226105

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14/00652/B Diane Marchment Erection of a dwelling with attached garage Plot 1 Off Station Road St Johns Isie Of Man Application No.: Applicant: Proposal: Site Address: Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Miss S E Corlett 11.06.2014 11.06.2014 Officer Delegation Officer's Report THE SUE 1.1 The site is a piece of land which ties to the east of Station Road in St. John's village. The site has access via a partly made up roadway which runs between the small local grocery Store/Post Office and Mona House and Coach House Cottage to the south. The site is 42m by 41m in area. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a dwelling on the site. The house is traditionally styled with pitched slated roof, substantial chimneys, vertically proportioned windows and three sided bays on the ground floor, and an attached garage to the west of the house with driveway in front. The house would be 9m from the boundary with the rear boundaries of the grocery store/Post Office, Reayrt y Juys, West View and Fo Chronk which lie to the west of the application site. These properties are a further 25m to the west of this. 2.2 Three trees are shown on site, one of which is to be removed as part of the application. PLANNING STATUS AND POUCY 3.2 The site lies within an area designated on the St. John's Local Plan as Proposed Primary School. This was one of two sites identified, the other being the one which was developed for this purpose. Planning approval was granted for the principle of the development of this site for a dwelling and for a second alongside to the east (which is the subject of PA 14/00653). 3.3 This approval was subject to a number of conditions including the following; 3. Notwithstanding what is shown on Drawing no 0725/PL100 Rev C, there shall be no access for construction traffic through to the adjoining land to the east. 4. No approval is granted for the siting, size or orientation of the dwellings' footprints shown on Drawing 0725/PL100C. 5. Ail existing trees and hedges within the application site, with the exception of those shown to be removed on Drawing No 725/PLlOOC, must be retained and afforded adequate protection during the development of the site, in accordance with a tree protection scheme Page 1 of 4 8 July 2014 14/00652/B

==== PAGE 2 ====

that has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority prior to the commencement of works on site. 6. Prior to the commencement of works, a landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority showing the trees to be planted as replacements for those proposed to be removed, together with a timetable for their planting. TTie trees shall be planted in accordance with the approved landscaping scheme. If, within a period of 5 years from the date of planting, any tree is removed, uprooted, destroyed or dies, another of the same species and size shall be planted at the same place. 7. Access to the 2 dwellings shall be taken only from Station Road. 8. Prior to the commencement of construction works, visibility splays of 2m by 36m shall be provided in each direction at the junction of the access with Station Road. The splays shall be kept and maintained dear or obstructions higher than 1.05m. 9. During the construction of the development hereby permitted, deliveries of materials and equipment to the site by heavy goods vehicles shall be limited to times when school children are least likely to be using Station Road. Prior to the commencement of construction works, a schedule of delivery periods shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority and deliveries shall be made only during the agreed time periods. 3.4 Plan reference 725/PLlOOC showed a significant number of trees on the site, with only two multi stemmed willows at the southern edge of the site and a maple, sycamore and prunus removed within the site proper. 3.5 The access into the site has been created inasmuch as the visibility splays out onto Station Road have been provided through the alteration of the roadside wall. This has been agreed with the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services (see memorandum on file PA 11/00241 which explains that for safety reasons the wall needs to be no lower than 1.15m and the wail has been lowered in accordance with this. This was acceptable to Department of Infrastructure Highway Services). REPRESENTATIONS 4.1German Parish Commissioners raise no objection but do not imply any approval to any access through to Balladoyne estate. 4.2 The owner of the post office and store objects to the application on the basis that the car park adjoining her property does not belong to the applicants and is used by customers and staff of the shop as well as a right of way used by children and adults and the occupants of the properties alongside the post office. Additional traffic using this area is therefore unacceptable and is likely to further affect the structural stability of her property. 4.3 The owners of 7, Balladoyne have no basic objection to the application but wish it to be confirmed that no approval is implied or granted to further access to the east. 4.4 The owners of Balladoyne Farm who also co-own land on which the drainage is to be installed suggest that the drawings submitted are inaccurate in that they still show access through to the land to the east. They also point out that there is no information on trees on site, and land is included which is not within the ownership or control of the applicant. The access is not as stipulated in the approval in principle and the site notice was not displayed as required. 4.5 The owner of Claireville objects to the application on the basis of an increase in traffic coming out onto Station Road and suggests that an alternative access onto the Curragh Road should be explored. 8 July 2014 14/00652/B Page 2 of 4

==== PAGE 3 ====

4.6 Manx Utilities (Electricity) seek consultation regarding the provision of electricity supplies to the development which is not a material planning concern. 4.7 Highway Services indicate that they do not oppose the application. ASSESSMENT 5.1 The principle of the erection of a dwelling on this site has been approved under PA 11/00241. However, it was clear in that approval that the detailed plans should include not only an accurate tree survey but also a landscaping scheme, Almost none of the existing trees are shown on the drawings and as such it is assumed that the trees would all be removed.diis ^ is very important as this plot has a significant number of trees on it and their loss would affect very significantly the impact of the development and the contribution which the site and its trees make to the village. This has been raised with the applicant and her agent and no reply has been forthcoming, The loss of trees was raised by third party objectors at the time of the approval in principle. In the absence of any information on the trees and their protection, the application cannot be considered to be acceptable. There is similarly no information on levels

• the proposed development has simply been superimposed upon the level survey and as such the true impact of the development cannot be assessed. 5.2 The information submitted by third parties on access is important but appears to have been raised with the approval in principle and not accepted by the inspector as a justification for the refusal of the application. As such, it is difficult to accept that the access is unacceptable. Whilst the wall has not been reduced by the full amount - 10mm higher than approved, it is not considered that this additional height makes a significant difference to those exiting the site. Visibility of vehicles using the road is impeded very much by vehicles parked on the highway and the two service poles. Oncoming pedestrians can be seen above the wall. 5.4 The site plan drawing does not provide all of the details of the proposed drainage. 5.5 In conclusion, the application lacks so much critical information that it is not possible to judge that the proposal is acceptable. It does not comply with the conditions of the approval in principle - specifically conditions 5 and 6. PARTY STATUS 6.1 The local authority, German Parish Commissioners are, 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. 6.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services is granted interested party status under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 paragraph 6 (4) d. 6.3 The owners of Balladoyne Farm and the post office are adjacent to the site and as such should be afforded interested person status. 6.4 The owners of Claireville and 7, Balladoyne are not immediately alongside the site and as such should not be afforded interested person status. 6.5 Manx Utilities do not raise material planning issues and should not be afforded interested person status. Recommendation 8 July 2014 14/00652/B Page 3 of 4

==== PAGE 4 ====

Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 08.07.2014 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal 0 : Notes attached to refusals R 1. The submitted plans do not include sufficient information on drainage or levels for the decision maker to be able to determine that the proposed development \will not have an adverse impact on the area in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. R2, The submitted plans indicate that a very significant number of trees on site will be removed as part of the application without either any justification nor authority through the approval in principle. On the contrary, the approval in principle required there to be a detailed survey of existing trees and measures for their protection during construction as well as provision for new planting, none of which is shown in the proposed plans. As such the proposal is contrary to conditions 5 and 6 of the approval in principle and would have a seriously damaging impact on the attractiveness and ecological interest of the site and its contribution to St. John's village. I confirm that this decision accords with the appropriate Government Circular delegating functions to Director of Planning and Building Control / Head of Development Management/ Senior Planning Officer. Decision Made : Refused Date: Determining officer ns apprftprfati^} Signed :... Chris Balmer Senior Planning Officer Signed :... Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer Signed :... Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control Head of Development Management Signed :... Jennifer Chance 8 July 2014 14/00652/8 Page 4 of 4