223891

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No.: Applicant: Proposal: 14/00154/B Mumba Holdings Limited Erection of an indoor tennis court, footbridge and vehicular access Thie Ny Strooan Hillberry Green Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 6DE Site Address: Miss S E Corlett Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Officer's Report THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a detached property known as Thie Ny Strooan, which is located within Hillberry Green, Douglas. The pre-existing dwelling has recently been demolished and a replacement dwelling is currently under construction (PA 12/01279/B). 1.2 A watercourse runs through the site from north to south. The eastern half of the site rises towards the A18 Mountain Road and has mature tree planting within it. The section of the site closest to Mountain Road is more open but also has tree planting within it, focused mostly around the edges. The boundary with Mountain Road is formed by an earth bank. There is a timber gate situated at the southern end of the boundary onto Mountain Road. 1.3 To the south east of the site is a cluster of three detached dwellings, Gleneagles, Glen Kella and Glen Nook, Mountain Road, Douglas. These properties share an access from Mountain Road which is situated to the immediate north of Glen Kella and adjoins the southern boundary of the site, A brick wail runs along the boundary. 1.4 To the north are a number of detached dwellings which form a cul-de-sac development known as The Laurels, Mountain Road, Douglas. These properties are accessed from Mountain Road via Hailwood Avenue. Numbers 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 have boundaries which adjoin or face directly onto the application site. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the construction of a detached building which would provide an indoor tennis court, squash court, gymnasium and associated facilities. This is very similar to a previously approved scheme - PA 13/00423 in terms of siting, general design, finish and means of access. The differences include the following: whilst the new access is still proposed off the A18 as initially approved, the turning and parking area has changed slightly in shape and there is no longer a path link from this parking area to the main house the path link from the tennis court building to the house has been relocated to the southern end of the building new bridges are proposed within the woodland to facilitate the path link Page 1 of 8 14/00154/8 14 March 2014

==== PAGE 2 ====

the box hedge proposed between the building and Glen Kella and Gleneagles has been omitted and tree planting introduced the building no longer has a retractable roof but the overall height remains as previously approved the smaller annex has been handed such that the windows are in the southern part of the building the north eastern elevation which faces the road has large dark grey coloured, powder coated framed glazed areas 2.2 The building would be sited so as to be approximately 30 metres from the boundary shared with The Laurels, 15 metres from the boundary shared with Glen Kella and 8 metres from the boundary shared with Mountain Road. The proposed building would have a height of approximately 13 metres (including the tallest point of the retractable roof), It would have a modern appearance with its elevations being finished predominantly with horizontal softwood timber cladding detailed with Manx stone and vertical timber cladding. The windows would be powder coated aluminium. Internally the building would provide a tennis court, recreation room and male and female changing rooms. An upper floor area would provide a viewing gallery and table tennis area and a decked platform. Access from the dwelling would provided by a new timber bridge walkway (an alternative previously approved under PA 12/00908/B), 2.3 The proposal also includes a scheme of additional tree planting which is focussed on the areas at the sides of the building and the frontage onto Mountain Road. All trees in the Registered tree area are stated as being retained. 2.4 A new vehicular access onto Mountain Road is proposed. This is stated as being for emergency and maintenance access only and would be provided with visibility splays of 70 metres in each direction, achieved by re-shaping parts of the bank. The existing access point from Mountain Road would be dosed off by filling it in to continue the bank. 2.5 The re-routing of the existing sewer, required under the previous application, has been undertaken in accordance with the condition imposed. PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications, the following of which are potentially material to the assessment of this current planning application; 3.2 Planning application 12/00908/B sought planning approval for the erection of a timber bridge walkway. This previous planning application was approved on the 6th September 2012, It is understood that the dwelling approved under this planning approval is currently under construction. 3.3 Planning application 12/01279/B sought planning approval for the erection of a replacement dwelling within the application site. This previous planning application was approved on the 25th October 2012. It is understood that the dwelling approved under this planning approval is currently under construction, 3.4 Planning application 13/00423 proposed a new indoor tennis facility and was approved on appeal. PU^NNING POaCY 4.1 In terms of land use designation the application site is part designated as Low Density Housing in Parkland and part designated as Predominantly Residential use under the Isie of Man Planning Scheme (Douglas Local Plan) Order 1998. The proposed building is located within the part of the application site that is designated as Predominantly Residential use. 14 March 2014 14/00154/B Page 2 of 8

==== PAGE 3 ====

4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains one policy that is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: 4.3 General Policy 2 states; "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitate on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; does not affect adversely public views of the sea; incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (0 (g) (h) (0 highways; can be provided with all necessary services; does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land In accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption." 0) (k) (I) (n) 4.4 Whilst the vast majority of the development is some distance from the watercourse, part of the development crosses the watercourse and as such. Environment Policy 7 is relevant, which states: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which would not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development Is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria: a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality; b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted; c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species." REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Division do not oppose the planning application subject to the vehicular access being used for maintenance purposes only and not being in daily use by occupants/visitors to the property. Page 3 of 8 14 March 2014 14/00154/B

==== PAGE 4 ====

5.2 The Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority have identified that a public sewer crosses the application site. Following discussions with the applicant's agent the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority does not oppose the planning application subject to the diversion of the aforementioned public sewer. 5.3 The owners and/or occupants of 18 The Laurels, which directly adjoins the application site, object to the planning application. They reiterate the objections they had to the previous application and do not understand why they have submitted a full, detailed planning application rather than amendments. It should be noted that there is no provision for amending an approved application other than submitting a detailed application for the changed scheme. In this case, as the building has not been completed, the application for the changed scheme must effectively be for the whole project as one cannot amend something that is not there. They regard the area as residential and consider the proposed building to be too large and this scheme will involve the removal of more trees than were originally envisaged. They recommend that there is plenty of land next to the applicant’s house where the facility could be built, not next to theirs. 5.4 They consider that the potential noise nuisance will be unacceptable, even though the balcony has been moved further away from their property and the roof is now a solid, fixed element. They do not believe that users of the complex will walk from the house and will use the entrance off the A18, which provides what they consider to be "way below" the requirement of 2m by 90m. This entrance is being used by builders without any traffic control on the public highway which has seen three "serious" accidents in the last couple of years. 5.5 They are also concerned at the proposed tree planting which could bring problems of overshadowing and overhanging. They believe that there will be light pollution from the new windows at the high level. They express concern at proposed CCTV cameras in case they face towards their property. They are concerned about the impact on wildlife and have found a dead hedgehog and two dead birds in their garden and have experienced issues with rodents coming onto their property. 5.6 They have experienced early morning disturbance from workers and vibration nuisance from rollers compacting ground on the site. 5.7 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture request the completion of a "Development within 9m of a watercourse" form to ensure that the development does not damage or disturb the river or fish population. 5.8 Douglas Corporation indicate that they do not oppose the application. ASSESSMENT 6.1 As highlighted earlier in this report the application site is designated for residential development and planning permission has already been granted for something very similar to what is now proposed. As such, much of what has been raised as an objection from the neighbour has already been dealt with, particularly issues with noise and disturbance during construction, which would prevail whether the originally approved scheme were being implemented, or this newer one. The previous support for the principle of what is proposed is still advocated: ie what is proposed is a building that would contain facilities ancillary to the dwelling contained elsewhere within the application site. Although the proposed building is large it was previously considered to be proportionate to the size of the application site and previously approved development. Furthermore, the layout and proposed use of the building is such that it would be incidental to the dwelling. As such, it is concluded that the principle of the proposed development is acceptable. Whilst concerns have been raised within representations that the proposed development is a commercial development the application clearly states that it is associated to the occupation of the dwelling contained within the 14/00154/B Page 4 of 8 14 March 2014

==== PAGE 5 ====

application site. Although the scale of the proposed development is large the scale of the associated dwelling is also large, If approved, a planning condition can be used to ensure that the buildings is not used commercially. 6.2 The main site specific issues to be assessed in the determination of this application are the impact of the proposed development on private amenity, public amenity and highway safety and the findings in respect of the previous application are relevant in this case. It should be noted that in some respects the present scheme lessens the impact on the neighbours in that the roof will no longer retract, resulting in no associated noise nuisance. It is also relevant that the inspector accepted the reduction in visibility splays to 2m by 70m, as being acceptable. This has not changed. 6.3 In respect of the impact of the proposed development on the private amenity it can be seen that the nearest point of the proposed building to the boundary with No. 18 The Laurels is approximately 32m (approximately 35m to dwelling) and approximately 15m to the boundary with Glen Kella (approximately 24m to dwelling). The proposal sees new tree planting to complement existing tree planting between the proposed building and the respective boundaries. Given the distance between the proposed development and the surrounding residential properties it is concluded that the proposal would not harm private amenity to an extent that would warrant refusal of the planning application. This was accepted by the inspector and Minister and the proposed changes to the scheme do not affect that stance. 6.4 Concerns over light pollution and trees have been raised. The noise concerns previously raised related specifically to the use of the proposed retractable roof which is no longer part of the scheme. In respect of light pollution it is noted that the planning application proposes low level, low voltage lighting alongside paths. Such lighting will have little, or no, effect on surrounding property as accepted by the inspector. Should additional lighting subsequently be proposed it will be a matter of fact and degree as to whether planning approval is required for any such lighting and if so any such lighting would be subject to assessment through a planning application if required. The inspector considered that any significant departure from what is shown in the drawings would require a further planning approval. As for the impact of trees, the neighbour expresses concern both at the loss of trees and the impact of any proposed new trees. It is considered that as well as helping to mitigate the proposed development the proposed tree planting would be in keeping with the site and surrounding area. It is considered that the impact of the proposed trees on the private amenity of surrounding property does not constitute sufficient materia! grounds to warrant refusal of the planning application. As above, this was previously accepted by the inspector and the Minister. There will be approximately three additional trees removed as a result of the enlargement of the proposed turning facility off the access. This is not considered to be a significant departure from the scheme which has approval and is not a justifiable reason for refusing this current application. 6.5 Assessment of the impact on public amenity is primarily a consideration of how the proposed development would be viewed from the Mountain Road, as this is the primary public viewpoint of the application site. In terms of that viewpoint, anyone passing the site in a vehicle would have only fleeting glimpses of the building due to the nature of the road and the planting that would sit between the building and the highway. Pedestrians on the separate walkway would not have clear views of the site as the planted verge between the walkway and the road limits the available vantage points across Mountain Road. Irrespective of those viewpoints it is considered that the building is well designed and not inappropriate within an area where development is not automatically opposed. Overall, it is concluded that the impact on public amenity is acceptable. This was also previously accepted. 6.6 As can be seen the proposed development includes a new vehicular access onto the Mountain Road, which is stated to be used for emergencies and maintenance only. There 14/00154/B Page 5 of 8 14 March 2014

==== PAGE 6 ====

would be no vehicular access to the building from the Hillberry Green side due to existing topography and trees preventing any such access. Pedestrian access from the dwelling would be provided and it is envisaged that the occupier of the dwelling would use this method of access to use the building. The impact of this proposed vehicular access onto the Mountain Road on highway safety has been raised as a concern within a number of representations to the planning application. This specific issue was assessed by the Department of Infrastructure Highways Division, with visibility and use concluded to be acceptable subject to the vehicular access being used for maintenance purposes only and not being in daily use by occupants/visitors to the property. This can be controlled by planning condition as was previously required. 6.7 The proposed footbridge is different from that approved previously but the changed location and design has no adverse public impact nor adverse impact on private amenity in respect of those adjacent to the site. 6.8 The omission of the retractable roof should address previous concerns (although not reasons for refusal) of neighbours in respect of potential noise nuisance. The provision for the installation of CCTV cameras on a building without the need for planning permission is provided in the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development)(No 2) Order 2013 Class 41. The other changes are unlikely to have any significant effect on the impact of the dwelling and as such the application is recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions. 6.9 The applicant has responded to the concerns raised by the objector by way of a letter dated 12th March, 2014. They reiterate a lot of the points raised in paragraphs 6.1 to 6.6 above and add that the lighting within the indoor facility will be directed downwards towards the court and are as advised by the Lawn Tennis Association, The high level glazing will be opaque to diffuse and reduce any light loss. RECOMMENDATION 7.1 It is recommended that the planning application be approved. PARTY STATUS 8.1 The local authority, Douglas Borough Council is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. 8.2 The Highway Authority is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d. 8.3 The owners/occupants of 18, The Laurels are adjacent to the site and should be afforded party status in this case. 8.4 The Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture is a statutory authority which raises material planning considerations and as such should be afforded party status under Article 6(4)(c) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 11.03.2014 Page 6 of 8 14 March 2014 14/00154/B

==== PAGE 7 ====

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice. C2. This approval relates to the creation of a private indoor tennis court and associated facilities together with the creation of a new access off the A18 (see condition 5), landscaping and pedestrian links all as shown in drawings XOOOl, PlOOl, P1002, P0003, P1003, P3000. X 0003, P 0004, X0002, P9000, P9001, P2001, P3001 ail received on 10th February, 2014 and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these drawings. C3. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwellings, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. C4. The building hereby approved shall be used only in association with the residential enjoyment of Thie ny Strooan, the dwelling contained within the application site. For the avoidance of doubt no planning approval is hereby granted for the commercial use, or use by clubs, of the building. C5. The vehicular access from the Mountain Road hereby permitted shall be used only by vehicles maintaining the building permitted by this approval or by emergency vehicles required emergency access to the application site. Private access to the building permitted by this planning approval shall be achieved only internally to the application site via the Hillberrry Green access, C6. Prior to any other works commencing on the site, the access and visbility splays shown on drawing P 0004 shall be constructed and used by all construction traffic. I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Development Control Manager/ Senior Planning OfRcer. dlh. Decision Made : Permitted Date: Determining officer (delete as appropriate) 14 March 2014 14/00154/B Page 7 of 8

==== PAGE 8 ====

Signed :... Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed :... Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed : Michaei Gailagher Director of Planning and Building Control Development Control Manager •n Signed :... Jennifer Chance V. 14/00154/B Page 8 of 8 14 March 2014