Sykes, Greenlands, Gardeners Lane states that the only reason for the widening of Gardeners Lane is to serve area 2. However, the new distributor road would connect this area to Poylidooey Road in the east, so there was no need for modification to Gardeners Lane. The plan of the WRDF was for the distributor road to extend westwards past the Auldyn Walk development to areas 5, 6 and 7. However, flood risk maps produced in 2010 show that these area are within a 1 in 100 fluvial flood risk, and 1 in 200 tidal flood risk<sup>13</sup>. In such areas Drainage Division recommended that development should not take place. Consequently the development so far permitted could all be served by the new distributor road direct to Ramsey, without using Gardeners Lane. This would have the advantage that traffic from the new developments would not pass the schools in Lezayre Road. The proposal was a means for the Applicant to avoid constructing the distributor road.
Government policy required the protection of existing landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks, a policy given local force in the WRDF. The proposal was unnecessary, and would destroy 100m of mature hawthorn hedge. The forestry division were wrong in concluding that these trees were of little value - they were full of blossom in the spring, and leaf in summer. Furthermore, the realignment by the entrance to Greenlands<sup>14</sup> would be dangerous. The realignment would not be consistent with the maintenance of the attractive rural character which the WRDF sought to retain.
<sup>12</sup> There is no proposal to remove trees and shrubs from the central reserve south of Greenlands Avenue
<sup>13</sup> Mr Sykes produces significant evidence on flood risk. In view of the historical evidence, I take it that the WRDF takes this into account, and that suitable defences are included in development proposals so far approved.
<sup>14</sup> Greenlands is north of the new roundabout, between the distributor road and the nature reserve.
Mr Sykes challenges the validity of development taking place under permission 03/0790. He states that the permission had not been implemented, and expired on 11 July 2010. A new application would be required, but since part of the land (area 3) was now classified as being subject to a 1 in 100 fluvial flood risk, it was no longer eligible for development. The information on which the EMI unit had been approved was false, in that the access was not available. Thus the work commenced was unauthorised.
Mrs S M Dowie, Ivy Cottage, Gardeners Lane considers that the lane is not large enough to accommodate the traffic from the developments permitted, and that its use would create disturbance for existing residents. It would no longer provide a pleasant environment. The distributor road should be built, to give direct access to Ramsey. The design of the road failed to acknowledge the level difference between Ivy Cottage garden and the road. At present, water ran off the road into the curtilage of the dwelling, threatening its stability.
Residents of 1-3 and 7-10 Gardeners Lane raise objections largely to the removal of trees and shrubs from the central reservation of the southern section of the lane. This misunderstands the application, which would not affect this area. However, some also raise issues of congestion and road safety occasioned by the narrowing at the railway crossing.
Mr & Mrs Bleasdale, Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold make a similar objection to the above.
INSPECTORS CONCLUSIONS
I consider first the procedural matter raised by Mr Sykes. Whether or not the permission granted under 03/0790 remains valid and implementable is a matter of fact and degree which does not affect the consideration of the appeal application. It is clear that satisfactory proposals have been brought forward for the protection of that site from flooding, and even should that permission have lapsed, vulnerability to flooding would not be a reason to withhold permission should the same or similar development be brought forward in the future.
I next consider the issue of the potential for other sites allocated in the WRDF to flood. If, as he suggests, much of the land allocated for development in the WRDF is newly classified as being subject to flooding, then the WRDF should be reviewed, either as a policy, or site by site as development proposals are brought forward. It does not necessarily follow that the land is not developable, but it cannot be taken that flood defence measures to prevent the inundation of these sites would necessarily be acceptable, since development on washlands may exacerbate flooding elsewhere. Nevertheless, there is a significant area which is developable and can be served by Gardeners Lane.
Finally, Mr Sykes considers that the EMI unit permission was based on false information, in that the access was not available. The permission, as amended, prohibits occupation of the EMI unit until the highway works are complete. Therefore, whatever the information given at the time of the application, there is no possibility of the EMI unit commencing operation without a suitable access. That is a risk taken by the developers of the EMI unit, and is a matter for them. It is not a
reason to oppose the proposals now under consideration, but the fact that construction has commenced should not carry weight in favour of permission.
Issue 1 - standard of provision
The proposed roadway is presented as the first stage of a dual carriageway. The standard of road proposed eventually is not for capacity reasons, but to ensure continued access to the scale of development proposed in the event of an incident closing a carriageway. The standard of provision of the proposed road is matched to the amount of development which would be acceptable under the policies of Manx Roads and the Guidance of Design Bulletin 32, which is also accepted as practice advice. It follows that, in principle, the roadway would have adequate capacity and would operate safely. The developer accepts that the amount of development which could be served is limited to the existing dwellings at Auldyn Walk, the nature reserve, the proposed EMI unit and 45 further dwellings, which would have to be subject of a further planning application. That is an agreed position between the developer and the Planning Authority. No evidence was brought forward to dispute that principle.
A small number of detailed issues arise. Due to land ownership constraints the carriageway would narrow to 3.5m at the crossing of the old railway track. The design is thus forced into what is normally a traffic calming measure introduced as a design feature. The narrowing would be accompanied speed cushions and signing, normally found to reduce traffic speeds.
Capacity was shown to be adequate. Bearing in mind that the carriageway would otherwise be straight and level, the design feature would be a desirable calming measure. The footway width, at 1.35m exceeds the advice of Design Bulletin 32, which advises that to enable two people to walk side by side requires a width of 1.2m. All in all, I do not find that this feature would be unsafe.
A number of those who object consider that the distributor road to Poylidooey should be constructed before further development takes place. No evidence was brought forward to show that this was a necessity. Indeed, had there been such evidence it would have led to refusal of application 03/0790, which would result in greater amounts of traffic using Gardeners Lane and its junction with Lezayre Road than now proposed.
Issue 2 - Local distinctiveness
There was a misconception amongst some objectors that the large trees in the division between the two parallel carriageways south of the railway were under threat. This is not the case.
I can well understand the disquiet of those who see the development under way where there was once countryside. This however follows the Ramsey Local Plan,
which would have been the subject of consultation at the time it was drawn up, and objections would have been heard at public inquiry. Within that framework the WRDF was drawn up for the area now being developed. The framework says that it had been the subject of consultation which had led to amendments of the draft. It is also clear that emerging information, particularly on flooding, is taken account of in detail. Against this background, development is inevitable, and disruption is unavoidable. 46. The WRDF addresses the design of Gardeners Lane between the former railway line and the distributor road. It states that the existing roadside trees should, where possible, be retained and incorporated into a central reservation. The Nature Conservation section of the plan includes criteria for safeguarding existing ecology, whilst recognising it will be affected. It states a presumption in favour of retaining trees. 47. The trees are mainly overgrown hawthorn; they have a beauty in spring, and soften the visual appearance of the new development. They stand on the line of a sod bank which planning policies seek to protect. The forestry advice is that they are in relatively good health. The forester gives an opinion on the aesthetic and landscape value, which he considers to be minimal. That view is disputed, and it seems to me to go beyond the technical advice of a forester, and to be simply one of many assessments which may be made of aesthetic value. 48. My view is that the alignment on which the road has been designed is an appropriate one, and that the loss of the trees and the sod bank are features which may be replaced by equally appropriate landscape features in the development of the area, and that in time this could be just as pleasing for residents of the area, giving it its own distinction. I do not consider that these items are of such value that they should be retained for their own sake. Removal would not be contrary to the policy of the WRDF, since this only requires retention where possible.
which it relates. The third requires advance approval of soft landscaping work. The three conditions are included in the Planning Authority evidence to the inquiry, but since the third contains typing errors, I reproduce it below in correct form:
No development shall take place until full details of soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping shall include additional planting along the east side of Gardeners Lane. The landscaping should ensure that such planting is not affected by the dual carriageway scheme. All planting shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the first occupation of the EMI Unit or any additional dwelling. Any trees and shrubs which within 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species unless the Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.
I have the Honour to be Sirs Your obedient Servant
David Ward BSc(Hons) MICE FCIHT Inspector
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
