Loading document...
Oik yn Ard-Scrudeyr
Our Ref: DF11/0021 Planning Application Ref.No: 11/00684/B
Isle of Man Government
Railige Ellan Vanain
Planning Secretary
Planning & Building Control Division
Murray House
Mount Havelock
Douglas
RECEIVED ON
05 MAR 2012
DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE
| Applicant: | Heritage Homes Ltd | | --- | --- | | Proposal: | Erection of 35 dwellings with associated highway and drainage infrastructure, public open space and landscaping, Colby Football Club Ground, Glen Road, Colby, Isle of Man IM9 4NU |
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 Person's report is enclosed.
In arriving at its decision, Council of Ministers also considered the contents of two letters received following the close of the Inquiry hearing and the Appointed Person's responses thereto (copies enclosed).
On the 16th February 2012, the Council of Ministers accepted the recommendation contained within the Appointed Person's report and the application was approved.
Council of Ministers' decision to approve the recommendation of the Appointed Person was subject to the Developer first entering into a legal agreement to provide 9 affordable houses on the site and then subject to the further conditions listed at paragraph 143 of his Report which are specified in the Schedule of Conditions below.
| Date of Issue: 2 March 2012 | | | --- | --- | | Chief Secretary's Office | | | Government Offices | | | Bucks Road | | | Douglas | |
Mr W Greenhow ACMA Chief Secretary
i. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of 4 years from the date of this notice.
.
ii. No residential development of this site may commence until such time as Colby AFC has established alternative playing and training facilities which are available for use.
iii. This permission relates to the residential development and associated highway and drainage works shown in the following drawings: 2398.01.01A, 2398.01.02A, 2398.01.06, 2398.03.01, 2398.03.02, 2398.03.03, 2398.03.04, 2398.03.05, 2398.03.07, 2398.03.08, 2398.03.09, 2398.03.10, 2398.03.011A, 2398.03.12, 2398.03.13, 2398.04.01, 2398_ADR_500, ADR_FRA, 10/221/TR/005 (contained within the Transport Assessment prepared by Bryan G Hall).
iv. The hydro-brake control device in manhole S1.4 must be fitted as soon as practicable after the surface water storage tank has been completed.
v. The roofing on the dwellings on plots 1, 2, 3, 34 and 35 must be finished in natural slate or a slate-like material, a sample of which must be approved by the Planning Authority prior to the erection of any of these dwellings.
vi. Further to condition 5 above, all other roofing must be finished in slate grey coloured tiles.
vii. 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 dwellings, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants planted as part of the landscaping scheme which within a period of 5 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.
viii. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005, no street lighting may be erected without the prior approval of the Planning Authority. If street lighting is considered necessary, it must be designed so as to avoid illumination of the wooded area around the edge of the site.
ix. Prior to the commencement of any development on site a Tree Identification and Protection Drawing to replace Drawing No. 2398.01.06 which formed part of the planning application shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. The replacement plan shall be in full accordance with the Arboricultural Evidence of Dr D P O'Callaghan on behalf of Heritage Homes Ltd and dated 5 December 2011. The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved Tree Identification and Protection Drawing.
x. No development shall commence on site until an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The AMS shall provide details of:
a. The tree health care programme to be applied to the retained trees;
b. The final and accurate location of the protective fencing;
c. The construction of the protective fencing;
d. The specific "no dig" and cellular confinement approach to the construction of hard surfaces in proximity to retained trees;
e. Supervision of the arboricultural aspects of the development by a competent Arboriculturist.
The development shall be undertaken in full accordance with the approved AMS.
.
xi. Prior to the commencement of the development details of the proposed treatments and finishes of the surfaces of the areas of public open space shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Each area of public open space shall be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the dwellings adjacent to that area of open space.
xii. The 2.4 metre by 45 metre visibility splays at the access to/egress from the development onto Colby Glen Road must be constructed prior to the construction of any of the residential dwellings.
xiii. The highway improvement works detailed on plan 10/221/TR/005 dated 18 April 2011 must be constructed prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings.
xiv. The driveway for Plot 7 requires widening to 7 metres to ensure that the second parked vehicle on that Plot does not encroach onto the access roadway. The widened driveway shall be completed prior to occupation of the dwelling on this Plot, in accordance with a plan which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
.
The Heathers, Costain Close, Colby, IM9 4NZ.
9th December 2011
Chief Secretary's Office, Planning Appeals Office, Government Office, Douglas, IM1 3PN.
For the attention of Mr. W. Greelshow:
Re – Planning Application 11/00684/B, Meeting of 7th December held in King Orry Room, Government Offices, Bucks Road Douglas.
Dear Sir,
I would like to register an official complaint regarding the way the above appeal hearing was carried out. It was totally one-sided, chaotic and biased in favour of Heritage Homes.
After introductions were made, and it became clear that specialists and an advocate made up the party representing Heritage Homes, various members of the public pointed out that we were not made aware that the proceedings were to be carried out in such an official manner.
A request was made for an adjournment so that official representation, possibly also including specialists and an advocate, could be made on our behalf. The Chairman said that he had no objection to that, and looked towards the advocate, Mr. Porter. However, this gentleman strongly objected and said that there could not possibly be an adjournment. Although members of the public explained that this was making the hearing very one-sided and biased, they were overruled by the Chairman and the meeting went ahead regardless.
No format of the meeting was given to prepare members of the public for how the meeting would proceed. We were merely 'invited' to attend. Everyone was therefore under the impression that it would be a general discussion where everyone could put their points of view.
Prior to the meeting, members of the public were given a strict deadline for the submission of their reasons for opposing the granting of planning permission. However, once the meeting was under way, the representatives of Heritage Homes were allowed to introduce a 28-page document, previously unseen by anyone. Copies were handed round, but we were told we did not have time to read them then, but could do so if we wished during a ten-minute break later in the morning.
When proceedings had started, each time a member of the public tried to speak to voice a concern, they were asked to not discuss anything but only ask relevant questions of the particular person.
giving their statement at that time. It would therefore appear that Heritage Homes were allowed to make statements of why they wanted to build these homes, but members of the public were not allowed to make statements of why they wished to object.
One particular piece of evidence submitted by Heritage Homes was a traffic survey of the Glen Road from the football entrance down towards the main road, which was carried out on the 25^{\text {th }} January 2011. The true worth of such a survey taken at this time of year was questioned, and we were told that particular day was fine weather, bright and sunny, but this could not be verified. A member of the public made an immediate search on the internet, and it was found that the weather conditions that day were bright, but cold with icy conditions. This piece of information was ignored by the Chairman. In retrospect, one would imagine the most accurate survey would be taken during the summer months when many more people are inclined to be out and about, both in vehicles and on foot.
Regarding the aspect of the resident bat colony, this was dismissed by Heritage Homes as being easily remedied by limiting the amount of street lighting in the vicinity. No account was taken of the initial and total disruption caused by the actual excavation and building process, nor of the obvious general busyness and noise of the site once the homes were occupied. In fact, the subject of the bat colony was very quickly skirted over, and the meeting moved on to what would appear to have been 'safer ground'.
The whole process would appear to have been a waste of time, effort and money. Everyone in that meeting room knew very early in the proceedings that the end result in favour of Harmony Homes was a foregone conclusion.
It is very strongly felt by all the members of the public attending the meeting on the 7^{\text {th }} December 2011 that it was held in a very unprofessional, biased and chaotic manner. Therefore, it is requested that a new meeting be convened with a new Chair person, so that those opposing the present planning application can be allowed to put their case in a much more professional manner with all aspects of technical advice being covered.
Yours faithfully,
David Sullivan.
From: Stephen Amos To: "Johnstone, Andy (CSO)" [email protected] Sent: Thursday, 26 January 2012, 18:44 Subject: Re:
Andy
Thank you for your 2 email messages about complaints made regarding the handling of the Heritage Homes ("HH") application at Colby - PA 11/00684/B. I note from Ms Martin's email to you that there is some urgency, and so I have considered the letters today (having only received them today despite their submission at much earlier dates). The essence of my response is already conveyed in the Procedural Matters section of my report.
The letter from Mr Sullivan of The Heathers, Costain Close, is indicated to have been received first, and so I shall deal with it first.
With respect to Mr Sullivan's first paragraph, I entirely repudiate the suggestion that the appeal hearing was "totally one-side, chaotic and biased in favour of Heritage Homes". As you know I was employed as a Planning Inspector by the UK Planning Inspectorate for over 20 years, conducting a large number of public inquiries during that time, and always in accordance with the Franks' principles of openness, fairness and impartiality. The same principles were applied fully to the Heritage Homes inquiry.
On Mr Sullivan's second paragraph, the matter of information provided to local people before the inquiry is a matter for you, on which I have no first hand knowledge. You led me to understand that residents would have known that professional witnesses were to give evidence from the publication of their proofs of evidence on your website. I have dealt with the matter of the appearance of an advocate in my report. No prior notification of the intention to use a barrister was required, and this would not have provided a justifiable reason to adjourn the inquiry.
On Mr Sullivan's third paragraph, I do not recall saying that I had no objection to an adjournment. My recollection is that, having heard the request, I sought the opinion of Mr Ponter (HH's advocate) on what had been said. Mr Ponter indicated that he would resist an adjournment. Having heard all opinions (as is normal procedure on such a request being made) I then ruled that the inquiry would continue, as there was no justifiable reason to adjourn it. In my view it would have unreasonably thwarted due process and proper administration to accept that an adjournment was justified for the reason that local residents had decided at such a very late stage that they should have been professionally represented at the inquiry. It was fundamental to the making of my ruling that, irrespective of how local residents were represented, the points made by those residents regarding the planning merits of the proposals would be included in my report to the Council of Ministers, along with those made by other parties, and so would be taken into account in any event.
On Mr Sullivan's fourth paragraph, it would seem that he is again referring to information given to local residents prior to the inquiry. I think this is a matter for you to deal with. As happens at all inquiries, I did outline the procedure that was to be followed at the outset of the inquiry, and I invited any questions or comments about matters of procedure.
On Mr Sullivan's fifth paragraph, the late document referred to is the evidence of Dr O'Callaghan. I have dealt with this in my report. The fundamental consideration in deciding whether to accept late evidence at an inquiry is whether any participant would be disadvantaged or prejudiced thereby. For that reason, I delayed indicating whether I would accept the evidence until I had had chance to read it during an adjournment. As stated in my report, I decided to accept the evidence as it raised no new issues, the matter of the trees on the site having been dealt with in earlier documents, albeit in less detail. I consider that the allowing of Dr O'Callaghan's evidence was actually of benefit to local residents, because they then had the opportunity to question an expert on tree matters about their concerns regarding trees on the site. Some availed themselves of that opportunity.
On Mr Sullivan's sixth paragraph, I refute any suggestion that members of the public were not allowed to make statements of why they wished to object. I did stop local residents from giving their own opinion on matters at the stage of the inquiry when they were asking questions of the applicant's witnesses. To make this point clear, what actually happened was that a local resident would ask a question, the witness would give an answer, and the local resident would then try to say that they did not agree with the answer and give the reasons for not agreeing. I stopped that type of response by pointing out that the giving of the resident's own view on the matter in question should be kept for the later stage when they were giving their own case. That is the usual approach at this type of inquiry, and is necessary because the ordered running of the event requires that each party give its case in turn and be questioned on that case. All participants were given an opportunity to present their own cases at the inquiry, although as I have stated in my report some chose not to stay at the inquiry until that stage was reached. Also as stated in my report, the only local resident who indicated to me that they were unable to stay for the full length of the inquiry was heard at an earlier stage before she left the event. Had any other people indicated that they needed to leave, I would have heard them before they departed as well.
On Mr Sullivan's seventh paragraph, this is an example of what I have referred to in more general terms in the paragraph above - with the search of the internet being an attempt to put an alternative view against the answer of a witness at the stage of questions to that witness, rather than presenting that evidence at the stage when that resident could give his own case. The particular resident who searched the internet never did present that evidence formally, because he did not stay at the inquiry to the stage at which his opportunity to put his case would have occurred, and he did not indicate that he had to leave or that he needed to be heard at an earlier stage. It is highly likely that the advocate for HH would have wished to cross-examine that evidence (form the internet) had it been given formally, and that is another reason why it is necessary to distinguish and separate the stages of questioning of an opposing witness and the giving of a person's own case.
On Mr Sullivan's eighth paragraph, this appears to be an attempt to make further comment on the merits of the case after the close of the inquiry. Mr Sullivan would have had the opportunity to present any evidence he had regarding the bats at the inquiry. My report presents all the evidence I was presented with on this matter.
I have no further comment to make on Mr Sullivan's ninth paragraph. I can only reiterate that I conducted this inquiry with due regard to the Franks' principles mentioned above. I do not believe that anything in the way I conducted the inquiry gave any reason for concluding that
the result was "a foregone conclusion". The decision is not mine to make, and lies with the Council of Ministers.
I very strongly object to and repudiate Mr Sullivan's assertion in his final paragraph that the inquiry was held in a "very unprofessional, biased and chaotic manner". I have been a professional planner for over 30 years, having been a Chartered Town Planner since 1981, and I am bound by the professional code of conduct of the RTPL. Mr Sullivan's apparent wish was that he should be able to argue with witnesses across the table, rather than following the proper procedure of questioning them, hearing their answers, and then presenting his own case when the due time came. The approach I took maintained control, followed the proper procedures as set out at the start of the inquiry, and prevented degeneration into a chaotic event which would most probably have resulted without adherence to those procedures.
Turning to the letter from Mrs Parry, the first page of this letter is in error since the case is not an appeal but an application which has to be determined by the Council of Ministers. My comments relating to the alleged lack of prior knowledge that HH would have a barrister and 3 expert witnesses have been covered in relation to Mr Sullivan's letter and in my report. With regard to the final paragraph on page 1 of Mrs Parry's letter, all participants at the inquiry were given an opportunity to express their opposition at the appropriate stage of the inquiry. Mrs Parry herself did stay for the full length of the inquiry and was given the opportunity to state her case, and this is included in my report.
On page 2 of Mrs Parry's letter, I have commented on the late evidence of Dr O'Callaghan and on the adjournment request in dealing with Mr Sullivan's letter. I must make clear that the request for the adjournment was made on the basis that local residents had not known that HH would be represented by a barrister. At that stage of the inquiry, HH had not drawn attention to their intention to call Dr O'Callaghan as a witness. I have no recollection (nor any record in my notes) of any request for an adjournment having been made on the basis that Dr O'Callaghan's evidence was late. With respect to the comments made about the arboricultural evidence, I have made my assessment of this in my report and it would be inappropriate to add anything.
I have no comment to make on the 2 paragraphs on page 2 of Mrs Parry's letter which refer to what Ms Corlett and Mrs Fletcher said to the inquiry. With respect to the final paragraph on page 2 of the letter, I have already commented on a similar allegation regarding bias and unfairness above, and I have nothing to add. I certainly did not "make clear" that I had never presided over a meeting where so many local residents had come to oppose an application. My past experience encompasses cases where very many more residents have attended inquiries in opposition to proposals (I can give examples if these would be helpful). In all those cases local people were apparently entirely satisfied that they had fair opportunity at separate stages of the inquiry to question the opposing side and to then later present their own cases. The only feature of the Colby inquiry that I have not encountered before was the apparent unwillingness of local people to hear the answers to their questions at one stage of the inquiry and to then have the opportunity to present their contrary views at a latter stage.
On page 3 of Mrs Parry's letter, I believe the first paragraph relates to the matter I have already referred to regarding the need that arose to stop local residents giving their contrary views at the stage when they were supposed to be questioning the applicant's witnesses. In the absence of any details about the alleged failure to reprimand Mr Ponter, I am unable to
comment on that point. I do not recall any local residents raising such a matter at the time, and there is nothing in my notes to suggest otherwise.
The second paragraph on page 3 of Mrs Parry's letter relates to the procedural matter I have already referred to. This paragraph highlights that the nub of the residents' concerns relates to the fact that they wished to conduct themselves in a different way than is established practice at inquiries of this kind. With respect to the third and fourth paragraphs on that page of the letter, it was made clear to local people during the inquiry that they would all have the opportunity to speak at the appropriate point in the proceedings.
With respect to the fifth paragraph of page 3 Mrs Parry's letter, there seems to be implied criticism that at the start of the inquiry I only took the names of those residents who wished to speak. That is the usual process at such events, as the Inspector needs only the names of those people who he or she is going to have to address - e.g. to invite questions of other witnesses and to request those people to state their cases at the appropriate time. The names of other people present are recorded on the attendance list. I cannot comment on what local people are told about the likely length of an inquiry prior to the event, as Inspectors are not involved at that stage of the process. With respect to the final point in this paragraph, I can only reiterate that the only person who indicated to me that she had to leave the inquiry (Mrs Cregeen) was heard before she left. No other person indicated to me that they had to leave.
With respect to the seventh and eighth paragraph on page 3 of Mrs Parry's letter, I noted all the points made by local people. I can only assume that this paragraph again relates to the fact that I did not allow local people to give their opposing views at the stage when they were questioning the applicant's witnesses. I have already commented on the point about the internet report.
The first paragraph on page 4 of Mrs Parry's letter seems to constitute evidence following the close of the inquiry, and consequently it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it. I do not understand the suggestion in this paragraph that I "dismissed" Mrs Parry's comments at the meeting. The function of the inquiry was to hear the evidence. I did not dismiss anything at the inquiry, and my assessment of the evidence is made, as it should be, in my report. The second and third paragraphs on page 4 of Mrs Parry's letter constitute evidence and submissions after the close of the inquiry, and so I can make no comment upon them.
With respect to the fourth paragraph of page 4 of Mrs Parry's letter, there was discussion at the inquiry of whether it would be reasonable for any landscaping condition to require replanting of trees that were not part of the landscaping scheme but which were existing trees on the site. I do not recall anything in the discussion that would justify suggesting that I "cut" Mrs Parry "short". With reference to the final paragraph on page 4 of the letter, the weight to be attached to the various evidence is not a matter that I should comment upon, given that the inquiry has closed and my report has been completed and submitted.
The first paragraph on page 5 of Mrs Parry's letter is again evidence after the close of the inquiry, and so I cannot comment upon it. With respect to the final paragraph of the letter, I can only reiterate that I strongly repudiate any suggestion that my conduct of the inquiry was in any way unfair or biased. It also needs to be made clear with respect to that paragraph that I do not act "on behalf of the government" in terms of my function in this process but as an Independent Inspector.
I hope that this response is helpful to you. I faced a very difficult situation in this inquiry due to the local residents' perception from the outset that they had not been properly informed about the nature of the inquiry process in the run up to the inquiry. That is a matter over which I had no control as it is dealt with by your office administratively. I would wish to comment upon this matter at the forthcoming Inspectors' meeting, and to suggest some changes to the pre-inquiry processes, in order that the situation I faced at this inquiry is not repeated at future events.
Stephen Amos Independent Inspector
.
From: Stephen Amos
To: "Johnstone, Andy (CSO)" [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 30 January 2012, 10:41
Subject: Re:
Andy
Further to my email of 26 January (below), on further consideration there are 3 further points I would wish to add.
The first is a point of clarification. With respect to the final paragraph on page 2 of Mrs Parry's letter of 12 December, I indicated in my original response that I did not say that I had never presided over a meeting where so many local residents had come to oppose an application. What I should have added was that I did say that my previous experiences of inquiries on the Isle of Man did not include any where so many local residents had attended. My UK experience has involved inquiries where far more residents have attended in opposition to proposals. For example some 150 residents attended one of the days of a multiday inquiry I held regarding residential development proposals for the Cradley Heath Speedway Stadium in the West Midlands.
The second additional point is in relation to the argument that local residents felt disadvantaged by the acceptance of Dr O'Callaghan's evidence because they had been given a deadline of 4 November for their submissions. I would wish to point out that based on the papers I was provided with only one local resident - Mrs Cregeen - actually submitted anything by way of further representations prior to the inquiry. The remainder of the residents spoke without having submitted anything further to their original letters of objection. In the cases of those residents who chose to stay at the inquiry and to state their cases there, I did not seek to restrict what they had to say to what had been stated in those earlier letters.
My third point is that I find the use by the residents in their letters of complaint of the words "chairman" and "meeting" to be of significance. They indicate a failure to understand that this event was a formal inquiry into the planning application, not a public meeting. I made clear at the start of the inquiry, as I always do, that the event was an "inquiry" and that I was the appointed "Independent Inspector". For this type of event it was entirely proper for me to follow the formal procedures of an inquiry rather than the more fluid discussion that might have been appropriate at a public meeting. That necessitated separating the stages of the inquiry at which residents could ask questions of the Heritage Homes' witnesses and at which those residents could state their own cases.
I hope you find this further reply helpful. I would be grateful if you can inform me by what method these complaints will be considered, including whether the Council of Ministers would wish me to attend any meeting to answer any questions the Ministers may have.
Stephen Amos
Independent Inspector
.
APPENDIX 1
| 65 MAR 2012 | | | | | | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | DEPARTMENT OF | Ballacallow | Glen Road | Colby | 15 DEC 2011 | | | INFRASTRUCTURE | | | | | | | | | | | READ BY C.S. | | | | | | | FILE NAME: | | | | | | | TO RELEVANT OFFICER DATES | | | | | | | | ALLEN |
W Greenhow Chief Secretary Government Office Douglas IM1 3PN
12 December 2011
Dear Mr Greenhow
Planning application: 11/00684/B Applicant: Heritage Homes Ltd Proposal: Erection of 35 dwellings with associated highway and drainage infrastructure, public open space and landscaping, Colby Football Ground, Glen Road, Colby, Isle of Man IM9 4NU
I attended the appeal hearing with regard to the above on Wednesday 7 December 2011 and feel compelled to express my dissatisfaction with the entire procedure.
Firstly, the residents of Colby were told that no decision had yet been taken with regard to the above application. However, the meeting was an "appeal" hearing and an "appeal" is an application to revise a previously made decision. The name of the meeting indicates therefore that a decision has indeed been made and that was certainly the impression the Colby residents were left with.
With regard to the meeting I have the following points to make:
It was not communicated to the Colby residents that Heritage Homes would be represented at the meeting by a barrister and three expert witnesses and that the Colby residents could have also obtained expert witnesses had they so wished.
The Colby residents had believed that the purpose of this meeting was to discuss the application and have the opportunity to express their opposition to it. However this was not permitted by the Chairman, Stephen Amos.
The Chairman of the meeting said that Heritage Homes had submitted a late arboricultural report (dated 5 December 2011) which had not been available to view previously, the author of which, Dr O'Callaghan, was one of the three expert witnesses.
The Colby residents felt disadvantaged by this late submission having been given a deadline a month earlier of 5pm on 4 November 2011 for final submissions and an adjournment was requested by Mr Sullivan. However, the Chairman refused this, clearly aware that the Heritage Homes representatives had travelled from the UK for the meeting and being keen to deal with the application as quickly as possible.
Despite the arboricultural report being dated 6 December 2011, paragraph 3.3 of the report refers to a site visit by Dr O'Callaghan on 6 December 2011 and further refers to the fact that he did not have time to measure the trees personally to confirm the measurements he had been given nor measure the crown spreads which had never been measured and which will clearly have a significant impact on the houses built close to the trees, both in terms of safety and light.
I would recommend that this report be disregarded and that Peter Keenan's comments (Government forester) in his email to Sarah Corlett of 13 July 2011 be considered; in particular his recommendation that houses be built at least a "tree length" away from the trees in order to protect them from both the building process but also from being felled as a result of new residents being concerned about the danger of the tree falling on to their property and lack of light.
The Chairman asked Sarah Corlett of the Planning Department whether she was in favour or against the application. She said that she had no opinion. However, when questioned by the Chairman, she said that she agreed with or was happy with everything that Heritage Homes had submitted and made it quite clear to those present that she was very much in favour of the application.
When the Colby residents were permitted to ask questions of the Highways representative, Mrs Hazel Fletcher, one member asked about the possibility of pavements being laid for pedestrian safety measures. Mrs Fletcher confirmed that the road was not wide enough to lay a pavement on either side of the road. The impression given to the Colby residents was that, despite everyone being in agreement that certain parts of the Glen Road are extremely narrow and therefore hazardous, this was not of particular concern to the Highways Department. The suggested creation of a footpath through the proposed estate may help estate residents but not the numerous other users of Glen Road including hiking tourists.
The Chairman did not hold the meeting in a fair and unbiased manner. Whilst he made it clear that he had never presided over a meeting where so many local residents had come to oppose an application, I do not consider this an excuse for the poor way in which he handled the meeting.
The Chairman reprimanded Colby residents for making comments without being asked but did not reprimand Mr. Ponter, (Heritage Homes' barrister) when he interrupted. In fact, on one occasion when this point was drawn to the Chairman's attention, he denied this, claiming to have asked Mr. Ponter a question when he clearly had not and had in fact been asking Mrs. Fletcher a question.
The three expert witnesses each made statements and gave evidence to support their reports. In each case, the Colby residents disagreed with many of the survey findings but each time they attempted to comment, the Chairman stopped them and said that they were only permitted to ask questions.
You will appreciate that several Colby residents speak from many years experience and not from the results of surveys carried out by individuals not resident on the island. It was very important therefore for the local residents to be heard and their comments to be noted. However, this was not the case.
As I was extremely unhappy with the manner in which the meeting was being conducted, I expressed the view that whilst one party was being permitted to make statements (based on surveys), the other party was being prevented from making statements (based on first-hand experience) and that there was quite obviously no "level playing field!"
Furthermore, at the start of the meeting, there had been around 30 Colby residents present (though not all noted by Mr. Amos as some were reluctant to speak) but due to the nature and length of the meeting which had not been previously properly communicated to the Colby residents, many had been obliged to leave early for work and other commitments and had been prevented from expressing their views by the Chairman.
Whilst the Chairman had stated that anyone needing to leave early could ask questions before departing, this was unsatisfactory because he only permitted questions and not statements or opinions. Furthermore, most questions arose from hearing the evidence of the expert witnesses which those leaving early, missed.
Additionally, when evidence or first-hand experience was offered by the Colby residents to counter the evidence of the expert witnesses, this was frequently dismissed and not noted by the Chairman.
For example, Mr. Hall, who carried out the traffic survey, said that the weather was sunny and fine on 26 January 2011 the date of the survey. When questioned about the road conditions (rather than air conditions) whilst his report did not cover this, he stated categorically there was no snow or ice on that day and that driving conditions were "normal." One of the Colby residents, however, read out a report from the Internet which stated that the weather would be sunny but extremely cold that week with frost and ice on the roads. The implication of this being that there was likely to be less traffic movements noted than during the summer or warmer months.
In addition, Mr Hall claimed that on average there would be less than one car per household from the estate using the road at peak times. Mr Hall's survey included all types of housing including those not on estates where some residents are retired and not working, therefore reducing the "average" car usage per household. Despite my comments at the meeting to the effect that the estate residents were very likely to have mortgages and therefore need to go to work to pay them, resulting in at least one car per household, my comments were dismissed by the Chairman in favour of the survey average. Mr Hall further explained how his "findings" concurred with the UK averages which in my opinion demonstrates how little he has understood about the island. As we have far higher employment levels, greater ownership of cars, less dependency on public transport, common sense should suggest that averages on the island will be significantly different to the UK.
Mr Hall also claimed that the dangerous exit from Glen Road on to the main A7 road would be improved by moving the white "stop line" forward (and the "stop line" back for those exiting from Station Road). I explained that drivers were already forced to drive beyond the white line in order to see in both directions clearly so the moving of the line would make no difference. Similarly, cars exiting Station Rd will drive as far forward as necessary, regardless of the white line, in order to exit safely. He further added that in order to stop drivers (approaching from the Port Erin side) from having to zig zag around the cars waiting to exit Glen Road, there would be further hatching on the bridge to effectively narrow this part of the road and force drivers into the middle. The bridge is already narrow with no room for pavements and further hatching would either result in only one direction of traffic being able to use the bridge at a time or cars simply ignoring the hatching. Anyone familiar with this area will know that there are no simple solutions for this already hazardous junction and quite clearly Mr Hall has not appreciated how this junction operates.
I would recommend that Mr Hall's report be disregarded and that common sense and first hand experience be engaged.
When the proposed "conditions" were discussed I suggested that any trees damaged as a result of the building work should be replaced. Whilst I accept that a 40 - 50 ft tree cannot be replaced with another tree of the same stature, I believe that Heritage Homes should still be responsible for replacing damaged trees. Dr O'Callaghan responded that trees would not be damaged according to his calculations. I would have liked to have added that no one is infallible and accidents tend to happen, therefore this should be a condition. However, the Chairman cut me short.
At the end of the meeting Mr Ponter gave a closing statement in which he claimed that "no competing technical evidence" had been given. I asked that the "first hand experience evidence" of the Colby residents be given equal weighting to that of the "technical" evidence from averages produced by surveys provided by non Manx residents but I am not convinced this will be the case.
Mr Ponter further claimed in his closing statement that the issue of the bats roosting in the trees had been fully considered and the building of the estate would not damage the bats in any way. However, this is not strictly true. The report on the bats merely considers the issue of lighting and suggests a form of lighting which would not affect the bats. I am not a bat expert but I would have thought that building within close proximity to bat rooks would put the bats at significant risk and I believe a full bat survey by an independent biodiversity expert should be carried out prior to a decision being made on the application.
In conclusion, having spoken to several other Colby residents, I can say that we are extremely unhappy with the unfair and biased way in which this application has been processed and the blatant biased behaviour of those acting on behalf of the government.
Yours sincerely
Mrs S E Parry
.
| Case Reference: | DF11/0021 | | --- | --- | | Planning Application: | 11/00684/B |
APPLICATION BY HERITAGE HOMES LTD FOR FULL PLANNING APPROVAL FOR THE ERECTION OF 35 DWELLINGS WITH ASSOCIATED HIGHWAY AND DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE, PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING AT COLBY FOOTBALL CLUB GROUND, COLBY GLEN ROAD, COLBY, ISLE OF MAN
ensure the orderly running of an inquiry. As each party has an opportunity to ask questions of the other side, and to present its own case, this does not prejudice any participants. In the event, some of the interested persons who had stated that they intended to speak were no longer at the inquiry when the time came to present their cases. I did hear the one person who had indicated that she could not stay for the afternoon before she left the event. With respect to those persons who did not stay, I have taken account of any representations they made in writing at earlier stages of the application process. 6. Heritage Homes called an additional witness, Dr D O'Callaghan on arboricultural matters, whose evidence had not been provided in advance of the inquiry. Having read this evidence over an adjournment, when interested persons also had the opportunity to examine this evidence, I determined that I would allow it to be given to the inquiry as it raised no new issues. Opportunity was given for questioning of Mr O'Callaghan on his evidence.
footways to the north of the site. Signage advises pedestrians that there is no footway provision. The carriageway varies in width. It is about 7.2 m wide at the northern end of the site frontage and about 6.4 m wide at the southern end. Between the site and the junction with Main Road, the carriageway varies from about 9.6 m to about 5.45 m wide. The pinch point of narrowest width occurs about 45 m to the south of the site access, where the dwelling at Colby Beg abuts the carriageway on its eastern side. There are 2 bends in the road, one at the southern end of the site frontage and the other further south. Colby Glen Road is subject to a 20 mph speed limit, and HGVs over 7.5 tonnes are prohibited. 11. The junction of Colby Glen Road with Main Road comprises a crossroads. Station Road joins Main Road as the limb of the junction opposite Colby Glen Road. There are stop lines on Colby Glen Road and Station Road at this junction.
with open space opposite. The remaining houses would be in a terrace of 8 on the north side of the spine road close to its eastern end. There would be open space between the eastern end of that terrace and the eastern site boundary.
Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 and 11; Spatial Policies 4 and 5; General Policies 2 and 3; Environment Policies 7, 10, 13, 36 and 42; Housing Policies 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6; Recreation Policies 2, 3, 4 and 5; Transport Policies 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8; Energy Policy 5; the open space standards in Appendix 6; and the parking standards in Appendix 7. The applicant also refers to the Housing Policy Review Report 1999, and the later Progress Reports, as forming part of the policy background. These references included mention of the First Time Buyer Register.
The main points are: 21. There are 5 main issues which require examination. The first is the principle of developing the site for residential use. That has already been established by the existing approval in principle. Whatever happens to the current application, the site will continue to have the benefit of that approval, which is a material consideration that carries significant weight. There is almost a year remaining for any application for approval of the detail of that development to be made. 22. Although the Local Plan identified the site as a Playing Field, it was prepared prior to the football club's decision to relocate, and before the approval in principle of residential development. The emerging Area Plan for the South allocates the site for residential development and contains a brief for its development. That Plan has gone through the inquiry process, and so it has reached a stage at which it should carry some weigh. Only 2 representations were made about the draft allocation of the site, one of which was in opposition. This was a concern by Manx National Heritage which related not to the development of the application site in particular, but to the aggregate impact of more than one site in Colby being allocated for residential development. 23. The Strategic Plan is supportive of the principle of the development. Its strategic objectives aim to guide development towards existing settlements. Spatial Policy 5 states that new development will be located within defined settlements. Colby is such a settlement. It is identified in Spatial Policy 4 as a village. For the purposes of the Strategic Plan, Colby is within the Island's southern region, which is to accommodate 1300 of the 6000 additional dwellings required over the Strategic Plan period 2001-2016. Against that figure, the latest Residential Land Availability Survey indicates that approvals, projected windfalls and conversions total 958 units in this region, and that already includes 30 dwellings from the approval in principle on the application site. Further evidence of the need for the dwellings is provided by the Progress Reports following on from the Housing Policy Review Report 1999, which calculated that 400 new housing units per annum were required to meet demand. The subsequent reports do not indicate that the target should be reduced. 24. The need for the affordable housing is shown by the First Time Buyer Register, which details the number of persons who have indicated that they satisfy the criteria of the House Purchase Assistance Scheme, which includes an assessment
of income, and wish to purchase a First Time Buyer dwelling. In July 2011 there were 1117 persons on the Register, an increase from 943 in the previous year. Of those, 59 have shown the area which includes Arbory (the relevant area for Colby) to be their first choice location, an increase of 11 over the previous year. Some 208 in total have that area as their first, second or third choice. 25. Recreation Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan has a bearing on the acceptability in principle of the proposed development. It allows development which would result in the loss of open space or a recreation facility to be permitted provided that an alternative of equivalent community benefit is made available, that there is an overall community gain and that there is no significant unacceptable effect on the local area. The relocation of the football club, to much larger sports pitches and facilities a short distance away, offers significantly enhanced sports and recreation opportunities and meets the requirements of Recreation Policy 2. 26. The number of dwellings proposed is appropriate. The Planning Committee's case to the inquiry into the principle of the site's development was that 35 dwellings could reasonably be accommodated. In dealing with the Parish Commissioners' contention that there should be a limit of 20, the Inspector stated that there was "a wider imperative to make efficient use of land when being developed" and that it was "an unsuitable use of resources to allow low density development when the land can reasonably support a higher density". That decision imposed no limit on dwelling numbers. A note on it recorded that the transport assessment showed that 30 dwellings could be accommodated safely and that a further assessment should be submitted before a larger number was approved. The transport assessment with the current application found that the impact of 35 dwellings on highway capacity and safety would be acceptable. 27. The principle of the site's development for residential purposes is clearly acceptable. The only matter to be determined is whether the details of the current proposal are acceptable. This leads to the remaining 4 main issues. 28. The second issue concerns the layout, including the impact on adjacent properties and the provision for parking and POS. The site is well enclosed by trees/vegetation. The dwellings would be sited to take account of the amenity of new and existing residents, with appropriate distances between the existing and proposed dwellings, particularly between main windows. Satisfactory amenity standards would be provided, in terms of privacy, outlook and private amenity space provision. Each dwelling would have 2 or 3 parking spaces, including garages for the detached and semi-detached dwellings. That would satisfy the Strategic Plan's standard of 2 spaces per unit, and there would be no significant risk of parking associated with the proposal spilling out into Colby Glen Road. 29. There are 126 trees on or immediately adjacent to the site. Just 9 would be removed. Four of these would be removed to provide the visibility splay at the access and 4 others to accommodate a boundary structure, a turning head, a house and a path. One other tree would be removed due to its poor condition.
There are 2 other trees which should be removed because of their condition, but these are within the plot of 18 Ballacriy Park and could not be removed without the owner's consent. It is not necessary to remove those trees in order for the development to take place. The sole tree to be removed adjacent to that property is a small willow which has no significant screening effect. 30. The trees on the site are its main landscape feature, but the individual trees do not have particular amenity value. It is the high canopy lines that have value in giving the impression of a wooded area at a distance. The removal of a few trees to accommodate the scheme would have very little impact on the locality's visual amenities. Twenty new trees would be planted. The trees to be retained would have their health assured by application of the guidance in BS5837: 2005 Trees in relation to construction - recommendations. This would be met in respect of provision of root protection areas; the location, type and construction of protective fencing; and the construction of hard surfaces close to trees. Those matters, and a tree health care programme, could be secured by condition so as to require submission and approval of, and adherence to, an Arboricultural Method Statement. A health care programme is needed as the Sitka spruce trees show signs of stress and browning due to aphids and exposure, and those trees are important as they make up 37 % of the trees on the site. 31. With respect to the Forestry Division's comments on the application, there is nothing in BS5837: 2005 or any other policy or published guidance which requires houses to be sited beyond the falling distance of trees. There is no evidence to suggest that the siting of the dwellings is likely to lead to future requests for trees to be removed, or to show that any such requests would be successful. The Government has successfully resisted applications to remove trees in similar situations in the past. With the protection measures, the trees to be retained would not be damaged during the development and would survive into the future. There are no arboricultural reasons to refuse the application. 32. The proposed layout includes sufficient open space to more than meet the requirements of the Strategic Plan for amenity and informal play space. Some 1372 \mathrm{~m}^{2} of those types of space would be required, and 1600 \mathrm{~m}^{2} is to be provided. The new pitches and facilities being developed to the south of the village would represent a significant increase in formal open/sports space provision in the village, from 1.6 ha to 6 ha . As the housing development of the application site and the provision of those facilities are formally linked, and given that the Strategic Plan allows standards to be applied having regard to existing provision, the expanded football club facilities would satisfy the formal open space requirements for the proposed housing development. 33. Taking account of all those matters, the proposed layout is acceptable. 34. The third main issue concerns the impact on the character of the area. Save for part of the drainage works, the site is not within the Colby Conservation Area, but adjoins its eastern side. The boundary with that Area is dominated by the
roadside wall, and the vegetation alongside it, which are to be retained. As the new dwellings would be set back from the western site boundary, and any views into the site would be glimpses of buildings of traditional form, there would be no adverse impact on the character of the Conservation Area. 35. Aside from Conservation Area concerns, the Strategic Plan requires new development in settlements to take account of the character and identity of the area. This proposal satisfies that requirement. It would be relatively selfcontained due to the strong boundaries of the site, and would provide an acceptable transition between the older buildings of the Conservation Area and the more modern housing to the north, east and south. The designs of the houses would reflect some of the traditional elements of local buildings, including the details of the windows and doors; the use of Manx stone, slate-like roof tiles and a variety of render colours; and the inclusion of chimney stacks together with decorative detailing where appropriate. The scheme takes account of local character whilst also allowing for various current requirements. 36. The scheme includes some terraced dwellings, but these would be well within the site and would have little if any impact on views from Colby Glen Road. Terraced dwellings are found in all of the Island's towns and villages, including Colby, and are also common within Conservation Areas and in their vicinity. In Colby there are terraced dwellings at Station Park, and there are 2 recently erected terraces to the north of Main Road. The proposal would balance the imperatives of achieving efficient use of land and an acceptable impact in terms of the character and appearance of the area, and would be acceptable with respect to this issue. 37. The fourth main issue relates to the highway implications. The carriageway of Colby Glen Road is wide enough for vehicles to pass each other when travelling in opposite directions. Although its width varies, nowhere is the carriageway as narrow as the 4.1 m width needed for 2 cars to pass, or the 4.8 m width required for a car to pass an HGV. The bends in the vicinity serve to constrain the speed of traffic, and there is a 20 mph speed limit. 38. Traffic surveys were carried out on Wednesday 26 January 2011 to establish the morning and evening peak and inter-peak use of Colby Glen Road and its junction with Main Road. The weather conditions were bright and sunny. Although it was cold, the claims of third parties that the roads were icy are not accepted. Peak flows on Colby Glen Road were well below the environmental capacity of an access road of that type. Main Road was shown to be operating at only some 40 % of its traffic carrying capacity during the morning and evening peak periods. There are numerous gaps in the flows of traffic on that road into which traffic can merge from side road junctions such as Colby Glen Road. 39. The operation of the A27/A7 crossroads junction was analysed using the Picardy 5.1 program. The results show that the occasional vehicle has to wait to enter Main Road from Colby Glen Road and Station Road in the morning peak, but with typical delays of only 9-10 seconds. Occasional vehicles also have to wait before
joining Main Road from Colby Glen Road in the evening peak, and in Main Road before turning right into Colby Glen Road, during that same peak period. Typical delays at that time of day are only some 7-9 seconds. 40. The development would generate about 28 vehicle movements during both the morning and evening peak hours, with less during other hours. That is based on a generation rates of 0.8 vehicles per dwelling during the peak periods. This is at the upper end of generation rates per dwelling of 0.6-0.8 from surveys in Kirk Michael, Onchan and Ramsey. Those surveys can be regarded as showing typical generation rates for housing developments on the Isle of Man. Further support for that order of generation is provided by surveys carried out at Costain Close at the time of the in principle application in 2005. They showed generation rates of 0.69 vehicles per dwelling during the morning peak and 0.77 vehicles per dwelling in the evening peak. The TRICS database is widely used in England and nearly always reveals peak hour generation for residential developments of 0.60.8 movements per dwelling, except in places such as York or Cambridge where there is greater use of cycles and buses. 41. The estimated traffic generation was assigned to the local highway network. The maximum impact was tested by assuming that all traffic would travel on Colby Glen Road to the south of the site and through the junction with Main Road. The results show that after the development Colby Glen Road will continue to operate at flows of less than its environmental capacity during the peak periods, and that Main Road will continue to operate at some 40 % of its traffic carrying capacity during those same periods. 42. The junction at the site access has been designed on the basis of a topographical survey. It would have 6.0 m kerb radii and visibility splays of 2.4 m by 45.0 m to both sides. Edge of carriageway markings on both sides of Colby Glen Road would provide a constant carriageway width of 5.5 m along the frontage. That would improve forward visibility for southbound drivers, and reduce the length of wall which needs to be demolished to create the visibility splay to the north. 43. Improvements are proposed to the junction with Main Road. The traffic surveys show peak hour traffic flows on Colby Glen Road are roughly double those on Station Road, and so priority for improving visibility has been given to vehicles emerging from Colby Glen Road. The stop lines on those 2 roads would be relocated to provide optimum visibility and to maintain a carriageway width of 6 m through the junction. Most of the works would be confined to replacing white line markings, but a new kerb-line is proposed for about 15 m on the north side of Main Road to the west of Colby Glen Road. This kerb-line is needed to direct vehicles approaching from the west away from the repositioned stop line. 44. Those improvements would assist with the ease with which drivers can emerge from Colby Glen Road into Main Road. Visibility at the junction would be improved, except that visibility of approaching traffic from the west for drivers leaving Station Road would be reduced by some 7 m . However, the visibility of
those drivers is assisted by a mirror located on the opposite side of Main Road, and they would continue to see traffic approaching from the west when it is more than 70 m distant. Analysis of the altered junction shows that it will continue to operate safely and efficiently when carrying the increased traffic flows after the development. Vehicles will continue to have to wait occasionally, but typical delays would be some 8-9 seconds in both the morning and evening peak periods, similar to those which occur at present. 45. The accident record for Colby Glen Road from Costain Close to Main Road shows no recorded accidents over the 5 year period from October 2006. That includes both personal injury accidents and damage only accidents. 46. The proposal meets the transport related requirements of the Development Brief in the Strategic Plan. It includes a footpath to the south, which will link to future development at Ballacubbon and through to Main Road. It includes a footpath link eastwards to Ballacriy Park and to the local shop and public house. Those links would provide alternatives for pedestrians to walking on Colby Glen Road. The public right of way to the north would be retained as required by the Brief. 47. There are bus stops with shelters for east and west bound services on Main Road some 60 m to the east of Colby Glen Road. The site is in a sustainable location which will minimise journeys by car, and encourage people to walk, cycle or use buses. The proposal complies with the Transport Policies of the Strategic Plan and the Draft Southern Area Plan. Most of the third party representations refer to impact on highway safety, but there is no technical evidence to support a finding that the scheme would be unacceptable. The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure has assessed the proposal and supports approval subject to conditions. There are no reasons to withhold approval on the basis of the highway and transport implications. 48. The fifth main issue concerns drainage. The scheme would be connected to an existing public foul sewer. The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority ("WASA") is satisfied that the flows would not have a detrimental effect on the downstream system. Surface water would be attenuated on site before discharge to the Colby River. WASA is satisfied with the conclusions of the Flood Risk Assessment ("FRA") that the proposal would not increase the flood risk to adjacent property, and that the new dwellings would not be at risk of flooding. 49. With respect to third party concerns about the scheme's ecological impacts, the proposal was considered by the Senior Biodiversity Officer of the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture ("DEFA"). He was satisfied that a condition with respect to lighting would address the matter of any potential effects on bats. Ecological considerations do not justify refusal of the application. 50. The proposal includes affordable housing. There is no executed legal agreement to secure this provision. If the Council of Ministers is minded to approve the proposal, this matter can be dealt with by the issuing of a "minded to approve"
letter, subject to an agreement being executed. That had happened before, for example in the case of a proposed development by the applicant at Peel. Otherwise a "Grampian style" condition could be attached to require completion of a legal agreement before any development commences on site. 51. As the proposal does not conflict with the provisions of the Strategic Plan or the requirements of the Development Brief, and would deliver an acceptable development in all respects, it is requested that its approval be recommended.
The main points are: 52. As the Department has an interest in the proposal, it neither supports nor opposes the application, but seeks to provide information about the relevant considerations. (Inspector's note: views about the merits of the proposal included below mostly are derived from answers given to my questions). 53. The acceptability of the principle of the development needs to be considered. The previous approval in principle remains valid until 20 November 2012, and constitutes a material consideration. So too does the proposed designation of the site for residential development in the Draft Southern Area Plan, to which there has been only one expression of concern. Although the football pitches and other facilities being created for Colby AFC to the south of the village are almost complete, they are not yet operational. To meet the requirements of the Development Brief, it would be necessary to attach a condition that there should be no development until the club have the alternative facilities available to them. Other requirements of the Brief have been met. A Transport Assessment and a Tree Survey have been provided. The proposal includes a footpath link to the south. The existing footpath to the north is not affected. It is understood that a legal agreement is being drafted to ensure affordable housing is provided in accordance with Housing Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan. 54. The proposal includes POS to meet the standards for amenity and informal open space. The proposal would also lead to a requirement for 1988 \mathrm{~m}^{2} of formal open space, but the redevelopment of the football ground is linked to the provision of new facilities elsewhere in the village which would be considerably larger than both the existing ground and the required area of formal open space. Paragraph 10.3.7 of the Strategic Plan allows the open space standards to be applied having regard to matters including the proximity and availability of existing open space, and the standards in Appendix 6 allow playing space - including pitches, courts and miscellaneous sites such as training areas - to be included in the calculations. As a result, the fact that the proposal would rely on the playing fields being created elsewhere in the village in order to meet the requirements for formal open space does not provide a reason to refuse the application. 55. It is necessary to consider whether or not the proposal will protect and respect the character of the village, with reference to Environment Policy 42, General
Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan. Colby Conservation Area adjoins the site to the west. Some of the land through which the drainage would run is in the Conservation Area, as is some of the land on which improvements are proposed at the Colby Glen Road/Main Road junction. In view of the relationship to the Conservation Area, and given the location between modern properties to the north and east and older properties along Colby Glen, it may be necessary to consider a condition to control the roofing materials. This may require that the roofs on plots 1,2,3,34 and 35 at the western end of the site should be finished in a slate-like material, which would be more sympathetic to the finishes on the properties immediately alongside the site on Colby Glen Road. 56. There are 10 house types proposed. They have been designed around the standard estate house but with local characteristics and materials applied, such as some stonework and vertically proportioned windows. Although the chimneys would be thin compared to those on many adjacent older properties, and the roofs would have an overhang, those features would not justify refusal. The houses would look better, and would be more in keeping with their surroundings, if they had more substantial chimneys and less of an overhang at the eaves. However, it was accepted that this was a transition site between Colby Glen Road and the more modern developments beyond. 57. If the application is to be approved, the proposal must be adjudged to be acceptable in highway terms. In that regard, a Transport Assessment has been submitted, and there is no indication from the Highway Authority that the proposal is unacceptable with respect to highway matters. 58. It is also necessary to consider whether the proposal includes a system which would drain the surface water in a satisfactory way, and which would ensure that there would be no risk of the development being flooded or of increased flooding elsewhere. The main part of the site is outside the Colby Glen flood risk area. The point of surface water discharge is within that area, but WASA is satisfied that if the surface water outlet became submerged during storm conditions there would be sufficient head within the sewer system to discharge into the river before any discharge occurred from the last manhole before the river. Even if discharge from that manhole did take place, it would flow back to the river. WASA recommends that surface water discharge is attenuated to an agreed rate of 11 litres/second prior to discharge to the river, and recommends that the hydro-brake in manhole S1.4 must be fitted as soon as practical after the surface water storage tank has been completed. That tank is shown at the required size and in the required location on the Proposed Drainage Layout Plan. 59. There is anecdotal evidence that flooding has occurred, but this has been below the level of the application site. WASA has no record of the site having ever flooded. The risk of flooding downstream would not be affected, as surface water from the site would be channelled westward to Colby Glen. The application includes an FRA. There is no indication from WASA that either drainage or flooding should be a reason for refusal.
DEFA's Forestry Division recommend that excavation work should be kept outside the canopy spread of the trees on the site, as they have fairly shallow roots. It is also recommended that development should ideally be kept a tree length away so as to avoid future requests for tree felling.
The Energy Impact Assessment provided with the application meets the requirements of Energy Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan.
Local residents have referred to a suggested precedent for refusal. They have cited application 09/00850/B, which proposed the erection of one dwelling on Colby Glen Road. An appeal in that case was dismissed, and the proposal was refused. Although one of the reasons for refusal related to highway safety, this concerned restricted visibility at the particular site and the consequent undesirability of an increase in vehicular movements to and from that site.
The Department makes no recommendation as to whether or not the application should be approved. If it is approved, consideration should be given to the attaching the conditions listed in paragraph 85 of the Department's statement.
In response to questions from the Inspector and from interested persons the Department's witnesses made the following additional points:
The representation made by Manx National Heritage to the designation of the site for residential purposes in the Draft Southern Area Plan related to cumulative impact. It was not an objection to the principle of the site's development. Manx National Heritage made no objection to the planning application.
That the proposed development would be of 2-storeys across the whole site is not a matter that would justify refusal of the application. That would only be problematic if issues arose concerning overlooking or loss of outlook. No such issues arise, as nothing in the scheme conflicts with appropriate standards for separation distances between properties. There is no issue in having 2-storey development on this site in relation to the character of the area.
The proposal would not replicate existing development nearby, but there is a variety of styles of property in the vicinity and so it is hard to say what is typical. The proposal is not too far from the characteristic elements nearby, and would be "half way" between the different styles around the site. The scheme would be different in appearance to existing development on Colby Glen Road, but that is justified because the site is separated from that road by the wall and by planting. Its design accords with Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan.
The ecological concerns relating to the possible presence of bats would be satisfactorily addressed by a proposed condition to control lighting on the site.
The land to the east of Ballacubbon, through which the continuation of the footpath link to the south would need to pass, is owned by the Department.
13
TI17711161
Although there are no definite plans for that land, it is very likely that the link could be provided at some stage in the future. 69. The Highways Division takes no issue with the Transport Assessment, and is satisfied with the fact that the traffic survey related to a single date in January 2010. That data was compared to the background information held by the Division. The applicant's traffic generation figure of 28 movements per dwelling relates only to the peak hour, and there would be other movements outside that peak period. Such a generation rate is consistent with other sources of information and surveys on the Island. The increase of 5 dwellings relative to the transport assessment made at the time of the previous in principle proposal is not considered to be of material significance in highway terms. 70. Although there is no footway provision on Colby Road, it is not considered that the situation will be significantly worse for pedestrians with the proposed development than with the site in use as a sports ground. The applicant could not be compelled to provide a footway on Colby Road. Along most of its length there is no land available to do so. Along the short length where interested people suggested there was space to provide a footway, the applicant did not own the land required. The matter of providing a footway on that length had never been raised with the Department by the Parish Commissioners. 71. The improvements proposed to the Colby Glen Road/Main Road junction would be of benefit to all road users. It is not possible as part of this application to seek to take land from an adjoining owner to further improve visibility there. 72. It could not be guaranteed that the proposed development would not lead to some parking on Colby Glen Road, but there is no reason to suppose that is likely to happen. It is not possible to put double yellow lines to prevent such parking, as the Police will not support this. 73. It is uncertain whether the construction works would involve vehicles using Colby Glen Road which would exceed the 7.5 tonne weight limit, but that limit would not apply to delivery vehicles.
been resolved by the detailed drawings. The visibility splays are now considered to be adequate both at the site access and at Colby Bridge. There remains some concern about the details of how visibility would be achieved, particularly with respect to the proposed re-kerbing to one side of the junction at Colby Bridge. White hatching would be preferred to the new kerb-line. In restating the concerns about density, attention is drawn to the fact that the Commissioners concerns in that regard echo those of Manx National Heritage about density and the style of development in Colby in general.
terraced house in Colby, and those at Station Park are of no architectural merit. Although Colby AFC is creating replacement facilities for the football ground, there is no children's play area in the core of the village, and this development would not provide one. The only play area is at Station Park, on the opposite side of Main Road. The proposed development would take away the potential to resolve the lack of provision of this type of facility.
Colby Glen Road is very narrow with several blind corners.
There are difficulties when school buses, tractors and lorries use this road. Tractor and trailer movements are frequent in summer. Drivers often have to reverse when encountering these larger vehicles, in order to pass them.
The traffic survey was carried out mid-week, in late January, and so has under-estimated the existing traffic flows.
As each house would be likely to have 2 cars, between 70 and 100 extra vehicles would be using Colby Glen Road.
Colby Glen Road is unsuitable for the traffic that would be generated, including construction traffic, and the extra traffic would increase the road safety dangers.
The proposed access is on a blind corner, at a particularly narrow part of the road where visibility is restricted. The access would be unsafe.
The single access could pose problems for delivery, waste collection and emergency vehicles. Turning those vehicles would be difficult and hazardous.
The narrowness of the proposed access would cause traffic flow problems, and would be potentially dangerous for children playing on the proposed open space adjacent to it.
There are no footpaths on Colby Glen Road, and the street lighting is of a poor quality. The speed limit is not enforced. The increased traffic arising from the development would be particularly hazardous to pedestrians, including elderly people, school children, wheelchair users and those with prams/pushchairs. The proposal does not provide a new footpath along part of Colby Glen Road where there is space to provide one.
Despite the absence of footpaths, many residents walk along Colby Glen Road to reach a pub, a post box, a Spar shop and Colby Glen. Their safety would be jeopardised by the increased traffic. Existing residents of Colby Glen Road would not be assisted by the proposed footpath links from the proposed development.
The increased traffic would be hazardous to cyclists.
The increased traffic would have a detrimental effect on existing properties along Colby Glen Road.
There is a particular concern about the potential for damage to be caused to the dwelling at Colby Beg, which immediately abuts the road.
There have been many traffic incidents on this road, including one fatal accident some years ago. The proposal would significantly increase the chance of this happening again. There have been incidences of near misses.
Due to the lack of parking areas within the development, the parking of cars, especially by visitors to the site, could spill over onto Colby Glen Road. On-road parking would increase congestion and the hazards to road safety, and would impede emergency vehicles. There are already a number of dwellings on Colby Glen Road that have no off-street parking provision.
The development would generate HGV traffic for which the weight limit indicates Colby Glen Road is unsuitable. Builders' vehicles would exceed the weight limit and could damage the road surface and properties alongside the road. Many of those properties lack proper foundations, and so are susceptible to damage from passing vehicles.
The development would result in Costain Close becoming a favoured place for construction and other traffic to park and turn. That would harm the safety of residents living in that Close, including children.
The additional traffic would increase the existing hazards at the unsatisfactory Colby Glen Road/Main Road junction, which is already busy.
A precedent for refusal was set by the refusal of PA 10/850/B. The erection of a single dwelling on Colby Glen Road was refused at appeal on the grounds that an increase in vehicular movements would be undesirable in highway safety terms. Approval of the current application would be inconsistent with that decision.
A safer alternative would be to create access through the Ballacubbon estate, which would relieve traffic problems on Colby Glen Road.
the stream impassable. The FRA should have been undertaken by an independent person, rather than by a representative of the applicant company. It should have been carried out in the autumn/winter months rather than in late spring/summer, which is one of the driest periods of the year. 87. Queries are raised as to how the energy needs of the development will be provided. The scheme does not appear to include a sub-station. 88. The style of the proposed houses is inappropriate for the area. There are no terraced houses in the area which are similar to those which are proposed. The layout would not blend in with the existing dwellings in the Conservation Area, which have been built to a random pattern over a long period of time and include many Manx cottages. The proposal would also fail to reflect the layout of development at Ballacriy Park, where the bungalows are of individual designs and sited at different angles in small culs-de-sac. The regimented rows of the proposed houses and parking spaces, and the narrow spacing between the detached and semi-detached houses, are inappropriate features in this area. 89. The proposed density is over-intensive. A more limited development would be more appropriate, such as the 20 dwellings recommended by the Parish Commissioners. The houses would have small gardens by comparison with the plots at Ballacriy. The development would be mostly of 2 -storeys, despite adjacent property being largely bungalows. It could lead to the introduction of the social and youth problems which high density housing often leads to. 90. The site is adjacent to a Conservation Area. That matter would not be adequately addressed by having a green space between the closest houses and the Colby Glen Road, which would only seek to circumvent Conservation Area considerations. Many residents purchased their properties on the basis that this area would remain green and would be conserved. 91. The proposal would result in the loss of the last green field left in the centre of the village. This has been used not only for sport, but also for many other local events. Its development would involve a loss of amenity value and of market value of nearby homes. The applicant's contention that the site does not have a strong visual relationship with the surrounding area is not accepted. The site is easily seen from surrounding dwellings. 92. Residents of Ballacriy Park refer to the disturbance that would be caused to the peace and quiet of the neighbourhood and to their cul-de-sac in particular. It is inappropriate for the higher density part of the scheme to be located just to the rear of bungalows in Ballacriy Park. The open space at the eastern corner of the site would encourage young people to congregate and cause noise. Greater noise would also arise from increased usage of the footpath at the eastern end of the site, and of the link through via the existing path to Ballacriy Park. Street lighting on the site would be likely to cause light pollution to the rear of existing
properties in Ballacriy Park. One resident there states that their hobby of astronomy would be impaired by any such lighting. 93. The occupiers of 18 Ballacriy Park are concerned that the felling of a tree on the boundary of the application site with their property would increase overlooking of their garden and front room. The occupiers of the adjacent 2 -storey terraced houses on the application site would be able to look down into their garden. 94. The occupier of Ballacubbon wishes the boundary wall between his property and the application site to be maintained and reinforced. 95. The proposal would not accord with the advice of the Forestry Division that all houses should be a tree length away from the trees. The occupiers of some of the proposed houses, including Plots 1, 7 and 8 in particular, would be likely to seek to have trees felled that would overhang their plots. The houses should be sited further from the trees. Any greater tree loss than that which is proposed would be very detrimental to the appearance of the area. The landscaping proposals would take at least 10 years to provide a suitable screen. 96. The proposal would have an impact on wildlife. An environmental survey should have been required. Bats which roost in the trees around the application site, and which are protected species, would be adversely affected. A bat survey has not been undertaken. Such a survey should have been required. A rookery on the Colby Glen Road side of the site would also be affected. The river could be polluted. The site is also a sanctuary for rabbits. 97. One local resident argues that the provision of the new facilities for Colby AFC does not satisfy the requirement for formal POS to serve the proposed development. Those facilities were approved for football only, and would not meet all requirements for formal open space use. 98. There is no need for the proposed houses. There are many properties already on the market. 99. It is questioned whether there are enough school places to serve needs arising from the development. Arbory School is believed to be full to capacity.
be improved upon without acquisition of third party land, and it makes best use of the highway in this location. 101. The Department of Social Care, Housing Division, states that there is a need for affordable housing in the south of the Island, and that 25 % of the proposed houses should be affordable units. Rounded to the nearest whole number, 9 affordable units should be provided. It is envisaged that the provision will be for first time buyer use. A condition should be attached to require the developer to enter into a Section 13 agreement to secure the necessary provision. 102. The Senior Biodiversity Officer of DEFA has no objections from a wildlife perspective, subject to the no lighting spilling off the roads into the trees and hedges. While his attention has been drawn to the use of the site by bats, that could be retained by avoiding lighting of the wooded boundaries. 103. The Forestry Division of DEFA comments that the trees on the site are Sitka Spruce, and vary in size. They are not the "best trees aesthetically", but provide a screen between the football field and adjacent properties. They seem to be suffering from aphid and exposure damage. As the trees are shallow rooted, it is recommended that excavation work is kept outside the drip line of the crowns, because digging or cutting of roots within this area may make the trees unstable. The dwellings should ideally be built at least a tree length away from the trees. That may prevent future requests being made for felling licences. 104. WASA initially requested deferral of a decision until a full assessment of the impact on the Colby drainage catchment had been undertaken. Based on the FRA which was then submitted, WASA is satisfied that the development would not be at risk of flooding, and that it would not increase flood risk to any third parties. WASA is also satisfied that the foul water flows would not cause any detrimental effect on the downstream system. A condition is recommended, to secure attenuation of surface water discharge to an agreed rate and the early fitting of the device which would achieve that attenuation. 105. The Manx Electricity Authority indicates that the applicant should consult the authority about providing an electricity supply to the site.
would not reasonable to require replanting with respect to retained trees/plants that were on the site prior to the development taking place. 107. The applicant and the Department agree that the condition recommended in paragraph 4.10 of Dr O'Callaghan's evidence would be needed. This requires an Arboricultural Method Statement ("AMS"). The condition would require an additional clause to ensure implementation of the approved AMS. The 3 conditions recommended by the Highways Division are also agreed to be necessary, although the visibility splay condition should refer to 2.4 m rather than 2.5 m for the x distance of the splays. Finally, the Department requests a condition to control the details of the finishes of the surfaces of the proposed areas of open space. Such a condition would be acceptable to the applicant.
proposal. Based on all that I have read, seen and heard, the main issues in this case are (i) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including with reference to the Colby Conservation Area; (ii) its effect on traffic and pedestrian safety and the free flow of traffic; (iii) whether the development would be provided with satisfactory drainage without increasing risks of flooding both on the site and elsewhere; (iv) whether the development would be adequately provided for in terms of public open space ("POS"); (v) its effect on wildlife interests. 111. The main body of the site is not within the Colby Conservation Area. The part of the site which comprises a length of Colby Glen Road, and a strip of land to the west of that road through which drainage would run, is within the Conservation Area. However, once completed those drainage works would have no discernible effect on the Conservation Area. 112. The western boundary of the application site is the boundary of the Conservation Area. A short length of the stone wall on the frontage would be demolished to create a visibility splay, but it would be rebuilt slightly further back. There would be no significant harm caused to the appearance of the frontage as a result of those works. The site access would be widened, resulting in some change to views into the site from the Conservation Area. The foreground of the current views into the site comprises the unmade access and car park, together with the rear of part of the clubhouse building. The replacement of those elements by a properly constructed estate road, with houses beyond, would not materially detract from the Conservation Area. The closest house to the south of the estate road would be sited further to the south east than the position of the existing clubhouse building, and the closest of the houses on the north side of the estate road would be set back behind a small area of open space. As a result, the dwellings would not be unduly prominent or intrusive in views from the Conservation Area. No significant public views into the Conservation Area would be lost or materially harmed. 113. Save for 4 trees that would be felled to facilitate widening of the access and the provision of its visibility splays, and one tree that would be removed because it is dead, the trees and other vegetation behind the boundary wall would be retained. That vegetation would continue to form a substantial screen between the site and the Conservation Area. 114. As this proposal is outside of but close to a Conservation Area, Environment Policy 36 of the Strategic Plan applies. However, for the reasons I have given, the proposal would not have any detrimental effects on important views into or out of the Colby Conservation Area. It would not conflict with the provision of Strategic Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan which seeks to protect the settings of the Conservation Areas. 115. With respect to the area more generally, there is considerable variety in the character of the site's surroundings. Colby Glen Road has a variety of dwellings
of single storey, 2-storey and 21 / 2-storey (including rooms in the roof) height, and exhibiting a variety of materials, but with a predominance of stone and painted render walls and slate roofs. The generally older buildings with frontages to Colby Glen Road, and in the backland to the south of the application site at its western end, are the products of organic growth over time. There is no regimentation to their layout, with dwellings at various orientations. By contrast the development at Ballacriy Park, to the east of the site and to the south of the site at its eastern end, comprises a planned development of bungalows. The closest of these to the application site have a variety of orientations, because they cluster around cul-de-sac heads. Nevertheless, they have a greater degree of regimentation to their layout than is found in Colby Glen Road. The dwellings along the path to the north of the site are a mix of 2-storey and chalet style dwellings, on substantial plots which are of limited depth back from the path but elongated in width along their frontages to the path. 116. Given that degree of variety in the surroundings, I concur with the applicant's view that the application site is in a transitional position. Furthermore, although the site is not screened from view from its surroundings, save along the highway frontage, the trees around its boundaries do give it a degree of visual containment. Most of the trees are to be retained, and their future well-being would be likely to be improved by intended tree health care programme. Together with the substantial size of the site, its containment and transitional position give the potential to accommodate a development of a different character than its surroundings without causing undue harm. 117. The proposed development would have some different characteristics to its surroundings. The detached and semi-detached houses would be positioned in quite a regimented fashion on roughly rectangular plots at right angles to the main estate spine road and 2 culs-de-sac off the northern side of the spine. However, some variety would be introduced by mixing the house types within the rows of detached properties. The terraced houses at the eastern end of the site would also have some variety in their appearance. This would result not only from the juxtaposition of different house types within the 2 terraces, but also from the use of a degree of articulation in their layout, with some houses standing forward or back from their neighbours. Another element of variety within the overall layout would be provided by the slanted alignment of the spine road at this end of the site. With the context that there is existing estate development to the east and south of the site, it is my view that these elements of variety in the site's proposed layout would be sufficient to ensure that it would not cause any undue harm to the character of the area. 118. In reaching that view, I have taken into account that local people have suggested that terraced housing is not characteristic of Colby. However, I noted that there are some existing terraced properties in the village, including at Station Park and on a cul-de-sac which runs northwards from Main Road towards Ballacubbon, to the south of the application site. With that context, I do not
consider that the inclusion of terraced properties in the application scheme is a matter that would in itself justify refusal of the proposal. 119. The proposed houses are designed to incorporate some traditional elements of local buildings. These include the detailing of the windows and doors and the use of local materials, such as slate-like roofing on some plots and wall finishes of painted render with some Manx stone. These would serve to assist in integrating the development with its surroundings. That has contributed to my overall conclusion on the first issue that the proposal would not cause any significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. In that respect, the proposal would not conflict with the intentions of Strategic Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, that the individual character of towns or villages should be protected or enhanced, or those of General Policy 2, which seeks to avoid adverse effects on the character of the surrounding townscape and landscape and the character of the locality. With reference to Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan, although not exactly mirroring the character of its surroundings, the proposal has been designed to take account of the particular character and identity of the immediate locality. 120. Moving to the second issue, the proposed road system within the site has been designed to the appropriate standards, with separate pedestrian footways or shared road surfaces on the appropriate sections of the system. There are no justified concerns about highway safety within the site. The existence of turning heads, together with the junctions between the estate spine road with the culs-de-sac, would provide space for safe turning of delivery and other vehicles. 121. The main concerns that have been raised relate to Colby Glen Road (A27), and to its junction with Main Road (A7). The site access onto Colby Glen Road would be widened, and the wall to the north would be set back to achieve a visibility splay. Although the access is on a bend, it would join Colby Glen Road on the outside of that bend, which would serve to maximise visibility. The Highways Division has no concerns about the safety of this access. In my assessment, visibility for drivers emerging from it would be adequate in both directions, as would forward visibility of vehicles emerging for drivers on Colby Glen Road. I have taken into account that this is not a wholly new access, as it currently serves the football ground. Although the usage of the access would increase as a result of the proposed development, the improvements that are to be made to it would ensure that the access would not cause a serious hazard to highway safety. 122. The proposal would result in an increase in traffic along Colby Glen Road. This road is not an ideal route for extra traffic, as it lacks pedestrian footways along most of its length, and it has a carriageway of variable alignment and width. There is a particular pinch point on a bend adjacent to Colby Beg a short distance to the south of the application site. However, there is no evidence of substance to contradict that of the applicant's highway consultant. He has provided a Transport Assessment which indicates that Colby Glen Road is sufficiently wide along the relevant length to allow a car to pass an HGV, and that it would
continue to operate at well below its environmental capacity even with the traffic generated by the development. That evidence has not been disputed by the Highways Division acting as Highway Authority. Consequently, I find no basis in the evidence before me on which it could be concluded that the proposal would cause serious harm to highway safety on Colby Glen Road. 123. In reaching that view, I have noted the criticism of the traffic survey on which the Transport Assessment was based. In the absence of any alternative survey information, there is no basis on which it could be concluded that the survey has underestimated existing traffic flows. The Highways Division is satisfied that the survey was valid, having had regard to other background information in its possession as a cross-check. Although disputed by local people, the anticipated peak hour traffic flows from the development utilised in the Transport Assessment appear to be soundly based on surveys on the Island and elsewhere. There is no alternative evidence on that matter. 124. In reaching my conclusion about safety on Colby Glen Road, I have also taken into account that safety is aided by the existence of a 20 mph speed limit and a 7.5 tonne weight limit, that the variable alignment of the road itself serves to limit the speed of vehicles by comparison with a straight road, and that the records for the last 5 years do not reveal any accidents on the relevant length of the road. Whilst the undertaking of the development might necessitate some use of Colby Glen Road by HGVs in excess of the weight limit, such movements would only take place during the development period, and that would not be a sufficient reason to refuse the proposal. There is no reason to suppose that any significant levels of parking on Colby Glen Road or Costain Close would result from the development, as all the houses would be provided with 2 or 3 off-road parking spaces. The parking requirements of Transport Policy 7 and of Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan would be complied with. 125. It is also relevant that the proposal would facilitate the provision of alternative footpath links from the site. These would include a link to the east to Ballacriy Park that would be available on completion of the development, and a link towards Ballacubbon and Main Road that could only be made available when the land to the south of the site is developed in future. In time, those links could together reduce the need for pedestrians to use Colby Glen Road. While the concerns of local people about the safety of people walking along Colby Glen Road is understandable, based on the available evidence those concerns do not provide a sufficient reason to refuse the application. 126. The Highways Division has not disputed the evidence of the applicant's highway consultant with respect to the capability of the Colby Glen Road/Main Road junction to cope with the traffic from the development, and there is no alternative evidence on that matter. The Transport Assessment demonstrates that this junction would be able to deal with the increased traffic generated by the development without creating any undue delays in vehicles entering or leaving the various limbs of the junction. Local people have taken issue with the
proposal to create a new kerb-line on the north side of Main Road to the west of Colby Glen Road, but it seems to me that the suggested alternative of white lining could leave vehicles in an exposed position when standing at the stop line on Colby Glen Road. Based on the available evidence, the new kerbing would be essential to the safety of users of the junction as it is proposed to be altered. 127. The proposed alterations would provide improved visibility for drivers passing through the A27/A7 junction save for those leaving Station Road, whose visibility to the west would be reduced. However, bearing in mind that the traffic flows on Station Road are lower than those on Colby Glen Road, the overall benefits in increasing visibility in other ways would outweigh that particular reduction in visibility. The Highway Authority considered the alterations to the junction to represent an overall benefit to highway safety. There is no basis in the evidence to conclude that these proposed alterations would cause any serious harm to highway safety. 128. I have concluded on this issue that the proposal would not cause any serious harm to the traffic and pedestrian safety or the free flow of traffic. There would be no conflict in that respect with the relevant provisions of Strategic Policy 10, General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan. 129. On the third issue, local people have contended that the sewerage system is inadequate to deal with foul water flows from the development, but the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority ("WASA") is satisfied with the proposal to connect to the existing sewer in Colby Glen Road. As WASA is the appropriate authority to make that judgement, and as there is no technical evidence to support the alternative contention, I have concluded that the proposals for foul water drainage do not provide a reason to refuse the application. 130. With respect to surface water drainage, the proposals include the attenuation tank which WASA requires. The limitation of the run-off rate as required by WASA, and the provision of the hydro-brake needed to secure that rate, would need to be subject to a condition if approval is granted. With those provisos, WASA is satisfied with the proposals for surface water drainage from the site, and is the appropriate authority to make that judgement. While local people are concerned that the proposal could worsen existing flooding problems nearby, there is no detailed evidence to support that concern. A Flood Risk Assessment has been provided, and does not give rise to any justifiable concerns that the development would exacerbate flooding elsewhere or be liable to flooding itself. Insofar as reference has been made to flooding which occurs on the stream to the east of the site, the proposal would not result in any additional run-off to that stream, as the drainage would be taken west towards the Colby River. With respect to concerns about increased flooding on the river, the attenuation of flows from the site should ensure no worsening of any such flooding. 131. I have concluded on this issue that the development would be provided with satisfactory drainage without increasing risks of flooding on the site or
elsewhere. There would be no conflict with respect to drainage and flooding considerations with Environment Policies 10 and 13 of the Strategic Plan. 132. On the fourth issue, the layout proposed would more than meet the requirements of the standards for amenity and informal open space laid down in Appendix 6 of the Strategic Plan. The full POS provision expected by Recreation Policy 3 and Appendix 6 of that Plan would not be provided on the site, as there would be no provision of formal open space such as football pitches. However, the proposal is intimately linked with the provision of alternative facilities to the south of Colby for the relocation of Colby AFC. That provision would represent an increase in formal open space provision of over 3 times the present area of the existing football ground, and would far exceed the formal open space requirements needed to serve the currently proposed housing development. 133. Local people have suggested that the alternative provision being made would not provide for all the formal open space requirements, because it would only provide for football and not for other activities. However, I have found nothing in Appendix 6 of the Strategic Plan that would support refusal of the application on that basis, even if the claim that only football would be provided for is justified. The applicant disputed that claim. Furthermore, the linkage of the development of the current application site with the provision of the alternative formal open space elsewhere for Colby AFC has been accepted in the past in the case of the approval in principle of residential development on this same site. As that approval in principle is still extant, it would in my view be unreasonable to revisit the nature of the alternative provision which is being made. 134. As Colby AFC do not yet have the alternative facilities available to use, a condition like the one attached to the approval in principle would be needed to prevent the development commencing until the alternative facilities are completed and available. With that proviso, I have concluded on this issue that the development would be adequately provided for in terms of public open space. 135. On the fifth issue, there has been no wildlife survey. The wildlife matter of most concern to local people is the potential effect on bats. In the absence of a survey, there is no firm evidence that bats are present on the site. However, even if they are, the view of the Senior Biodiversity Officer of DEFA is that the use of the site by bats could be retained by avoiding the lighting of the wooded boundaries. There is no other expert evidence to contradict that. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the impact on a rookery or on rabbits would be of material significance. I have concluded that the effects on wildlife would not be so significant as to justify refusal of the application. Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan was not cited in the lists of policies put before me. However, on the evidence available, I have found no conflict with the provisions of that policy which seek to protect species of national and international importance. 136. A number of other matters have been raised by interested persons. The proposed layout would not result in any spatial relationships between existing
and proposed dwellings which would cause any undue diminution of the living conditions of residents, having regard to matters of overlooking, privacy, loss of outlook or loss of light. That applies to 18 Ballacriy Park, where the distance between the existing property and the proposed houses adjacent would be sufficient to avoid any undue overlooking and loss of privacy. I find no reason why the limited areas of amenity open space should lead to undue noise or disturbance to adjacent residents. To accept such an argument would weigh against the provision of any open space within residential development schemes, and so is not supportable. 137. With respect to concerns that the proximity of some of the retained trees to some of the proposed houses could lead to future requests for their felling, I note that the trees concerned lie near the northern site boundary. That orientation would mean that the trees would have limited effects on the proposed houses on the adjacent plots in terms of loss of light. Any applications for felling licences should be capable of being resisted, as the trees would not have an unduly detrimental effect on the amenity of the residents concerned. There is nothing in the relevant guidance in BS5837: 2005 that would support a requirement to site the proposed houses at least a tree length away from the trees. Consequently, I do not find the proximity of some of the proposed houses to existing trees on the site to be a matter that would justify refusal of the application. 138. Local people have drawn attention to a proposal to erect one dwelling on Colby Road that was dismissed at appeal (PA 09/00850/B). Whilst highway safety was the secondary reason why that proposal was not permitted, from my reading of the Inspector's report the concern related to restricted visibility at the particular site's access. I do not consider that the decision in that case can be read as precluding any new dwellings served by Colby Road. The road safety issue in the current case should be assessed on the basis of the Transport Assessment for the proposed development and all associated evidence. There is nothing in that previous appeal decision to suggest that the Inspector took the view that the existing public foul sewer could not deal with the effluent from that house. 139. There is no evidence to support the contention that additional traffic on Colby Glen Road would have a detrimental effect on existing properties, some of which apparently lack proper foundations. In any event, that matter would not justify refusal of the application. The fear that property values would be reduced is in itself not a material planning consideration. Electricity supply to the site is a matter to be considered separately from the planning application. I have seen no evidence to support the contention that local schools could not cater for children living on the application site. 140. Having regard to all the matters considered above, the proposed development would comply with the requirements of the Development Brief for Site 12 in the Draft Southern Area Plan. I have taken account of all other matters drawn to my attention, but there is nothing which overrides my conclusions on the main issues. In the absence of any demonstrable harm with respect to those issues, I
have concluded that the application should be recommended for approval, subject to the conditions suggested by the Department of Infrastructure, with modifications based on the discussion in detailed in paragraph 106 above, and subject to the additional conditions mentioned in paragraph 107 above. My recommendation is also subject to one other matter. 141. With respect to the suggestion that condition iii should be amended to deal with necessary corrections to Drawing No. 2398.01.06 in the light of the arboricultural evidence of Dr O'Callaghan, I recommend that this be dealt with by omitting that Drawing from the list in condition iii and by attaching a further condition to require the submission for approval of a tree identification and protection drawing based on Dr O'Callaghan's evidence, and the subsequent adherence to the approved drawing. I have added to the wording suggested by the Highways Division for the condition requiring widening of the drive on Plot 7 in order that the details of this widening shall first be approved by the Planning Authority. 142. The other matter relates to the provision of affordable housing as part of the development. Application of Housing Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan requires that 25 % of the housing provided should be affordable housing. There is no legal agreement before the inquiry to make this provision. It is not normally appropriate to attach a condition to require a legal agreement to be entered into, and so it would seem that the only way to deal with this matter would be as suggested by the applicant. If the Council of Ministers is minded to grant approval, this would involve the issuing of a letter stating that it is minded to approve the application subject to a legal agreement being entered into to provide 9 affordable dwellings, that being 25 % of the total subject to rounding.
iv. The hydro-brake control device in manhole S1.4 must be fitted as soon as practicable after the surface water storage tank has been completed. v. The roofing on the dwellings on plots 1,2,3,34 and 35 must be finished in natural slate or a slate-like material, a sample of which must be approved by the Planning Authority prior to the erection of any of these dwellings. vi. Further to condition 5 above, all other roofing must be finished in slate grey coloured tiles. vii. 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 dwellings, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants planted as part of the landscaping scheme which within a period of 5 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. viii. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005, no street lighting may be erected without the prior approval of the Planning Authority. If street lighting is considered necessary, it must be designed so as to avoid illumination of the wooded area around the edge of the site. ix. Prior to the commencement of any development on site a Tree Identification and Protection Drawing to replace Drawing No. 2398.01.06 which formed part of the planning application shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Planning Authority. The replacement plan shall be in full accordance with the Arboricultural Evidence of Dr D P O'Callaghan on behalf of Heritage Homes Ltd and dated 5 December 2011. The development shall be carried out in full accordance with the approved Tree Identification and Protection Drawing. x. No development shall commence on site until an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The AMS shall provide details of: a. The tree health care programme to be applied to the retained trees; b. The final and accurate location of the protective fencing; c. The construction of the protective fencing; d. The specific "no dig" and cellular confinement approach to the construction of hard surfaces in proximity to retained trees; e. Supervision of the arboricultural aspects of the development by a competent Arboriculturist. The development shall be undertaken in full accordance with the approved AMS. xi. Prior to the commencement of the development details of the proposed treatments and finishes of the surfaces of the areas of public open space shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Each area of public open space shall be completed in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the dwellings adjacent to that area of open space.
xii. The 2.4 metre by 45 metre visibility splays at the access to/egress from the development onto Colby Glen Road must be constructed prior to the construction of any of residential dwellings. xiii. The highway improvement works detailed on plan 10/221/TR/005 dated 18 April 2011 must be constructed prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings. xiv. The driveway for Plot 7 requires widening to 7 metres to ensure that the second parked vehicle on that Plot does not encroach onto the access roadway. The widened driveway shall be completed prior to occupation of the dwelling on this Plot, in accordance with a plan which shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.
Stephen Amos MA(Cantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Inspector
Mr I Ponter of Counsel who called: Mr D Humphreys BA MCD MRTPI - Senior Planner, Dandara Group & Planning Director, Heritage Homes Ltd
Mr B Hall BSc MSc CEng MICE - Director, Bryan G Hall, Consulting Civil & Transportation Planning Engineers
Dr D O'Callaghan FICFor FArborA - Principal Practice Consultant, Dealga's Tree Consultancy Ltd
Miss S Corlett BSc MRTPI - Senior Planning Officer Mrs H Fletcher - Traffic Engineer
Mr A Cowin Mr M Berry
Mr A Parry - Ballacallow, Glen Road, Colby Mrs S Parry - Ballacallow, Glen Road, Colby Mr J Cringle - 5 Croit-e-Cubbon, Colby Mrs S Shelbourne - Willowsmere, Glen Road, Colby Mr R Baddon - Awin Oirr, Upper Ballastrooan, Colby & California Cottage, Colby Glen Road, Colby Mrs I Baddon - Awin Oirr, Upper Ballastrooan, Colby & California Cottage, Colby Glen Road, Colby Mr D Sullivan - The Heathers, Costain Close, Colby Ms S Roberts - Main Road, Kirk Michael Mrs F Cregeen - 18 Ballacriy Park, Colby Dr B Hextall - Ballacannell, Colby Glen Road, Colby Mrs R Woodworth - 22 Ballacriy Park, Colby Mrs R Gardner - 23 Ballacriy Park, Colby Mrs P Young - Cronk Vey, Glen Road, Colby
D Andrews Mr C & Mrs J Bell Mrs P Bennett
| S & J Clague | - 15 Ballacriy Park, Colby | | :-- | :-- | | Mr & Mrs A Cregeen | - 18 Ballacriy Park, Colby | | PJ Cringle | - Cummal Coar, 5 Croit-e-Cubbon, Colby | | Mr J Curphey | - Ballacubbon, Main Road, Colby | | Mrs S Dyer | - Brynwood, Glen Road, Colby | | Mr SL & Mrs A Flynn | - Rambling Rose, Glen Road, Colby | | P Franklin | - 4 Costain Close, Colby | | R Gardner | - 23 Ballacriy Park, Colby | | D & S Gilbert | - Ballakelly, Glen Road, Colby | | Mrs B Jackson | - Bibaloe, Glen Road, Colby | | Mr & Mrs R Kay | - Ballarob, 34 Ballacriy Park, Colby | | Mr AW & Mrs MH Kelly | - 47 Ballacriy Park, Colby | | Paul Kilduff | - Rockaway, Costain Close, Colby | | T E Leece & Son Ltd | - Builders Yard, Main Road, Colby | | (Alan Leece - Director) | (request to be made party to the proceedings) | | Z McAndry | - Burwood, Glen Road, Colby | | SE & AJ Parry | - Ballacallow, Glen Road, Colby | | Mr J Pearson | - 7 Costain Close, Colby | | Mrs S Shelbourne | - Willowsmere, Glen Road, Colby | | JB & KN Skinner | - Ballacooil House, Glen Road, Colby | | Mr D Sullivan | - The Heathers, Costain Close, Colby | | Tony Varley | - Glendene, Colby Glen Road, Colby | | E & D Wilson | - Treetops, Costain Close, Colby | | Mrs R Woodworth | - 22 Ballacriy Park, Colby | | Mrs P Young | - Cronk Vey, Glen Road, Colby |
There is in addition a petition with 29 signatures
Document 1 - Applicant's submissions Document 2 - Letter of 24 June 2011 on behalf of the Secretary to the Planning Committee to Mr Humphreys Document 3 - Pedestrian flow counts, 26 January 2011 (from Mr Hall) Document 4 - Arboricultural evidence of Dr O'Callaghan
.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
