32994

==== PAGE 1 ====

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Application No.: Applicant: Proposal: 14/01034/B McArd Homes Ltd Erection of a block of eight apartments with landscaping and parking to replace existing buildings Warehouse Store And Lock Up Garages Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4AX Site Address: Case Officer: Photo Taken : Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Mr Chris Balmer 05.11.2014 05.11,2014 Planning Committee Officer's Report THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE GIVEN THE NUMBER OF PRIVATELY WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS OBJECTING TO THE APPLICATION WHICH IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AND AS A SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the existing warehouse store and lock up garages which currently front onto Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane. The existing building is a large detached pitched roof building of brick construction with smaller garage buildings arranged alongside. To the southwest of the application site are Rats 1-6 of The Arthur Bell Estate which is an elderly persons' housing complex. The existing garden/parking area of this site is also included within the current application site, 1.2 The site is situated within a courtyard area, with residential properties surrounding the site. To the north are a row of two storey terraced dwellings which run along Upper Duke's Road, to the east are semi-detached and detached dwellings which run along Poplar Road, to the south are detached and semi-detached properties which run along Victoria Road/ Falcon Cliff Terrace, and to the west of the site is the two storey The Arthur Bell Estate and beyond that apartment block are the semi-detached and terraced dwellings which runs along Falcon Cliff Terrace. 1.3 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a block of eight apartments with landscaping and parking to replace the existing warehouse building and garaging. The proposed block of apartments would be 'horse shoe' in shape, set over one and a half to two storeys. The building would have a maximum width of 20 metres, a maximum depth of 30 metres and a maximum height of ridge height of 8.2 metres, with an eaves height between 5 & 5,5 m. The building's elevations would be finished with part painted render and part cedral weatherboard cladding. Windows and doors would be finished in uPVC. The roof would be finished with artificial slate with solar panels installed to the southeast and south west facing slopes. 2.2 14/01034/B 1 December 2014 Page 1 of 12

==== PAGE 2 ====

Communal gardens are proposed which would be shared not only with the occupants of the new flats, but also the occupants of the six flats within The Arthur Bell Estate. The existing parking area serving 'The Arthur Bell Estate' would be replaced with the communal gardens which would continue in a northerly direction along the entire northwest boundary. The existing trees along the northwest boundary would be retained and incorporated into the communal garden area. 2.3 2.4 Due to the creation of the communal garden, three existing parking spaces associated with The Arthur Bell Estate would be relocated to the southern side of the building. Parking for the eight new apartments would be provided via 12 new parking spaces, one of which is for disabled persons, all of which front onto Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane. Although not shown on the drawings, the applicant has advised that there is room both internally and externally for bike stores. 2.5 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The previous planning application which are considered relevant to the determination of this proposal, 11/01622/C - change the use of the warehouse and store to recreational sporting use, in particular for martial arts classes - refused at Appeal on the following grounds: "The continued use of the site would be contrary to General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that the use would lead to an increase in on-street parking and traffic in an area which is already very congested in the evenings and would be prejudicial to the general amenity of the area and the free flow of traffic within the area." 10/00416/R - Change of use of warehouse and store to recreational sporting use (Retrospective) - refused on 11th January 2011. The reason for refusal was "Insufficient information has been submitted to accurately assess the impact on the use on the residential environment of the surrounding properties and the local highway network." 08/01571/B - Residential development comprising 5 townhouses, one maisonette and one apartment with associated parking and access - refused at appeal on 8th June 2009, 02/01333/B - Extension to warehouse - refused 6th January 2003 98/00631/C - Change of use of storage building to plumbers merchants - refused on review 29th September 1998 91/01484/C - Change of use from food wholesale warehouse to Police general store - permitted 90/0i356/C - Change of use from fruit wholesaler's warehouse to motor body repair shop - refused on review 87/01679/C - Change of use from wholesale fruit and vegetable warehouse to motor body repair & vehicle storage - permitted on review. 4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site is designated within an "Area of Predominantly Residential Use" under the Douglas Local Plan 1998. The site is not within a Conservation Area. Page 2 of 12 1 December 2014 14/01034/B

==== PAGE 3 ====

In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 contains one policy that is considered specifically materia! to the assessment of this current planning application: 4.2 4.3 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(l) and amenity standards; and being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and (a) (b) (c) services." Strategic Policy 2 states that: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." 4.4 General Policy 2 states that; "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: (a) 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 habitats 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 4.5 (b) (c) (d) (e) (0 (g) (h) manoeuvring space; does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local (i) 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." G) (k) 0) (n) Housing Policy 5 states that: "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more." 4.6 Housing Policy 6 states that; "Development of land which is zoned for residential development must be undertaken in accordance with the brief in the relevant area plan, or, in the absence of a brief, in accordance with criteria in paragraph 6.2 of this plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive." 4.7 4,8 Environment Policy 42 states that; "New development in existing settlements 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 which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of 14/01034/B Page 3 of 12 1 December 2014

==== PAGE 4 ====

a particular area will not be permitted. Those open of green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans." 4.9 Transport Policy 4 states that; 'The new and existing highways which serve any 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 this plan," 4.10 Transport Policy 7 states that; "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards." REPRESENTATIONS Douglas Borough Council have objected to the application on the following basis; insufficient parking provision; no grounds for exception from the requirement to provide two parking spaces per property as contained in Parking Standards of the lOM Strategic Plan (letter dated 17th September 2014). 5.0 5.1 Highway Services have no objections to the proposal, although would like a few minor alterations to be made to the scheme, which they confirm should be easily addressed (received on 19th October 2014). 5.2 5.3 Manx Utilities (electricity) make no comments to the merits of the application but ask for an informative note be attached to any approval. The owner/occupier of Arbory, Poplar Road, Douglas has objected to the application which can be summarised as; proposal given its two storey eight would have a massive impact on our privacy and quality of life; plans do not show our extension (sun room with large patio doors) which was constructed in 2010; and windows would look over our rear living areas where we spend the majority of our time (received on 23th September 2014). 5.4 The owner/occupier of Barnelles, Victoria Road, Douglas has objected to the application which can be summarised as; bedroom and sitting room oniy four feet from boundary wall and therefore concerned about noise and light pollution; concerned with volume of traffic created by development (received on 30th September 2014), 5.5 The owners/occupiers of Berethone, Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane, Douglas has objected to the application which can be summarised as; increase traffic along Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane; insufficient parking for eight apartments; overspill parking onto Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane will block accesses and garages; Lane is too narrow for two way traffic; difficult for emergency vehicles to attend; increase noise in neighbourhood; and considered a couple of semi-detached houses or even a couple of 4 bedroom detached houses would be more acceptable (received on 1st October 2014). 5.6 The owner/occupier of 30 Upper Duke's Road, Douglas has made no comment on the merits of the application, but ask to be considered as having 'Interested Party' status. 5.7 The owners/occupiers of 32 Upper Duke's Road, Douglas has objected to the application which can be summarised as; concern of the overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy to the rear rooms of our house; nearest window is 17.5 metres away and directly opposite; and trees along the boundary will offer no visual shield for much of the year. 5.8 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key issues relating to the proposed works are; Principle of development; 0 1 December 2014 14/01034/B Page 4 of 12

==== PAGE 5 ====

Potential impact upon neighbouring amenities (overlooking, loss of light and/or overbearing impact) by the development; Potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scene; Highway Issues; Affordable Housing Provision; and Residential amenities for future occupants. 0 0 0 0 0 Principle of development The starting point is identifying the land use designated of the site, Under the Douglas Local Plan the site is designated as an 'Area of Predominantly Residential Use'. Accordingly, the proposal for residential development is acceptable in principle. Furthermore, residential development would likely be an improvement over the current non-conforming uses. It is important to note whilst the land use designation complies with the proposal, this is not an automatic reason to approve the application, A detailed assessment still needs to be made, namely the points raised with paragraph 6.1 of this report. 6.2 Potential impact upon neighbouring amenities by the development Visiting the site and surrounding area, it was considered the properties most likely to be affected by the development would be the occupants of the terraced properties aiong Upper Duke's Road (nameiy TTie Sheiieys, The Asters, Trevor & Newton Heath) and the pair of semi-detached dwellings along Poplar Road (Hilary Mount & Arbory). 6.3 In relation to the properties to the northwest of the site, aiong Upper Duke's Road, it was noted on site and on the submitted sectional drawings that the application ground ievel is set approximateiy two metres beiow that of the properties along Upper Duke's Road. It was also noted that an access lane (approximately 4 metres wide) is between these neighbouring properties rear boundaries and the northwest boundary of the site. It was also noted that the rear boundaries of the properties along Upper Duke's Road have boundary walis/fences are approximately l.S-i- metres in height. The northwest boundary of the appiication site is also made up a 1.8 metre high chain linked fence and existing mature sycamore trees, which do provide screening between the sites when the trees have leaves. This screening would be reduced during autumn-winter periods when the trees are leafless. 6,4 In terms of the potential impact upon the properties along Upper Duke's Road, it is considered overlooking is perhaps the main issue which needs consideration. In terms of loss or light and/or the proposal having an overbearing impact, it is not considered the proposal would result significantly result in either, given; the level differences, the distance the proposai wouid be from the neighbouring properties, boundary treatments of the site and neighbouring properties, and the design and height of the proposal. 6.5 Regarding the potentiai for overiooking, it is considered this will potentially occur from three upper floor windows within the northwest elevation only. These windows serve two living rooms and a bedroom. The ground floor windows within the northwest elevation will have no significant impact upon overlooking, given they wouid be below the ground levels of the properties along Upper Duke's Road and due to the existing boundary features between windows. The proposed upper floor windows would be approximately 17.5 to 18 metres away from the windows within the rear elevations of the neighbouring properties along Upper Duke's Road. Each neighbouring dweliing generally has three windows within the rear elevation, and these windows generally serve a kitchen at ground floor and a bathroom and bedroom at upper floor. 6.6 The application helpfully provides section drawings which show the relationship between the application site and neighbouring properties. From this, visiting the site and further information submitted, it is concluded that whilst the proposal will increase the potential for overlooking, the levei of overlooking would not be so significant to adversely affect the amenities of the neighbouring properties along Upper Duke's Road, such as to 6.7 14/01034/B 1 December 2014 Page 5 of 12

==== PAGE 6 ====

warrant a refusal on this ground. This is due to the level differences of the site, the distance between properties, and boundary treatments. It is accepted that during winter/autumn periods the existing boundary screening is significantly reduced. Accordingly, a condition should be attached to any approval which requires a scheme for either a timber fence and or landscaping at a height of 2.5 metres along the north-west boundary be submitted to the Department for approval, prior to the commencement of any development. It is considered such a scheme, complementing the existing landscaping, would ensure little overlooking would occur. As identified earlier in this report, the semi-detached properties of Hilary Mount and Arbory are considered to be potentially affected by the development, The owners of Arbory have raised concerns of overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy. Out of the two semi­ detached properties it was considered Arbory would be most likely to be affected. Accordingly a site visit of this property was undertaken. Visiting this property it was noted that a fairly recent single storey, rear living room extension, with large amounts of glazing facing the rear garden and beyond to the application site, has been built. This is not shown on the application drawings; however, the following assessment has taken account of this extension, utilising the approved plans submitted (PA 10/00936/B), 6.8 The north east elevation of the development is the aspect of the development which will impact upon the amenities of the occupants of Arbory most. This elevation would be between 17 to 17.5 metres from the recently constructed single storey living room extension. The proposal would be 21.5 metres from the main aspect of the dwelling. It was noted the boundary treatment between the two sites consisted of a wall ranging between 2 and 2.5 metres in height (measure from application site side). The occupants of Arbory have also recently planted a hedgerow which is approximately 0.5 metres above the boundary wall. 6.9 6.10 The owners of Arbory have raised concerns of overlooking. The proposal includes no windows within the northeast elevation upper floor. There are windows within the ground floor; however, given the height of the boundary wall, it is not considered these would affect the occupants of Arbory. There are a number of roof lights within the north east elevation; however, these are high level roof lights between 2.5 and 3.5 metres above floor level. Accordingly, these would only provide light, rather than any outlook to the rooms they serve. Due to these reasons it is considered there would be no overlooking from these roof lighte. 6.11 The main concern is whether the proposal would result an overbeating development upon the occupants of Arbory. It is clear the proposal will have more of an impact compared to the existing building on the site, as the proposal will be closer and taller than the existing building. Furthermore, the existing roof ridge is set much further into the site (12 metres), compared to the proposed roof ridge which is approximately 6 metres from the neighbouring boundary. Accordingly, the proposal, within 3 metres of the boundary will increase the mass and appearance of built development when viewed from Arbory. 6.12 The aspect of the development which would be apparent from Hilary Mount and Arbory would be the upper floor and roof of the building. The external finish of the majority of the upper floor is proposed to be cedral Weatherboard Cladding, whilst the roof finish would be an artificial slate. This darker finish will help reduce the impact of the proposal. Again the application has included sectional drawings which helpfully show the relationship between the proposal and neighbouring properties. This sectional drawing also shows the existing building on site, which helps gain perspective between existing and proposed. When stood in the rear extension and garden of Arbory, views were clearly achievable of the existing warehouse and garage building on the site, rather than clear open vistas. It is considered, this view would not significantly be affected by the proposed development, even though built development, taller and closer than existing, is proposed. 1 December 2014 14/01034/B Page 6 of 12

==== PAGE 7 ====

6.13 Consideration has also been taken in terms for potential loss of light. It was noted when visiting Arbory (5th November 2014 10.37am) that given the suns orientation (east to west) and position in the sky, siting of the proposal, and distance the proposal would be from the rear of Arbory, it was considered the proposal would not result in a significant amount of loss of light to the neighbouring properties. 6.14 Overall, whilst the proposed development will have an impact upon the majority of properties which surround the site, as any development would, it is not considered the potential impacts would be of such significance to warrant a refusal. Accordingly, it is considered the proposed development complies with General Policy 2 of the lOM Strategic Plan. Potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scene 6.15 The existing buildings on the site cannot be said to have any architectural merit, and it could be argued has a detrimental impact upon the visual amenities of the street scene. Accordingly, there is no objection to the replacement of the building. 6.16 Visiting the area there are a number of properties of difference styles, types, sizes and finishes. Accordingly, there is not a particular style which characterises the area. It is also noted that the site is not within a Conservation Area. The applicants have indicated that the proposal with its finish and contemporary design "creates an attractive modern residential scheme". It is considered the proposal does differ to any other building which surrounds it; however, given the mixture of development in the area, it is a continuation of building styles in the area which is considered acceptable and appropriate. As such, it is considered the proposed development complies with General Policy 2 of the lOM Strategic Plan. Highway Issues 6.17 The application is for eight apartments each with two bedrooms. A total of 16 car parking spaces are required in line with the requirements of the parking standards listed within Appendix 7 of the lOM Strategic Plan. This proposal provides 12 spaces for the use of the occupants of the new units with another 3 allocated to the six flats within The Arthur Bell Estate. The applicants have noted that parking standards do allow for a reduction in the 6.18 number of parking spaces being provided under certain circumstances. In this case they seek a reduction on the grounds that the site proximity to the town centre, the proximity of sustainable transport (bus routes), the likely lower ratio of car ownership as first time/government assisted buyer profile, and that car parking could also be accepted with partial 'on road' use in additional to the spaces provided. 6.19 The applicants have also highlighted the most recent use of the site for warehousing and storage by WDS Ltd. They have provided a very basic traffic survey generated by the operation of the site during 2007. This indicates that Monday to Friday, the traffic flows where generally between 3 to 20 cars visiting each day, between 6 and 15 vans visited, between 3 to 5 wagons and between 1 to 2 HGV visited. On Saturdays 2 to 4 cars visited the site which 2 vans visited. 6.20 In relation to the traffic flows generated by the lock up garages, again during 2007 the applicants have advised between 5 to 10 cars Monday to Friday and on Saturdays between 4 and 6. 6,21 As indicated above the traffic flow surveys are very basic, with no photographs or any further evidence included, 1 December 2014 14/01034/B Page 7 of 12

==== PAGE 8 ====

6.22 The applicants conclude the proposal would not be expected to increase the overall number of vehicular movements over and above the current/previous uses. They also add that there would be a reduction in the vehicle sizes from commercial to primarily domestic. 6.23 Whilst the submitted survey is certainly not considered to be ideal in terms of proving without doubt, that the level of traffic generated by the previous use of the site, it does however given an idea of the number of vehicles the previous site generated. The type of vehicles also indicated are consider to be reasonable and likely for the type of use which operated form the site. 6.24 Essentially, the proposal is short of four parking spaces. Highway Services have considered the scheme, including the reduction in the parking requirements and traffic generated by the proposal and have no objection. 6.25 It was noted when visiting the site that the section Of Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane which is directly opposite the proposed parking spaces, is in poor condition, especially given the road is an adopted highway. This matter has been discussed with the applicants and Highway Services, It is considered that the development is not acceptable without having a satisfactory access, including lighting, and as such a Grampian condition is proposed. 6.27 Discussing this matter with the applicants they have indicated; "There has been discussion in the past and this would need to be readdressed as it is a public highway" and "...It would need to be sorted whether that is all DOI or jointly with the developer remains to be seen and presumably a Section 109A Agreement." 6.28 Highway Services have stated; "Falcon Cliff Terrace (Lane) is an adopted highway. However, given the change of use of the site to residential use, it would be appropriate for the Department require the connecting highway to be improved." Affordable Housing Provision 6.29 As the proposal is for eight residential apartments. Housing Policy 5 requires to be considered. This indicates that development of 8 or more dwellings will normally require 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. Therefore in this case a total of two units would need to be affordable housing. 6.30 The applicants have been in discussion with the Department of Social Care - Housing Division, in respect to this issue, on the basis of the newly adopted shared equity scheme which DSC has recently introduced. Accordingly, a Section 13 Legal Agreement will need to be signed where this issue will be fully addressed. Residential amenities for future occupants 6.31 As with any residential development it is important to consider the amenities for future occupants of the proposed units. In terms of internal amenity, the apartments all have two bedrooms, living room, bathroom, kitchen and storage space. The apartments range between 63 sq m to 66 sq m. The main living area have outlooks over the communal garden areas. Overall, it is considered the level of amenity is acceptable. 6.32 In terms of external amenities, each of the apartments would benefit from the communal garden area. The ground floor apartments do also benefit from small patio areas which have direct access via the patio doors. Whilst the submitted pans show a patio area, these still form part of the communal areas. The neighbouring six flats within The Arthur Bell Estate would also benefit from the communal garden area. Overall, It is considered the proposed apartments would benefit from a sizeable and quality communal garden area, which is also fairly uncommon for apartment developments. 7.0 RECOMMENDATION 1 December 2014 14/01034/B Page 8 of 12

==== PAGE 9 ====

Overall, it is considered the proposals comply with the relevant planning policies of the lOM Strategic Plan for the reasons given, Therefore, the application is recommended for an approval subject to a Section 13 Legal Agreement. 7.1 8.0 PARPf STATUS In line with Article 6(4) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013, the following Persons are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: the applicant or, if there is one, the applicant's agent; the owner and occupier of the land the subject of the application; Highway Services, and the Local Authority in whose district the land the subject of the application sits. 8,1 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: The owner/occupier of Arbory, Poplar Road, Douglas The owner/occupier of Barnelles, Victoria Road, Douglas'/" The owners/occupiers of Berethone, Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane, Douglas*/^ The owner/occupier of 30 Upper Dukes Road, Douglas*/ The owners/occupiers of 32 Upper Dukes Road, Douglas-/" 8.2 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: 8.3 Manx Utilities - Electricity Recommendation Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement Date of Recommendation: 01,12.2014 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 C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. 1 December 2014 14/01034/B Page 9 of 12

==== PAGE 10 ====

To comply with article lA of the Town and Country Planning (Development Reason; Procedure) {No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C2. No development shall take place until full details of soft and hard landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the landscaping works include details of the entire northwest boundary of the site showing the erection of a fence and/or landscaping 2.5 metres in height and this be completed before the occupation of any of the units and retained thereafter. All further 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 dwelling, 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. Details of the hard landscaping works include footpaths and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of any of the proposed apartments hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development. Prior to any development of the apartment building, including demolish of the existing buildings on the site, the three DoHSC parking spaces as identified on drawing SC1287/P/10-01 REV B are required to be completed and retained for use by the occupants of Flats 1-6 of The Arthur Bell Estate. C 3. Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking in the interests of highway safety. C4. Prior to the occupation of any of the approved apartments all parking spaces as identified on drawing SC1287/P/10-01 REV B are to be completed and retained thereafter. Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking in the interests of highway safety, C5. One parking space is required to be allocated to each apartment and retained to that apartment thereafter. Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking in the interests of highway safety. C6. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including windows and doors, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless In accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. C7. 1 December 2014 14/01034/B Page 10 of 12

==== PAGE 11 ====

The development hereby approved shall not be commenced until alternative details of refuse storage have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Department. The development shall not be occupied until the refuse storage has been provided in accordance with the details so approved, and shall thereafter be retained solely for this purpose. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and of the amenities of the area. C8, Prior to the commencement of any works a full detailed scale plan should be submitted and approved by the Planning Department which details how the area of Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane which fronts parking spaces of the apartment building is to be improved including; pedestrian access along Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane to the site - the provision of continuous footway to the site and to provide a pedestrian access from Falcon Cliff Terrace Lane to the site. This approved plan and scheme is required to be implemented prior to the occupation of the apartments. The applicant is strongly recommended to discuss these matter with DOI Highway Services, Reason; in the interests of highway safety C9. No site works or clearance shall be commenced until protective fences which conform with British Standard 5837:2012 (or any British Standard revoking and re-enacting British Standard 5837:2012 with or without modification) have been erected around any existing trees and other existing landscape area, Unless and until the development has been completed these fences shall not be removed and the protected areas are to be kept clear of any building, plant equipment, material, debris and trenching, with the existing ground levels maintained, and there shall be no entry to those areas except for approved arboricultural or landscape works. Reason: To safeguard the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site. This approval relates to drawings reference numbers SC 1287-P-OO-Ol, SC 1287-P-lO-Ol REV B, SC 1287-P-lO-lO, SC 1287-P-10-20, SC 1287-P-ll-Ol REV A, SC 1287-P-12-01 and SC 1287- P-12-02 REV A all received on 3rd September 2014, I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under^e appropriate delegated authority. Decision Made: Committee Meeting Date:.. Signed : Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required^ signing officer to delete as appropriate ¥€S/NO 14/01034/B 1 December 2014 Page 11 of 12