Loading document...
Oik yn Ard-Scrudeyr
Our Ref: DF12/0011 Planning Application Ref.No: 12/00573/B
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT (PROCEDURE ORDER) 20051E07
Planning Secretary Department Of Infrastructure Planning And Building Control Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas Isle Of Man
| Applicant: | Heritage Homes Ltd | | --- | --- | | Proposal: | Residential development of 95 dwellings with highway and drainage infrastructure, new school field and playground, public open space and landscaping, Part Field's 234267, 234456, 234555 & 230578, Parts Of Adjacent Gardens, School Grounds & Adjacent Highway, Main Road Playground, Part Public Car Park & Verge/hedge Of Slieau Curn Park, Kirk Micharl |
In accordance with paragraph 10 of the above Order, the person appointed by the Council of Ministers to consider this application has submitted her report. In accordance with paragraph 10.3(a) and (b), a copy of the appointed person's report is enclosed. On the 24th January 2013, and after consultation, the Council of Ministers accepted the recommendation contained within that report and the application was refused for the reasons specified below.
Date of Issue: 28th January 2013 Chief Secretary's Office Government Offices Bucks Road Douglas
Mr W Greenhow ACMA Chief Secretary
Climate change is one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time. It affects ecosystems worldwide, leading to significant changes in biodiversity, habitat loss, and species extinction. This report explores the impacts of climate change on global ecosystems, focusing on key areas such as forests, oceans, and polar regions.
Forests play a crucial role in carbon sequestration and maintaining biodiversity. However, rising temperatures and changing precipitation patterns are altering forest ecosystems. Key impacts include:
Oceans absorb a significant portion of the excess heat and carbon dioxide (CO₂) produced by human activities. The consequences include:
Oceans absorb a significant portion of the excess heat and carbon dioxide (CO₂) produced by human activities. The consequences include:
Polar regions are particularly vulnerable to climate change due to their sensitivity to temperature changes. Key impacts include:
Oceans absorb a significant portion of the excess heat and carbon dioxide (CO₂) produced by human activities. The consequences include:
Climate change poses a significant threat to global ecosystems, with far-reaching consequences for biodiversity and human societies. By reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and implementing sustainable practices, we can protect our planet for future generations.
References
Crown Division
Government Offices
Douglas
Isle of Man
14 January 2013
To the Council of Ministers
Case Reference: DF12/0011
Planning Application: PA12/00573/B
Application by Heritage Homes Ltd for planning approval for a residential development of 95 dwellings with highway and drainage infrastructure, new school field and playground, public open space and landscaping, on part of field 234267 and parts of adjacent gardens, parts of fields 234456, 234555 and 230578, school grounds and adjacent highway, Main Road playground, part of public car park adjacent to Main Road and verge/hedge at southern corner of Slieau Curn Park, on the eastern side of Kirk Michael village.
I have the honour to report that on 3, 4, 5 and 6 December 2012 I held an Inquiry in the Ebenezer Chapel, Kirk Michael, in connection with the above application by Heritage Homes Ltd. A list of those who spoke at the Inquiry is attached at the end of this Report. I made an accompanied visit to the application site and its surroundings on 6 December 2012. I also made unaccompanied visits on 2 and 7 December 2012.
The application is one in which the Department of Infrastructure is deemed to have a vested interest because it involves works to an existing public highway. As such, under Paragraph 10(1)(b) of the Town and Country (Development Procedure) Order 2005, the application cannot be considered by the Planning Committee. It must therefore be determined by the Council of Ministers.
In this Report I describe the application site, the proposed development and its planning history. I then summarise the statements of fact made by officers of the Planning and Building Control Division and the Highways Division. Both of these divisions are part of the Department of Infrastructure and the statements are therefore framed in neutral terms. I also summarise the recent advice from the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority in respect of the proposed development. I continue with a description of the case made by Heritage Homes Ltd in support of its application, followed by a description of the cases made by those who object to the proposal. The report finishes with my conclusions and recommendation. I trust that it will be helpful in reaching your decision.
THE APPLICATION SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS
The 8.2ha application site is on the south eastern edge of Kirk Michael, a linear village straddling the A3 (Douglas Road), part of the TT course. Much of the application site comprises fields separated by Manx hedges. The site's northern boundary abuts Kelly's Yard, an area of mixed employment uses. The site's eastern boundary adjoins the south eastern end of Slieau Curn Park, a residential cul-de-sac. Moving south, the eastern boundary then sweeps down across open fields until it reaches the access driveway to Lhergy Vreck Farm where it turns westwards towards the A3. In places, the site's western boundary is formed by the A3 itself; elsewhere it adjoins the rear of the properties fronting the A3, including those in Mull View, another cul-de-sac.
The site rises gradually from north to south. It is overlooked by the imposing range of hills to the east, generally referred to as the Michael Hills.
Much of the central part of Kirk Michael village lies within the boundary of the Kirk Michael Conservation Area. Kirk Michael school and its playing field, the field behind the Mitre Hotel known locally as the Fair Field, and the village playground are within the application site and the conservation area. The remaining, much larger, part of the application site lies outside, and to the east of, the conservation area's boundary.
Heritage Homes Ltd wants to build 95 dwellings, 24 of which would be "affordable". At the site's northern end, there would be an area of 58 terraced and semi-detached dwellings of varying sizes and styles. In the middle of the site, to the rear of Kirk Michael school, there would be a row of 8 detached houses; and, at the site's southern end, there would be an enclave of 29 detached houses.
A new estate road would connect with the A3 opposite its junction with the A4 (Peel Road), thereby forming a crossroads. This part of the A3 is known locally as Douglas Road Corner. Traffic lights would be installed. The first 80m of the estate road would cut through the school's playing field. The part of the playing field nearest to the school would be retained for school use; the other half, on the southern side of the estate road, would become public open space. The road would then turn northwards and head towards the end of Slieau Curn Park's southernmost cul-de-sac. The 2 roads would be linked but gated. It is intended that the gate would be opened only in emergencies.
To compensate for the loss of half of the school playing field, a new sports pitch and play area would be laid out behind the school buildings. Furthermore, additional public open space would be provided on the Fair Field. As part of an overall landscaping scheme, young trees currently growing in a small copse at the southern end of the site would be transplanted throughout the site.
The application site also includes a swathe of land some 45m wide along the full length of the eastern boundary. Heritage Homes Ltd proposes to use this land as a temporary construction compound. When the development is finished, the land would be restored and returned to agricultural use.
Other proposed works include the installation (if necessary) of a temporary Sewage Treatment Works (STW) in the north west corner of the site. This would be removed when the new public STW for Kirk Michael has become operational, predicted to be in June 2013.
In 2011 the site was the subject of a planning application by Heritage Homes Ltd (PA11/01250/B). I will refer to this as "the 2011 scheme". The application sought approval for a scheme of 100 dwellings with associated highway and drainage infrastructure, public open space and landscaping. An Independent Inspector, Mr Alan Langton, held an Inquiry into the application in December 2011. In February 2012 the Council of Ministers refused the application in accordance with Mr Langton's recommendation.
Two months later, in an attempt to address the concerns identified in Mr Langton's Report, Heritage Homes Ltd submitted another application (PA12/00573/B). An Inquiry was held in July 2012. Before hearing evidence on the planning issues, the Independent Inspector, Mr David Hollis, heard representations relating to Article 4(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005. The Article seeks to restrict the consideration of a planning application that is substantially the same as one that had been refused in the past 5 years. On 18 October 2012 the Council of Ministers considered Mr Hollis's Report on the Article 4(4) issue and agreed with his recommendation that the application should be accepted for consideration.
Unfortunately, Mr Hollis was unable to report on the planning issues of the application because, due to the ill-health of one of the witnesses, the July 2012 Inquiry had to be adjourned until October 2012 and, by that time, equally unfortunately, Mr Hollis had suffered a heart attack and was unable to return to the Island to complete the job. I was appointed to the case.
Many of those who attended the December 2012 Inquiry had participated at the 2 previous Inquiries in December 2011 and June 2012. For me, the evidence and the issues were new and I was considering the application afresh. For them, much was a repetition of what had gone before. I acknowledge their patience and forbearance.
Policy 5.7 - Area (v) is the most significant development area. Any development in this area should take into account the possibility of a bypass route. No estate road would be permitted to the by-pass.
Policy 5.10 - Future residential development should incorporate appropriate areas of open space as part of overall landscape schemes. (Note: The thrust of this policy has been carried forward into Recreation Policy 3 of the IoMSP)
Policy 5.12 - Future residential development should include the provision of housing for first time buyers in addition to semi-sheltered and sheltered housing in order to respond to the needs of persons resident in the area. (Note: The thrust of this policy has been carried forward into Housing Policy 5 of the IoMSP)
Policy 5.13 - If, at the end of the 5-year life of the KMLP, detailed applications for the development of allocated residential areas have not been approved, consideration will be given to the removal of such areas from development purposes. (Note: This has not been done)
Policy 5.14 - Any development of residential areas to the east of the built environment should pay regard to the suggestion of a by-pass to the east of Kirk Michael.
Policy 12.4 - With the exception of areas already proposed for development, no areas of open space should be released for development.
Strategic Policy 2 (and Housing Policy 4) - Development should be located primarily within existing towns and villages.
Spatial Policy 3 - Kirk Michael is identified as a Service Village where housing should be provided to meet local needs and, in appropriate cases, to broaden the choice of location of housing.
General Policy 2 - Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan, and with other policies of the Strategic Plan, will normally be permitted, provided that it complies with criteria (a) to (n).
Environment Policy 35 - Within conservation areas, development will be permitted only if it will preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.
Environment Policy 36 - Where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a conservation area, this will be permitted only where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the conservation area.
Environment Policy 42 - Development must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features, of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces that contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted.
Housing Policy 1 (and Strategic Policy 11) - The housing needs of the Island will be met by making provision for sufficient development opportunities to enable 6000 additional dwellings to be built between 2001 and 2016.
Housing Policy 3 - The overall housing provision will be distributed as follows: North 1,200; South 1,300; East 2,500; West 1,000.
Housing Policy 5 - 25% of developments of 8 dwellings or more should be made up of affordable housing.
Recreation Policy 2 - Development which would adversely affect, or result in the loss of open space or a recreation facility that is, or has the potential to be, of recreational or amenity value to the community will not be permitted except (a) where alternative provision of equivalent
community benefit and of equivalent or better accessibility is made available; and (b) where there would be an overall community gain from the development and the particular loss of the open space or recreation facility would have no significant unacceptable effect on local open space or recreation provision or on the character or amenity of the area.
Recreation Policy 3 – New residential development of 10 or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 of the IoMSP.
Transport Policy 4 – New and existing highways that serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of the IoMSP.
Transport Policy 7 – Parking provision must be in accordance with current standards.
The existing junction of the A3 and A4 at Douglas Road Corner has been modelled using Arcady 8. The results show that it is operating within its design capacity and would continue to do so if the proposed development went ahead.
Officers of the Highways Division asked Heritage Homes Ltd to design a traffic signal junction for the proposed estate road because it was considered that this would be safer than a priority crossroads, and it would also allow the TT racing line to be maintained.
In response to a request from the Highways Division, Heritage Homes Ltd undertook a sensitivity test, using the Linsig model. It assessed the impact of abnormal conditions, such as a closure of the Mountain Road and the diversion of traffic through Kirk Michael. The model showed that the proposed traffic signal junction could accommodate the additional flows that would occur during abnormal conditions.
The Updated Transport Assessment (April 2012) produced by Heritage Homes Ltd covers all the areas required by the Department's 2007 "Guidelines for Transport Assessment".
A replacement Sewage Treatment Works for Kirk Michael has recently been approved by the Planning Committee. A contractor has been awarded the tender, and work is due to start in January 2013 with completion and commissioning expected around June 2013. This will negate the need for the temporary sewage treatment plant proposed for the application site.
WASA has reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment produced by Heritage Homes Ltd and has found it acceptable. The upgrading of a culvert and the removal of a tree stump near Lhergy Vreck (on land not owned by Heritage Homes Ltd) should
alleviate the current flooding issues. This work is being addressed under the Land Drainage Act 1934 and is being undertaken by the landowner.
Surface water from the proposed development would be attenuated and discharged into a separate surface water system at the Kerrocruinn Estate.
Flooding at the Baltic Road/Balleira Road/Main Road junction in Kirk Michael is a separate issue, unrelated to the proposed development. It is being investigated by WASA and the Highways Division.
Housing Policy 3 of the IoMSP indicates that the Island's western region (comprising Peel, Patrick, German and Kirk Michael) should be accommodated 1000 of the 6000 dwellings to be provided on the Island between 2006 and 2016. However, the preamble to the policy suggests that these figures are "general". The latest Residential Land Availability Report (Update 4) indicates that 1,077 dwellings have been approved for the Western Region. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that some of these approvals will not be taken up before the end of the Plan period (2016), and the overall number of approvals for the Island remains well below the 6000 required by the IoMSP.
The Inspector for the 2011 scheme, in common with other Inspectors for schemes elsewhere, concluded that there is nothing in the IoMSP to suggest that the housing figures should not be exceeded or met early. An excess number of approvals would not harm the Plan's policies and objectives.
The latest Housing Policy Review Progress Report indicates that the Island's housing market is holding up well in comparison to that of the UK, and that the number of households continues to increase at a faster rate than population growth. The Report states that "this factor alone is likely to have a significant impact upon housing demand". Heritage Homes Ltd considers that the supply of new housing is struggling to match this demand. There were fewer completions in 2011 than in previous years. It is therefore important to ensure that land currently allocated for residential development can be developed. Demand has to be met, and there should be a continuity of housing provision. Heritage Homes Ltd would not build the proposed dwellings if it were felt that there was no demand for them.
The First Time Buyer Register shows that there are now 515 persons on the register who satisfy the criteria of the House Purchase Assistance Scheme. This is a significant drop from the 1,237 registered in June 2012. However, of the 515 persons on the Register, 30 have put the West as their first choice. The proposed development would provide 24 affordable dwellings: 14 would be elderly persons' units to be purchased as affordable housing by the Department of Social Care; and the remaining 10 would be offered to persons on the First Time Buyer Register. The 24 affordable dwellings would therefore meet a need.
keeping with the immediate environs of the school and would not be harmful to the area's character.
The first stretch of the proposed estate road, as it passes through the school playing field, would also be in the conservation area. In response to the concerns of the Inspector for the 2011 scheme, the road is now proposed to be 5.5m wide instead of 7.3m, with a footpath on one side instead of both sides. It would no longer be engineered to bypass standards. The road would not affect the conservation area's openness. There would be stone walls on either side of the road to reflect and replace the wall that currently encloses the school playing field.
The requirement of Environment Policy 35 would therefore be met in respect of the proposed works within the Kirk Michael Conservation Area.
The majority of the application site, however, is subject to Environment Policy 36 because it is outside, but close to, the conservation area's boundary. The policy requires that development should not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the conservation area. It is important to remember that the 95 dwellings would be on land that has been zoned for residential development since at least 1982 and confirmed in the KMLP in 1994, well before the conservation area was designated in 2006.
Nevertheless, in order to address the concerns of the Inspector for the 2011 scheme, various changes have been made to the position and heights of some of the dwellings. The changes would provide a more open view to the Michael Hills from Douglas Road Corner. For example, the dwelling that would previously have occupied Plot 100, to the south of the access road, has been removed and replaced by public open space. And the 2-storey houses on Plots 98 and 99 (in the 2011 scheme) have been replaced by a single storey dwelling on new Plot 95 set further to the south away from the access road. The scale, grandeur and prospect of the Michael Hills would therefore not be lost when viewed from the conservation area.
The design of the proposed 95 dwellings would not have an adverse impact on the adjacent conservation area. Fenestration and other details would reflect vernacular character. There would be simple and colourful door types, slate-like roof tiles, a variety of render colours, chimneystacks and decorative detailing. It should also be noted that the CACA states that there are no dominant architectural styles in the conservation area.
In the light of the above, and in accordance with the conclusions of the Townscape and Visual Assessment prepared for Heritage Homes Ltd, it is clear that the current scheme would meet the requirements of the IoMSP's Environment Policies 35 and 36 in respect of the conservation area. It would also satisfy the relevant criteria of General Policy 2.
Traffic and road access
The Updated Transport Assessment (April 2012) shows that the local highway network is presently operating well within its capacity. In fact, the various surveys indicate that current traffic flows are much the same as those in 2004. Forecasts show that in 2022, after the proposed 95 dwellings had been built, the road network would still operate within its traffic-carrying capacity.
Lengthy consultations have taken place between representatives of the TT and Manx Grand Prix, the Highway Authority and Heritage Homes Ltd. Agreement has now been reached on the safest design and the best location for the estate road.
It has been decided that a junction at Douglas Road Corner, where the A4 meets the A3 would, on balance provide the most benefit to the village. In order to relieve the problems for Brynwood and Tamarisk, identified by the Inspector for the 2011 scheme, the position of the junction has been moved 2m further to the south.
The evidence clearly and incontrovertibly demonstrates that the new crossroads junction would operate safely and efficiently. It would be controlled by traffic lights, the safest way of accommodating the volume of traffic likely to use it. The lights would not cause extensive queues or delays, even in abnormal conditions when the Mountain Road is closed. Sensitivity Tests carried out on behalf of Heritage Homes Ltd (by doubling traffic flows on the A3) prove this to be the case. It is unlikely that there would ever be more than 3 vehicles waiting at the lights, and all queues would clear before the lights turned to red again. The stop line for the lights controlling southbound traffic on the A3 would be 35m away from the school's vehicular exit. The queue of vehicles at the lights would therefore not be long enough to block the exit.
In the interests of safety, and particularly for motorcycle racers, a continuous white line would mark the edge of the carriageway on the outside of the bend at the junction. Kerbs would be laid 1m behind the white line and, in the intervening space, the road would be surfaced with a high friction material. Four 0.92m collapsible "Vergemaster" marker posts would also help to direct traffic along the carriageway.
Unlike in the 2011 scheme, there would be no pedestrian refuge or light-controlled crossing on the estate road. Its reduced width and the limited number of pedestrians do not justify them. The road's design would accord with the guidance in Manx Roads.
The design and location of the proposed estate road neither prejudices nor compromises the future construction of a relief road to the east of Kirk Michael if such a road were ever deemed necessary or desirable. Neither does it create any pressure or justification for such a road. However, it should be borne in mind that the Atkins Report concluded that, if a relief road were to be built, its junction with the A3 would be best placed at Douglas Road Corner.
Drainage and flood risk
It is unlikely that the proposed on-site temporary sewage treatment plant will be needed. The replacement sewage works to serve the whole of Kirk Michael are programmed for completion in June 2013. It would have sufficient capacity to deal with the foul sewage from the proposed development. However, if for some reason the temporary sewage treatment plant were required, it would be installed and then removed as soon as possible. A planning application for the future use of the land would then be submitted.
Surface water from the proposed dwellings and roads would be disposed of via soakaways where the land is permeable and, elsewhere, by a new surface water sewer network.
During heavy rainfall events, water gathers in the field at the northern end of the site. At the request of WASA, a Flood Risk Assessment was carried out. This concluded that relatively simple measures by the landowner (not Heritage Homes Ltd) could alleviate the causes of flooding and that no risk would be posed to the proposed new dwellings.
Case Reference: DF12/0011
Planning Application: 12/00573/B
The residents of Kirk Michael are particularly concerned about the proposed traffic lights. They are worried that a tailback from the lights could block the entrance to the school. The Commissioners would prefer a roundabout.
The Department of Transport is looking at the problems of traffic congestion in the centre of the village. Traffic Orders relating to waiting restrictions and other matters are being drawn up, and will be implemented.
The deeds of the village playground have been examined and it appears that the Commissioners hold the land under a form of trust for the children of Kirk Michael. Heritage Homes Ltd proposes to make a new pedestrian entrance into the playground and lay drainage pipes under the ground. This would not be in the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust. If the Commissioners decided that the works could be carried out, there would be a challenge on behalf of the beneficiaries; a challenge that the Residents' Group believe would be successful.
The school playing field is not "under-used, poorly maintained or inappropriately located". The preamble to Recreation Policy 2 of the IoMSP makes it clear that its redevelopment should not therefore be allowed.
same restrictions and hazards would apply to the residents of the proposed development. It is wrong to build more houses so close to the TT course.
of approvals does not necessarily equate to the number of dwellings that will actually materialise. Secondly, Housing Policy 3's figure of 1000 dwellings is part of an Island-wide distribution that is described in the preamble to the policy as "general". Finally, if the proposed 95 dwellings were to tip the scales over the 6000 or 1000 mark, there is nothing in the IoMSP that says the figures are to be treated as "ceilings", or that an excedence would be unacceptable. 100. I am also of the view that Heritage Homes Ltd would not build the dwellings unless it was confident that people would want to buy them. The number of houses for sale elsewhere in Kirk Michael would no doubt be a factor that Heritage Homes Ltd would take into account. The prospect of a "ghost" housing estate, or indeed a "ghost" village, with large numbers of dwellings standing empty is, to my mind, unrealistic. 101. Turning to the 24 affordable dwellings, it is clear from the views of the Michael Commissioners, together with the latest figures in the First Time Buyer Register, that these dwellings are needed. Notwithstanding the fact that the numbers on the Register have dropped significantly since June 2012, there are still 30 people who have put the West as their first choice. 102. I have therefore reached the view that the proposed development would supply housing that would meet a need and would comply with Housing Policies 1 and 3 of the IoMSP. This is another point in favour of the proposal, and one to which I give considerable weight.
I have assessed the layout and design of the scheme against the relevant criteria in the IoMSP's General Policy 2:
Criterion (b) - The development should respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them. There is no over-riding uniformity in the size, age, style or layout of dwellings in Kirk Michael. The mixture of traditional cottages, 1960s bungalows and modern 2-storey houses all contribute to the village's character. The proposed dwellings would be single-storey and 2-storey and have a traditional architectural style. In common with dwellings elsewhere in the village, their walls would be rendered. The "shared surface" roads within the development would be uncharacteristic for Kirk Michael but, to my mind, not visually disruptive. The proposed landscaping would be typical of landscaping elsewhere in the village.
My main concern relates to housing densities. There would 22 dwellings per hectare (dph) in the site's northern residential area and 9.6 dph in the site's southern residential area. To my mind, this would not reflect the varying densities and smaller-grained texture of development elsewhere in the village. In that respect I consider that Criterion (b) is not fully satisfied but, in all other aspects, it is.
Criterion (c) - The development should not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape. I will address this point in more detail when I consider the development's impact on the Kirk Michael Conservation Area. However, it is fair to say that many of the proposed dwellings and roadways would be secluded from public view because of their position behind existing buildings such as those in Kelly's Yard, Slieau Curn Park, Mull View and the buildings along the A3 (including the Mitre Hotel, the Old Court House and Kirk Michael school).
Criterion (f) - The development should incorporate where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks. The proposed development would incorporate the gradual rise in ground levels from the north to the south of the site. Young trees growing in the copse at the southern end of the site would be transplanted throughout the site. Less satisfactory in my view is the fact that the development would involve the destruction of 3 separate lengths of sod bank which, together, amount to about 300m. The banks are prominent landscape features and their destruction flies in the face of Criterion (f).
Criterion (g) - The development should not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality. I have already considered the effect of the development on the character of the locality, and will do so again in the context of the conservation area. However, with regard to the amenity of local residents, I am mindful of the fact that, in places, new dwellings would be built next to existing dwellings. For example, the rear elevations of the 2-storey houses on Plot Nos 44 to 53 would face onto the side elevations and rear gardens of the existing dwellings at Nos 56 and 57 Sileau Curn Park. The separating distance would be about 12m, the length of the proposed houses' rear gardens. Much the same would be true for the existing dwellings at Nos 5, 6 and 7 Mull View although, in that particular case, the impact would be lessened because the nearest new dwellings (on Plot Nos 11 to 14) would be single-storey sheltered units.
There is no indication that the proximity of the proposed dwellings contravenes any rule of thumb operated by the Department. Whilst I accept that there would be some degree of change in the living conditions of neighbouring local residents, I am satisfied that their amenity would not be adversely affected to an unacceptable extent. Criterion (g) is therefore satisfied.
Criterion (h) - the development should provide satisfactory amenity standards in itself including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking servicing and manoeuvring space. I turn first to the provision of open space. The proposed development would result in the loss of 0.25ha of the school playing field, contrary to Policy 12.4 of the KMLP. But this would be off-set by the provision elsewhere of additional open space for the school, including a new playground and playing field to the rear of the school buildings. There would also be enhanced public open space in the Fair Field, and new public open space to the south of the proposed estate road (where Plot Nos 98, 99 and 100 were previously proposed in the 2011 scheme). The requirements of the IoMSP's Recreation Policy 2 are therefore met.
In the development as a whole, there would be 15,620m² of open space - nearly double the 8,032m² required by the standards in Appendix 6 of the IoMSP. Recreation Policy 3 of the IoMSP would therefore be satisfied.
I am satisfied that the estate road and its subsidiary culs-de-sac would be built to Manx Road standards and would provide safe and convenient access to the dwellings. There would therefore be compliance with the IoMSP's Transport Policy 4. The number of parking spaces would meet the standards for residential development set out in Appendix 7 of the IoMSP, so there would also be compliance with Transport Policy 7. I acknowledge the concerns of the Michael Commissioners about the adequacy of parking spaces, particularly in relation to the higher density housing area at the northern end of the site. However, it would be unreasonable to reject a development that complied with the adopted standards. I consider that the requirements of Criterion (h) are therefore met.
My concerns about the contrasting densities between the northern and southern parts of the site (Criterion (b)), and the loss of 300 m of sod banks (Criterion (f)), are not in themselves of sufficient weight to justify a refusal. On balance, and taking everything into account, I find the layout and design of the proposed scheme to be generally acceptable.
The effect of the proposed development on the Kirk Michael Conservation Area
I shall first describe the overall character of the conservation area, and then consider the effect that the parts of the proposed development within the conservation area would have on its character; followed by the effect that the parts of the proposed development outside, but close to, the conservation area would have.
I saw that the village has a predominantly residential character but there is no prevalent architectural style. The centre of the village is dominated by the presence of St Michael's Church, the nearby shops and other commercial enterprises. In places, buildings are so close together that distant views out of the village are not possible. Elsewhere, there are green spaces and gaps through which it is possible to see the fields and hills surrounding the village. The Kirk Michael Conservation Area Character Appraisal (CACA) describes these views as "one of the most important features worthy of preservation within Kirk Michael" and "spectacular when leaving the village at either end". I agree.
The parts of the proposed development that would be within the conservation area need to be assessed against Environment Policy 35 of the IoMSP. This policy requires development to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, and to ensure that the special features contributing to its character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.
There are 4 places in the conservation area where there would be some form of development: the village playground; the curtilage of the school buildings; the Fair Field; and the school playing field at Douglas Road Corner. So far as the village playground is concerned, I am satisfied that the creation of a pedestrian access into its eastern end and the laying of underground drains would preserve its character and appearance. I take the same view about the minor works (such as car parking, walls, ramps and fences) within the curtilage of the school buildings.
In the Fair Field, the width of the field would be significantly narrowed by a blockwork wall 1.2 m high, topped with a chain link fence, enclosing the proposed school playground. The Fair Field is one of the few places in the conservation area where a finger of the village's green surroundings enters the conservation area. Any narrowing of this finger would, in my view, fail to preserve or enhance this special feature.
Finally, I turn to the school playing field and Douglas Road Corner, both of which are in the conservation area. The playing field would be dissected by a 5.5 m estate road, complete with its footway, street lighting, boundary walls and junction with the A3.
To my mind, the playing field is a fundamental part of the conservation area's character and the village's identity. It is a green and open landmark at the entrance to the village, much loved and frequently photographed, particularly during TT racing. In my opinion, the field's school and community uses give it the semblance of a semi-rural village green and, like the Fair Field, it enables the village's rural surroundings to flow into the conservation area. It amounts to a "special feature", something that Environment Policy 35 seeks to protect against
inappropriate development. I am also mindful of the fact that Environment Policy 42 makes it clear that the removal of open or green spaces that contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted.
I acknowledge the changes that have been made to the 2011 scheme. They include the reduction in the width of the estate road so that it is no longer over-engineered (a concern of the previous Inspector), the removal of the dwelling on the former Plot No 100, and the introduction of stone walls. However, I consider that the changes do not go far enough. The estate road, together with the paraphernalia of street lights, traffic lights and road markings at Douglas Road corner, would urbanise this semi-rural part of the conservation area to a harmful extent. The unique character of this important part of the conservation area would be spoilt. Moreover, I note that Policy TM/1 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 "Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man" states, amongst other things, that wherever possible any new roads should avoid affecting conservation areas.
In the light of the above, I have reached the view that, contrary to Environment Policy 35, the conservation area's character and appearance would be neither preserved nor enhanced by the development that is proposed in the Fair Field, and at the school playing field and Douglas Road Corner. This is a matter to which I give substantial weight.
The parts of the development that would be outside, but close to, the conservation area need to be assessed against Environment Policy 36 of the IoMSP. The policy makes it clear that development will be permitted only where it would not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the conservation area.
There are 3 places where I consider that views out of the conservation area would be materially affected: the village playground, the Fair Field and Douglas Road Corner.
The Michael Hills can be seen from the village playground. The view provides a clear reminder of Kirk Michael's rural surroundings. If the proposed development were to take place, the terrace of houses on Plots 28 to 32 would be in the foreground of that view. The gable end of the nearest house would be only 5m away. The roofs and upper sections of other dwellings, further to the east would, in my opinion, also be visible. They would be an unwanted intrusion, disrupting the distant view of the Michael Hills - "one of the most important features worthy of preservation" (CACA paragraph 11.4).
Further south, the Mitre Hotel and the Old Court House currently frame a view across the Fair Field to the Michael Hills. As part of the proposed development, the Fair Field would become public open space and be narrowed by a wall enclosing the school playground. Regardless of whether the Michael Hills are glimpsed through the gap between the Mitre Hotel and the Old Court House, or from within the Fair Field itself, I anticipate that the row of detached houses behind the school (Plot Nos 1 to 8) would be a visual intrusion in the foreground, distracting the eye from the grandeur of the Michael Hills in the distance.
From Douglas Road Corner there is a dramatic and inspiring view of the Michael Hills. A wide panorama of their slopes and summits can be enjoyed. This panorama would be spoilt by the proposed junction and the entrance to the estate road, works within the conservation area that I have already described. It would also be spoilt by the roofs, walls and gables of the detached dwellings to the south of the estate road. The nearest dwelling would be only about 50m away.
from Douglas Road Corner. The presence of the dwellings could not be disguised and, in my view, they would detrimentally affect this important view to a significant degree. 128. In accordance with Environment Policy 36 I have also considered the effect of the proposed development on views into the conservation area. I saw that it would be possible to glimpse the development from elevated and distant places along the Baltic Road. However, it would be difficult to claim that these glimpses provided an "important view" into the conservation area, not least because of the intervening distance, the remoteness of this single-track road and the paucity of stopping places. 129. Overall, I find that the proposed development would detrimentally affect important views out of the conservation in at least 3 places: the village playground; the gap between the Mitre Hotel and the Old Court House (and part of the Fair Field when it becomes public open space); and at Douglas Road Corner. It therefore follows that the requirement of Environment Policy 36 has not been met and, in such cases, the policy makes it clear that planning approval should not be granted. I give this matter substantial weight. 130. I accept that the site has been zoned for residential development for many years, and it is almost inevitable that any development would have some effect on the conservation area, bearing in mind its close proximity. However, in my opinion, if the land is to be developed, there are other ways of doing it; ways that would be less harmful to the character and appearance of the conservation area.
Therefore, unless all 3 vehicles were exceptionally long, or they were all pulling trailers, I am satisfied that there is little likelihood of the school's vehicular access being blocked.
Local residents are also concerned that the traffic lights would cause a pulsing of traffic flows. In their view, this would worsen the congestion already experienced in the centre of the village where parked cars often leave only a single lane for moving traffic. I note that Traffic Orders relating to waiting restrictions in the village centre are being drawn up, and will be implemented. This should help to ease the congestion. I also note that, unlike in the 2011 scheme, there would be no signal-controlled pedestrian crossing on the proposed estate road. As a result, there would be more "green light" time for vehicles on the A3 and A4 and the flow of traffic would be smoother. There would therefore be less likelihood of pulsing.
The residents of Tamarisk, Brynwood and Cronk Froy, the dwellings nearest to the proposed traffic lights, already experience difficulties when driving in and out of their properties. They fear that traffic lights could make matters worse because vehicles queuing at the traffic lights might, in places, obscure forward visibility. I accept that, at times, certain manoeuvres might be more awkward, particularly with long vehicles or trailers. However, the traffic lights would provide regular and certain breaks in the flow of traffic, and this could be advantageous, not only to those who live near to the lights, but also to all other road users, including pedestrians.
Other concerns include the potential hazard caused by delivery vehicles parking on the roadside outside Tamarisk, Brynwood and Cronk Froy. However, to my mind, such parking is potentially hazardous at present, and the traffic lights are unlikely to make matters materially worse.
Criterion (i) of General Policy 2 seeks to prevent development having an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows. In my opinion, the proposed junction would satisfy this objective to a sufficient extent.
The future possibility of a Kirk Michael relief road
The possibility of a relief road for Kirk Michael has been mooted for a long time. For example, Policy 5.14 of the 1994 KMLP requires that any development of residential areas to the east of the built environment should pay regard to the suggestion of a bypass to the east of Kirk Michael. The Highways Division, Heritage Homes Ltd and the objectors to the scheme have made reference to this matter, and I consider it to be a material consideration.
The Kirk Michael Relief Road Joint Study (the Atkins Report) was published in 2004. It is a technical report, still in draft form, and not part of the Development Plan. Nevertheless, in my opinion its findings have considerable relevance to the current proposal. The Study considered 4 alternative bypass routes, 3 of which connected to the A3/A4 at Douglas Road Corner, and the fourth connected to the A3 some distance to the south. It was found that, even with private funding, all of the route options would have a significant impact on the environment, and the scale of development required to fund a relief road would require an almost doubling of the village's size.
The Study also concluded that, if a relief road were not built, the land allocated for residential development (ie the majority of the application site) should be served by a new direct access onto the A3 in the south of the village. It is interesting to note that Heritage Homes Ltd now controls sufficient land in the
Case Reference: DF12/0011
Planning Application: 12/00573/B
vicinity of Cass A Lergy to form such an access onto the A3 in the south of the village. It has nevertheless chosen to access the site from Douglas Road Corner. 143. In the 2011 scheme, the first stretch of the estate road into the proposed development was designed to bypass standards. This is no longer the case. The width of the road has been reduced from 7.3 m to 5.5 m . But it would not be difficult to upgrade it to bypass standards. Ample open space has been left on its southern side to accommodate a wider carriageway. 144. I therefore find it hard to accept that, if built, the presence of the estate road and its junction with the A3 would neither influence nor prejudice any future consideration of a bypass. Indeed, I share the view of the Inspector of the 2011 scheme that it would be harmfully premature to commit to, in effect, the initial length of a bypass in the absence of any policy commitment to build the whole route. The Inspector recommended against the 2011 scheme because, amongst other things, the road access "should be determined only following a firm decision one way or the other regarding a bypass". His recommendation was accepted by the Council of Ministers less than a year ago. Since then, nothing in the Development Plan has changed, and I see no reason to take an opposite view.
the additional traffic generated by the development, and that the new traffic light junction at Douglas Road Corner would not have an unacceptable effect on road safety.
I now turn to my unfavourable findings. I have reached the view that the changes made to the 2011 scheme do not go far enough. The parts of the development that would be within the conservation area would neither preserve nor enhance the area's character and appearance; and the parts that would be outside the conservation area would detrimentally affect important views from it. This is something to which I ascribe substantial weight.
Furthermore, I have fundamental concerns about the wisdom of approving the current scheme before a decision has been made, one way or the other, about a relief road for Kirk Michael. My concerns reflect those of the Inspector for the 2011 scheme whose recommendation was accepted by the Council of Ministers less than a year ago. In my opinion, an approval of the current scheme could prejudice the proper planning of Kirk Michael.
A balance has to be struck. I have weighed my findings for and against the proposed development. I have decided that my concerns relating to the conservation area and the relief road, described above, are of such weight that the points in favour of the proposed development are not enough to justify an approval.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed development would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the Kirk Michael Conservation Area and would also detrimentally affect important views out of the conservation area, contrary to Environment Policy 35 and 36 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
The location of the junction of the proposed estate road at Douglas Road Corner could prejudice future decisions about a possible relief road for Kirk Michael.
Ruth MacKenzie BA(Hons)
Ruth MacKenzie BA(Hons) MRTPI Independent Inspector
Case Reference: DF12/0011 Planning Application: 12/00573/8
Mr Stephen Sauvain QC He called:
Mrs S Roberts FCCA She presented the case for the Residents' Group and called:
In addition to the proofs of evidence, statements, letters, photographs, plans and supporting documents submitted prior to the opening of the Inquiry, the following documents were handed in during the Inquiry itself:
public open spaces and school sports pitch shown on Drwg No 2380.20.02; the phasing and siting of the construction compound and details of its fencing and phased restoration including the restoration of Manx hedges where necessary; details of the relocation or replacement of existing play equipment; and details of the future control of the gated access to Slieau Curn Park. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Method Statement. 5) All planting, seeding and turfing comprised in the landscaping layout shown on Drwg No 2380.20 .02 shall be carried out in the first planting season following the completion of each phase of the development. Any tree or plant which within a period of five years of planting dies, is removed, or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of a similar size and species. 6) Trees growing in the copse in the southern part of the application site shall be transplanted throughout the development as part of the landscaping scheme. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the trees to be transplanted shall be submitted to and approved in writing with the Planning Authority. Such details shall include a system for numbering each tree, a description of each tree and details of its transplantation location. The trees shall be transplanted in accordance with the approved details. Any transplanted tree that dies, is removed, or becomes seriously damaged or diseased within five years of its transplantation shall be replaced in the next planting season with a tree of the same species at least 2 m high. 7) Prior to the commencement of development all existing trees, shrubs and hedges to be retained in situ shall be protected by fences or suitable barriers erected beyond their drip-line. Such fences or barriers shall be retained until the development is completed. Within the protected areas there shall be no storage, deposit, tipping or placing of any materials, soil, spoil or other matter, no parking or movement of vehicles or trailers, no erection or siting of buildings or structures, no excavation or raising of ground levels and no disposal or water or other liquid. No fires shall be lit within 20 m of any protected area. The principles of British Standard 5837:2012 "Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction - Recommendations" shall be followed where applicable. 8) Direct connection to the public foul sewer shall be made within 1 month of the new public sewage works being capable of accepting untreated foul flows from the development. Within 3 months of the direct connection being made, the onsite treatment plant shall be decommissioned and removed, and the site filled, levelled and reinstated as grassland. 9) No dwelling shall be occupied until the roads between that dwelling and Douglas Road Corner (A3), including their footways, turning heads and lighting, have been laid out in accordance with the approved details and constructed to at least base course level. 10) No development shall commence until the new junction at Douglas Road Corner has been constructed in accordance with the approved details shown on Drwg Nos 2380.20.01 and 09/348/TR/034 Rev A. The colour of the high friction surfacing alongside the carriageway outside Brynwood shall be agreed in writing with the Planning Authority prior to its installation.
Case Reference: DF12/0011 Planning Application: 12/00573/B
Climate change is one of the most pressing environmental issues of our time. It affects ecosystems worldwide, leading to significant changes in biodiversity, habitat loss, and species extinction. This report explores the impacts of climate change on global ecosystems, focusing on key areas such as forests, oceans, and polar regions.
Forests play a crucial role in carbon sequestration and maintaining biodiversity. However, climate change is causing significant changes in ecosystems, leading to significant changes in biodiversity. Key impacts include:
Oceans absorb a significant portion of the excess heat and carbon dioxide (CO₂) produced by human activities. The consequences include:
Oceans absorb a significant portion of the excess heat and carbon dioxide (CO₂) produced by human activities. The consequences include:
Polar regions are particularly vulnerable to climate change due to their sensitivity to temperature changes. Key impacts include:
Polar regions are particularly vulnerable to climate change due to their sensitivity to temperature changes. Key impacts include:
Climate change poses a significant threat to global ecosystems, with far-reaching consequences for biodiversity and human societies. By understanding the impacts of climate change on global ecosystems, we can help you reduce the risk of human activities and ensure the sustainability of your ecosystem.
References
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
