Construction of four detached houses and associated infrastructure

Refusal Reasons

• ✗Whilst the revised scheme which removes the proposed dwellings for Plots 1 and 2 addresses the concern with the orientation of the buildings, and quantum of development proposes for the site, the current proposal still fails to address how the new development would fit into the existing site context, that has its particular character is defined by the mature landscaping and trees which create the verdant nature here, as the proposal fails to provide adequate tree replanting to re-establish the tree cover for the site, particularly on the defined replanting area and Plot 2 which housed a significant number of mature trees, and existed as a continuation of the mature wooded copse which stretches from the site into the adjacent Registered tree Area. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to General Policy 2 (c and f), Environment Policy 42, Strategic Policy 4 (b), and Strategic Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan.
• ✗The access arrangements as proposed would create an adverse impact on the existing highway for those users approaching from both sides of the access, and make it difficult for vehicles to exit the site in a safe and appropriate manner, as the visibility in both direction would be below the acceptable standards, contrary to the principles of General Policy 2(h and I) and Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
• ✗The scheme as currently proposed will result in the definite loss of a substantial number of mature trees of category B classification on site, and would result in further removal of more mature trees and canopy cover, which would result in significant adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the site and area, and it is not considered that adequate provision has been made for their replacement. There also exists a conflict between the proposed dwellings and the Tree Planting Area that accompanies the tree licence (License no 183/21) which would have provided further tree mitigation on site, and there are no reasons to justify this variation within the submitted documents. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to General Policy 2 (f), and Environment Policies 3 of the Strategic Plan.
• ✗It has not been demonstrated that the development could be undertaken without creating significant adverse impacts on biodiversity within the site and surrounding registered tree area as insufficient information has been provided to indicate how the development could be sensitively integrated on site, without resulting in significant adverse impacts on biodiversity. It is therefore, judged that the lack of provision made within the scheme to address biodiversity concerns would be contrary to the requirements of General Policy 2 (d) and Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.
• ✗Due to the positioning and proximity of first and second floor windows proposed for the Plot 3, which would be less than 15m from the rear garden of this neighbouring property, it is considered that the proposal would result in unacceptable levels of overlooking for this property, particularly as this garden is the only garden area available for this neighbouring property, contrary to General Policy 2 (g) of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 and the principles set out in the Residential Design Guide.