Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
23/00942/B Page 1 of 17
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 23/00942/B Applicant : Mr Tim Luft Proposal : Construction of four detached houses and associated infrastructure Site Address : Land South Of Leyton Former Air Raid Shelter Site Victoria Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 6AQ
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 03.10.2023 Site Visit : 03.10.2023 Expected Decision Level :
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 30.09.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. 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.
R 2. 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).
R 3. 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
==== PAGE 2 ====
23/00942/B Page 2 of 17
this variation within the submitted documents. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to General Policy 2 (f), and Environment Policies 3 of the Strategic Plan.
R 4. 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.
R 5. 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. __
Interested Person Status
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
o DOI Flood Risk Management o Manx National Heritage
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Sunnyside Cottage, Victoria Road, Douglas, as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey; Inglewood, Little Switzerland, Douglas; 29 Ballanard Road, Douglas;
As they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy.
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
==== PAGE 3 ====
23/00942/B Page 3 of 17
La Paz, Lucerne Court, Douglas, as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. __
Officer’s Report
1.0 SITE 1.1 The site defined in red is a parcel of land situated south of Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas located on the western side of Victoria Road. The site which measures approximately 0.86 acres in size also has Sunny side Cottage and Ballawana situated on the south-east boundary, the Willows on the south-west boundary and the Football Clubhouse Sports ground on the North-west boundary. The site is presently undeveloped and has its eastern boundary enclosed by a Manx stone wall which rises from about 1m to 1.5m along this boundary, and a thick line of mature trees that runs along the entire stretch of this boundary.
1.2 The boundary wall has two gated openings which provide access into the site, although both are currently closed. The site has a frontage to Victoria Road of around 55m, while its boundary with Leyton is about 49m. Also, the land to rear of the boundary wall on the eastern side of the boundary wall is higher than the roadside and varies along the length of the boundary wall. There is also a large cluster of mature trees spread across the entire southern boundary, with a small cluster of trees on the boundary with Leyton in the north.
2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the Construction of four detached houses and associated infrastructure. The proposal includes a total of four detached house types, which are all three storey dwellings, with similar layout but slightly varied external appearance. The dwellings will be laid out such that all would have at least two off road parking spaces and an integral single garage. Access to and from the site will be via Victoria Road.
2.2 The ground floors will house a garage, a utility room, a WC, a kitchen, dining and living room, while the first floor will house three bedrooms (all with ensuite), with the larger bedroom also having a dressing area. The second floor will house three bedrooms.
2.3 The external finish of the dwellings would incorporate natural slate roof, UPVC windows white or anthracite grey, red facing brick, aluminium bifold doors in white or anthracite grey to rear elevation, ashlar style render to bay artstone cills and heads or brick cills. Four roof lights would be installed on all the roof planes, three at the rear and one in front.
2.4 The applicants have provided the following supporting documents: a. Cover Letter and Planning Statement. b. Planning Hydrology Statement prepared by BB Consulting and dated 19 October 2023. c. Replanting plan dated 20 April 2021 which shows the replanting location for new replacement trees. d. Tree Work Application Conditional Licence Correspondence from DEFA Forestry dated 20 April 2021.
3.0 PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 Site Specific: 3.1.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of "Predominantly Residential Use" under the Area Plan for the East (Map 4), and the site is adjacent/near to the Little Switzerland Conservation Area. The site has low likelihood of surface water flood risks. There are no registered trees on site and the site is not within a registered tree area, although it shares a boundary with the Glencrutchery Road Sports Field Registered tree area, with the trees on site forming a congruent unit with the trees within the registered tree area.
==== PAGE 4 ====
23/00942/B Page 4 of 17
3.2 Area: AREA PLAN FOR THE EAST 2020 3.2.1 Given the location of the site and the nature of the proposed development, the following parts of the Area Plan for the East Written Statement are considered relevant:
3.2.1 Section 6.5: Ensuring the efficient use of land and buildings "6.5.1 The density of development should be in keeping with the character of the local area. Higher densities will be more appropriate in the central areas of Douglas, Onchan, Laxey and Union Mills. Much of Douglas' celebrated seafront contains four and five storey hotels and apartment blocks which provide a distinctive visual image of the Capital and a highly practical form of space conscious living for a modern town.
6.5.2 Lower densities may be considered more acceptable in instances where there are site specific constraints, a need to provide additional levels of infrastructure or where the current character or appearance of the area necessitates a development of a lower density.
6.5.3 The subdivision of buildings for residential use can provide an appropriate source of housing and can lead to the more efficient use of existing buildings. Subject to other Strategic Policies, as well as the Proposals in this Plan, particularly in relation to amenity and the design of any alterations to allow the subdivision, such proposals will be supported.
6.5.4 In recent years, the Douglas town centre in particular has lost some of its population. The town effectively empties after the working day. Historically, people lived above the work spaces of shops, offices and workshops in Douglas creating a vibrancy that is perhaps lacking today. This Plan encourages the reintroduction of people living in the mostly vacant floors above the town's shops and offices12. More people living in the town will, it is hoped, create a more vibrant environment which will have a positive impact upon the day time and particularly, the night time economy within the town and will also enable us to respond to changes in new and emerging working patterns."
3.2.2 Section 6.6: Principles of good design 6.6.1 In the Strategic Plan, Strategic Policy 5 states that 'New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island'.
6.6.2 A positive contribution means making places which are attractive and safe areas to live, work and invest in. In order to achieve this, it is essential that detailed design proposals be based around an understanding of constraints and opportunities of the site and that the proposal responds positively to local context, in terms of its scale, form, layout, materials, colouring, fenestration and architectural detailing.
6.6.3 This, in turn, depends on good understanding of the local character of the individual settlements in the East. Local character is defined by the natural and physical features of an area, including its topography, the pattern of streets and public spaces, the street scene, the density of development, the scale and form of buildings and the materials used in construction.
6.6.4 Housing developments have been criticised in recent decades for their uniform and standardised appearance. In order to avoid creating homogeneous and sterile neighbourhoods, developers will be encouraged to incorporate a mix of property types of a varying scale, utilising a range of complementary materials wherever possible.
6.6.6 The layout, orientation and design of buildings can reduce the need for energy consumption by maximising the potential to secure the benefits energy provides e.g. heating, lighting and cooling, through alternative means. Where layout, orientation and design is not constrained or dictated by other factors i.e. by the character of the surrounding area or the juxtaposition of adjacent buildings, applicants for planning approval will be encouraged to
==== PAGE 5 ====
23/00942/B Page 5 of 17
demonstrate how the design of the development has reduced the need for energy consumption.
3.2.3 Urban Environment Proposal 3: "Development proposals must make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Traditional or contemporary approaches may be appropriate, depending upon the nature of the proposal and the context of the surrounding area."
3.3 National: STRATEGIC PLAN (2016) 3.3.1 Relevant Strategic Plan Policies: a. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations. b. Environment Policy 3 - Seeks to prevent unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas. c. Environment Policy 4 - Protects ecology and biodiversity/important habitats. d. Environment Policy 22 - pollution. e. Environment Policy 36 - Assesses impacts of developments outside of, but close to the boundary of a Conservation Areas. f. Environment Policy 42 - new development should be designed to take into account the character and identity of the area. g. Housing Policy 1 - Refers to housing needs which includes enabling 5,100 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2011 to 2026. h. Housing Policy 4 - New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. i. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources. j. Strategic Policy 2 - Priority for new development to identified towns and villages. k. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to respect the character of our towns and villages. l. Strategic Policy 4 - development proposals must protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas. m. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact. n. Strategic Policy 10 - development should promote integrated journeys, minimise car use and facilitate other modes of travel. o. Spatial Policy 5 - new development will be in defined settlements only or in the countryside only in accordance with GP3. p. Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes important for new development. q. Transport Policy 4 - New and existing highways which 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 this plan. r. Transport Policy 7 - Parking considerations/standards for development. s. Energy Policy 5 - require proposals for more than 5 dwellings or 100 square metres of other development to be accompanied by an Energy Impact Assessment. t. Community Policies 7, 10 and 11 provide guidance in respect of minimising criminal activity and reducing spread of fire, while Infrastructure Policy 5 deals with methods for water conservation.
u. Paragraph 7.8.6: "Development which would affect any proposed or other recognised site of conservation value, including areas of ecological interest, will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that: o the proposed development will not compromise the conservation objectives of the site or unacceptably harm its conservation value and its overall integrity; o there is proven public interest where safety or exceptional social or economic considerations outweigh the ecological importance of the site; and o the need for the development cannot be met in other less ecologically damaging locations or by reasonable alternative means.
==== PAGE 6 ====
23/00942/B Page 6 of 17
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Residential Design Guide (2021) 4.1.1 This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.
4.2 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025) 4.2.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.
4.3 The Little Switzerland Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2003) 4.3.1 Section 3.30 to 3.42 (on pages 12 to 16) which deal with Architecture are considered relevant.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 Approval was granted under PA 20/000293/A for Approval in principle for residential development addressing means of access. Within this scheme, the applicant clearly indicated that the intention was to protect the trees on site and as such a development area was defined to limit the current and future development of the site.
5.1.1 Relevant sections of the Planning Statement prepared by Kaz Ryzner Associates and dated February 2022: "2.1 The Site is located on Victoria Road to the north of Douglas town centre and measures approximately 0.86 acres size. The site has direct frontage onto Victoria Road as illustrated on the submitted plans. The southern part of the site has a considerable number of mature trees which have been the subject of a detailed and comprehensive tree survey.
2.2 Plans submitted with the application provide details of a proposed indicative development area which has been identified taking into consideration the details of a comprehensive tree survey produced by Manx Roots Tree Management.
2.3 The proposed indicative development area suggests that any residential development should be limited to the northern part of the site as identified on the Development Area Plan.
2.4 A new vehicular access into the site is proposed directly off Victoria Road at the northern end of the site as illustrated on the submitted plans taking into consideration the need to minimise loss of those mature trees worthy of preservation as identified by Manx Roots Tree Management.
3.3 The indicative development area is the result of the tree survey that has been submitted and will provide ample scope for the residential development of the site.
5.1 In light of the above considerations and information submitted with the planning application, it is recommended that approval be granted for future residential development of the site, the siting of which would be limited to the indicative development area together with detailed approval of the reserved matter of vehicular access. It is requested that the reserved matters relating to siting, design, external appearance and landscaping should be reserved for future approval".
5.1.2 The following Conditions which were imposed on this application are also considered relevant: Approval Conditions: "C4 All built development forming the dwellinghouse, excluding the access and driveway, should be kept within the "minimum development area" (shaded in green) as shown on drawing TR-16119.
==== PAGE 7 ====
23/00942/B Page 7 of 17
Note: The applicant is strongly recommended to discuss any Reserved Matters application with the Planning Directorate prior to submission.
Reason: In order for the dwelling to fit comfortably and unobtrusively into the landscape.
C5 The existing trees marked for retention shall be retained in accordance with the approved details. Any retained tree which within five years of the approved development being occupied or completed (whichever is the later) dies, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced by a similar species, of a size to be first approved in writing by the Department, during the next planting season or in accordance with a programme of replacement to be agreed in writing with the Department.
Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.
C9 The replacement tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the tree planting drawing (MP-11520) and the BS8545:2014 Mitigation Planting Plan (prepared by Manx Roots), submitted in support of the application. The planting shall be carried out in the first planting season following the removal of the existing trees. Any replacement trees which, within a period of 5 years from their planting, die, are removed, or, in the opinion of the Department, become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced as is reasonably practicable or in the next planting season with others of similar size, species and number as originally approved, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: to ensure that replacement tree planting takes place to mitigate the tree removal required to facilitate the development".
5.2 PA 21/01468/B for Erection of 6 detached houses and associated parking is considered to be specifically relevant to the current application. This application was refused at Appeal with elements of the Inspectors report considered to be specifically relevant to the current application. The Inspector Recommended refusal on the following grounds: "The proposed quantum of development, extending across much of the appeal site, in such a way as the proposed design would lack a measured response to the character of the surroundings. The proposed design approach, through the layout, would adversely harm the character and appearance of the street scene. The scheme also lacks clarity on the impact of the proposal on the biodiversity of the appeal site and its linkages with adjacent treed areas. Further, the proposed relationship between the house on Plot 2 and Sunnyside Cottage would unacceptably impact on the living conditions of existing and future neighbouring residents by reason of overlooking and loss of privacy. In this way the terms of IMSP Policies GP2, EP3, EP42, SP3, SP4, SP5 and the RDG would be unacceptably compromised."
5.2.1 The Inspector also noted that the refusal follows the wording of reasons for refusal 2, 3, 4, and 1, although the reference to the density of development is not considered appropriate.
5.2.2 The following paragraphs within the Inspectors report are considered relevant to the current scheme: "Trees/Biodiversity 73. I am also conscious that the defined developable area set out by condition in the approval in principle 20/00293/A, was an area smaller than the appeal site. Tree licence 183/21, which sanctioned the removal of a number of trees in the area of the old air raid shelter, was conditional on the implementation of a mitigating scheme for the loss of the trees, replanting in a defined area on the License plan dated 20 April 2021. This area appears to include land which is now proposed to accommodate Plot 2, 3 and 4. 74. The proposed scheme still includes the mature trees in the southern corner of the appeal site (G1) which link through to the registered tree area just north of the western boundary with the Braddan AFC Clubhouse grounds. In considering the License details along with the site plan
==== PAGE 8 ====
23/00942/B Page 8 of 17
which identifies the trees permitted to be removed, it seems to me that in the demolition of the air raid shelter the permitted tree works of removal have been undertaken. The proposed scheme does include some additional tree planting, but much of this is towards the front of the site and is in mitigation for the loss of the frontage elm trees to facilitate the provision of the pedestrian footway. The planting of the odd cherry tree in each of the rear plots does not compensate for the removal of a significant number of mainly native trees which, along with the trees in G1, would have contributed to the verdant nature of this part of Victoria Road. The planting of the trees required by condition on the tree removal License would, in the main, be concentrated in the corner of the garden of Plot 2. Plot 2 also includes many of the new frontage Field Maple trees. It is likely that overtime residents of this property may experience issues around loss of light, overshadowing and autumn leaf fall which may result in pressure to cut back or remove some of the trees. No clear planting strategy has been provided to explain the location and spread of the mitigating trees across the site. The linkage through from the registered trees on the adjacent football ground, through G1 to the mitigating trees on the appeal site and, in particular, in the green shaded License area, should, in combination, make a significant contribution to the verdant character of Victoria Road. I am not convinced that this is the case, the design and layout of the appeal scheme being the predominant factor in where trees are to be accommodated. 75. The suggestion that the positive benefit of the provision of a footpath across the frontage of the appeal site would outweigh the loss of the trees on the site may have some merit in respect of the frontage trees themselves. The removal of these trees and their replacement with Field Maples was sanctioned by the approval in principle 20/00293/A. Whilst this approval has now lapsed, as a material consideration, I do consider that in respect of this tree removal and replacement alone there is a justification to provide a safe pedestrian refuge for residents wishing to cross the road to the continuous footpath opposite on Victoria Road. However, it does not justify noncompliance with the terms of the License in establishing an area of mitigating planting as detailed in the License, which would be of value to re-establish a visually prominent and continuous tree canopy extending out from G1 and the registered trees beyond, in character with the verdant nature of this part of Victoria Road. 76. Having established that the trees already removed as a result of the License no 183/21 and the Demolition License were appropriately sanctioned, I do not consider it necessary to include them in any assessment of impact on biodiversity. However, it is necessary to consider the mitigation for the loss of those trees, alongside that of the loss of the frontage trees, which, I agree, are likely to provide a refuge for local wildlife particularly birds and bats. This equally applies to the trees in G1 which lie within the appeal site. This is doubly important when considering the relationship of the mitigating tree planting required by the License for tree removal, its linkage with G1 and the registered trees on land to the west, and the way the proposed frontage trees might feed into this. That linkage would provide a green corridor for wildlife and needs to be properly assessed. The Appellant should be encouraged through a required landscaping scheme to include native species of planting which would encourage the biodiversity of the appeal site and should include facilities to encourage and support wildlife in the vicinity. This should also be detailed in the assessment of biodiversity of the appeal site and the mitigating measures required. 77. Therefore, I consider that the appeal proposal by reason of a lack of clarity regarding appropriate mitigation for loss of trees and the resultant impact on biodiversity would diminish the quality of the wider locality and would adversely affect the character of the surrounding townscape as well as the nature conservation value of the site in the wider context."
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DOI Highway Services have made the following comments regarding the application: 6.1.1 Comments received 12 September 2023: o Highways accept the internal arrangements of the proposal, however the connection to the existing highway does not match that which was previously accepted, and has omitted
==== PAGE 9 ====
23/00942/B Page 9 of 17
Dropped crossing provision to the north and south of the proposed access in order to allow pedestrians to access the continuous footpath on the east side of Victoria road. o Highways also require the re-submission of the Road Safety Audit prepared for the scheme. If the differences of the proposals (PA 21/01468/B and PA 23/00942/B) highlighted above are fundamental design changes, then a new road safety audit will be required."
6.1.2 Comments received 05 April 2024: o The revised plans submitted different visibility distances in order to assess the compromise between acceptable visibility and tree retention. The previously proposed 2.4m x 45m in each direction already benefitted from relaxation of 0.5m offset at the extents of the visibility splays. Highways can accept no further relaxation of the visibility splays further to this. Victoria Road is well trafficked, designated as a district route and there has been no indication that 85th percentile speeds are below the marked 30mph. o As a result, Highways DC will insist that the full 2.4m x 43m minimum requirement is met (currently 2.4m x 45m), and free from obstruction.
6.2 DOI Highways Drainage have stated that allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. They advise the applicant to be aware of and ensure compliance with the two clauses above (26 October 2023/30 January 2024).
6.3 DOI Flood Risk Management Division have made the following comments regarding the application: 6.3.1 Comments received 4 September 2023: o This property suffers from surface water flooding from the adjacent field. Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 section 7.12.3 - Flood Risk Assessments must accompany any planning application for development where there is a potential risk of flooding.
6.3.2 Comments received 5 February 2024:
o Condition the FRA and in relation to part 3.5 we would ask that it is conditioned that the land to the rear of the properties Sunnyside Cottage and Ballawana (marked in light blue on the below map) is maintained and the currently silted up field drain ditch is cleared and that this flows to an adequate receiver without impacting the mentioned properties.
6.4 DEFA Forestry have made the following comments regarding the application: 6.4.1 Comments received 2 February 2024: They note that these comments are being provided in accordance with Part 3 of the Directorate's Tree Protection Policy (v2.0, Dec 2021), a copy of which is available online, whilst advising that the lime trees immediately adjacent to the Victoria Road have been registered under the Tree Preservation Act (2 February 2024).
6.4.2 Comments received 19 March 2024: o They note that Highway comments which would require all trees but the two southernmost along the site frontage to be removed seems fairly conclusive on matters related to required highway standards for the access. o The refer to the previous approvals for the removal of these trees, and point to the fact that three consultations that have since been made for this site which object to the removal of
==== PAGE 10 ====
23/00942/B Page 10 of 17
these trees and explain that the context of the site has changed considerably since the initial approval was granted. o They state that if the applicant is concerned about the risk posed by the trees to the boundary wall, the applicant can seek a structural assessment and follow the recommendations accordingly, whilst stating that they would consider any evidence provided that involves the trees. o They note that should the planning officer decide the removal of the lime trees is acceptable, on the basis that their retention period is limited, then they would like to draw attention to other grounds for objection:
6.4.3 In response to the comments made by DEFA Forestry, the applicants have made the following comments (4 April 2024): o The trees to the north that DEFA Forestry wants retained are causing damage to the existing wall to Leyton and the front boundary wall. o This is untenable and their removal has been previously approved. o Safety is paramount and in my opinion the trees are certainly not worthy of being registered. o Replacement trees have also been proposed. o Sight lines are a safety concern both for the existing access to the site and the proposed scheme. This should surely take precedence.
6.5 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team have made the following comments regarding the application: 6.5.1 Consultation dated 3 October 2023: o The Ecosystem Policy Team currently object to these proposals due to the lack of information and often confusing information supplied with this application. o There is a replanting plan provided with this application which shows a large green square in the middle of the site which is referred to as a replanting location, but this is not accompanied by any other information detailing what is being replanted here, also this replanting area overlaps with plot 3 and 4. o The only plan showing tree removal is the Proposed Site Plan, but this doesn't make it overly clear what trees are to be removed and which are to be retained. o They state that the Manx Roots Tree Data Table dated June 2021 does not adequately reflect the tree removal plans for the site and request that a new survey is required. o They state that there is nothing on the Site Plan to say what the following green area is. o They question if the hedge on the western boundary is a new hedge, or a hedge that is to be retained, and request that if a new hedge is being planted, species need to be stated. o They request that a tree removal map alongside a key, and a landscaping plan is provided prior to determination of this application which answers the questions raised on the site. o They note that the applicants have included information about the treatment of Japanese Knotweed in the Cover Letter, but feel this is incomplete, as it does not state specifically whether Japanese knotweed will be treated annually and monitored until it is eradicated and only after this can the heras fencing be removed.
==== PAGE 11 ====
23/00942/B Page 11 of 17
o They state that the site area with Japanese knotweed must entirely avoided during construction and so this should be stated as well. o They refer to the conditions suggested for PA 21/01468/B for the site.
6.5.2 Consultation dated 3 October 2023: o They note that the previous questions and concerns raised in their response dated 3rd October 2024, have not been addressed by the new information submitted.
6.6 Manx National Heritage have made the following comments on the application: 6.6.1 Comments received 22 September 2023: o They state that they do not feel that there is adequate information covering the environmental impact to the ecology of the site. o There is no preliminary environmental impact assessment (PEA) of the site and the tree replanting plan does not specify where the re planting will take place except for a green square on a plan. o They state that as the previous, 2021 (21/01468/B) application was rejected, in part due to the loss of mature broad leaved trees, they do not feel that this issue has been adequately addressed in the new, down scaled 2023 application. o They state that they would like to see a PEA accompany this application, and the applicant also needs to demonstrate how the root systems of the trees, which are to be retained, are going to be protected during the construction phase.
6.6.2 Comments received 1 November 2023: o They note that the additional documents included with the re-advertising of this application do not include an ecological assessment or a description of trees to be felled and hedges to be removed. o They note that there is no mitigation planned, in this application, except for a green square which does not inform of planting, species to be planted, habitat to be created or anything else. o They state that they are not convinced that this application has adequately addressed the issues that led to the refusal of the previous application under PA 21/01468/B.
6.8 Douglas Borough Council have stated that they have no objections (13 October 2023/10 November 2023/27 march 2024).
6.9 The owners/occupiers of the following properties have made comments on the application: o 2 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey (31 October 2023/10 March 2024); o Sunnyside Cottage, Victoria Road, Douglas (4 September 2023/13 March 2024); o La Paz, Lucerne Court, Douglas (26 September 2023); o Inglewood, Little Switzerland, Douglas (29 September 2023); o 29 Ballanard Road, Douglas (4 October 2023).
6.9.1 The comments relate to the following issues: o Concern for impacts on the setting of the adjacent property Leyton, which has now been entered onto the list of Registered Buildings (RB339), in terms of impacts on its boundary walls which are proposed to be altered and tree felling. o Impact on privacy. o Impacts on the site character due to the demolition of the former air raid shelter. o Non-placement of site notice. o Traffic concerns for the area and increased potential for highway safety conflicts. o The ground is green belt and shouldn't be developed. o Overdevelopment of site. o Unsafe pedestrian access. o Failure to replant trees, and a lack of clarity regarding appropriate mitigation for loss of trees and the resultant impact on biodiversity.
==== PAGE 12 ====
23/00942/B Page 12 of 17
o Design and positioning of houses close to each other and away from the highway is in conflict with general character of area. o They refer to the role the trees along the site frontage play in preserving the character of the area as identified in Paragraph 3.35 of the Little Switzerland Conservation Area Character Appraisal.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 It has already been established that the principle of developing the site for residential purposes would be acceptable, given the designation of the site, its proximity to public transport corridors within Douglas, the established residential use of the immediate area, and the potential to optimise the use of a previously developed land.
7.2 There remains concern with the principle of developing large areas of the site relative to that which was considered acceptable as the defined development area under PA 20/00273/A, in order to ensure protection of trees and the adjacent woodland, and this is to be addressed further in the report. Therefore, the fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the application are: a. The Visual Impact; b. Impact on Trees; c. Impact on Biodiversity; d. Impact on highway safety; and e. Impact on Neighbouring Amenity; and f. Potential Flood concerns.
7.3 THE POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE AREA (GP 2, EP 42, STP4 & STP 5) 7.3.1 With regard to the impact of the proposed development on the visual amenities of the area, it is considered that the removal of the previously proposed dwellings at Plots 1 and 2, which were laid out to be side facing, partly addresses the first reason for refusal at appeal, as all the buildings now proposed would be front facing to reflect the dominant building orientation on this side of Victoria Road. This change also addresses the concerns with the quantum of built development, which extended across the site, and was judged to lack a measured response to the character of the surrounding.
7.3.2 Notwithstanding the fact that the scheme addresses the layout concerns and quantum of built development on site, the current scheme does not make provision for the restoration of tree planting on site, which was described by the Appeal Inspector under PA 21/01468/B to have a verdant nature, as the inspector noted that "The northern end of Victoria Road is characterised by mature trees and hedges along its roadside edge including small woodland groups which give a verdant nature to the street scene." In fact, a section of the first reason for refusal which relates to biodiversity of trees states thus: "The scheme also lacks clarity on the impact of the proposal on the biodiversity of the appeal site and its linkages with adjacent treed areas". The Appeal Inspector, in dealing with this matter which has create potential to impact on the character of the area stated the following within Paragraph 74: "No clear planting strategy has been provided to explain the location and spread of the mitigating trees across the site. The linkage through from the registered trees on the adjacent football ground, through G1 to the mitigating trees on the appeal site and, in particular, in the green shaded License area, should, in combination, make a significant contribution to the verdant character of Victoria Road. I am not convinced that this is the case, the design and layout of the appeal scheme being the predominant factor in where trees are to be accommodated." Yet, the current proposal still does not have a clear approach to addressing these concerns, which points to a lack of consideration of the contents of the Inspectors report and Appeal Decision Letter.
==== PAGE 13 ====
23/00942/B Page 13 of 17
7.3.3 It should be noted that the current proposal still does not address the concerns with the loss of the verdant nature of this site which contributes to the general character of this part of Victoria Road and serves to define the townscape character, given that there has been no considerable change in terms of proposed tree planting within the site area when compared to the site layout under PA 21/01468/B, despite the proposal removing buildings 1 and 2.
7.3.4 Granting an argument could be made that the trees planted within the scheme addresses the number of trees required by a Tree licence, it would be vital to note that the assessment of impacts goes beyond the requirements of a tree licence (which is controlled by another legislation), and as such Planning would need to be satisfied that the tree planting provided within this scheme would be sufficient to provide an acceptable level of mitigation in terms of new tree cover for the site area, adequate to provide sufficient restoration of the verdant nature of the site. On this basis, Strategic Policy 4 (b) requires proposals for development to protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas, especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations, such as the proposed site which adjoins and has tree links to the Glencrutchery Road Sports Field Registered Tree Area (DG 22), with the trees on site forming a congruent unit with this registered tree area. This development would not preserve the current status or enhance this area, but result in further depreciation of the quality and character of this area, and this fails Strategic Policy 4(b).
7.3.5 Likewise, the lack of a clear plan to at least reinstate part of the verdant character of the site and area (which only excluded the proposed development area under PA 20/00293/A), as evidenced in the submitted plans would conflict with the principles of Strategic Policy 5 which requires that new development is designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the island. Whilst an argument could be made the Strategic Policy 5 refers mainly to design of buildings, the proceeding texts within Paragraph 4.3.11 sets out the core elements of Strategic Policy 5 by refereeing to building designs, whilst also requiring that the landscape context is integral to design by reiterating the need to take into account the landscape context and the impact on the amenities of the area in which development are sited. Besides, the reference to 'environment of the island' within Strategic Policy 5 can be adjudged to include every element of the natural/man-made environment.
7.3.6 Given the above, and as the development proposed would result in further decline in the general character of the landscape or wider environment, whose context and particular character is defined by the mature landscaping and trees which create the verdant nature here, and not take into consideration the dictates of the previous Appeal decision under PA 21/01468/B, it is considered that the proposal would result in adverse impacts on the character of the site and townscape, contrary to General Policy 2 (c and f),Strategic Policy 4 (b), Strategic Policy 5, and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan.
7.4 IMPACT ON TREES (GP 2 & EP 3) 7.4.1 In terms of impacts on trees, it is considered that the scheme as proposed would conflict with the Tree licence 183/21, which sanctioned the removal of a number of trees in the area of the old air raid shelter, and was conditional on the implementation of a mitigating scheme for the loss of the trees, replanting in a defined area on the License plan dated 20 April 2021. This replanting area which is depicted on the Replanting Plan (Drawing No. 183/21) submitted in support of the application covers large parts of the site area and proposed building footprint for Plot 3 and 4, and as such would prejudice the goals of the proposed tree replanting associated with the licence.
7.4.2 A review of the proposed site layout would show that two Cherry Trees are proposed for Plots 3 and 4 (one on each plot), with an additional 7 trees planted within the eastern section which previously housed Plot 2 under PA 21/01468/B, and this is not considered sufficient to account for the significant tree loss within the site, particularly as the replanting scheme does not respect the provisions of the tree licence granted for the site, and as no clear
==== PAGE 14 ====
23/00942/B Page 14 of 17
planting strategy has been provided to explain the location and spread of the mitigating trees across the site or why the licence is not adhered to. It should be noted that the licence was accepted by the applicant, hence, it is being submitted as supporting documentation for the application, yet its conditions have been deliberately ignored within the current scheme, with no explanation given as to why it has been ignored or how the new tree planting scheme adequately deals with the concerns the tree licence sought to address.
7.4.3 Thus, the non-compliance with the terms of the License in establishing an area of mitigating planting as detailed in the License (Tree licence 183/21) which preceded the proposed development, and which would have facilitated the re-establishment of a visually prominent and continuous tree canopy extending out from the site into the registered tree area beyond, is sufficient reason to refuse the proposed development.
7.4.4 The concern with the proposed tree planting is further exacerbated by the fact that there is no indication within the submitted documents that the applicant seeks to restore the canopy cover within the site or provide a tree cover that would be judged to sufficiently address the tree loss at the site, given that the evidence provided in the proposed tree planting detailed on the Proposed Site Plan, which is the only document showing how tree planting would be effected on site, in terms of tree species, density and location, is devoid of the required tree planting that would contribute to achieving a semblance of the tree canopy cover that served to characterise this part of Victoria Road as being verdant.
7.4.5 It is also noted that Plot 3 would be situated considerably close to the retained trees situated southwest of this Plot, due to increased pressures in the future to create the required amenity for the occupants of the new dwelling which would have an overbearing feel from the trees which would be about 6 to 7m tall, and sit so close to their property (about 2m), and this would be at variance with the goals of EP3 which seek to prevent unacceptable loss to or damage to woodland areas which have public amenity/conservation value.
7.4.6 Despite the concerns raised in the most recent DEFA Arboriculture consultation (dated 19 March 2024) on the site that the tree losses for the site amounts to about 50 percent reduction in the current canopy cover for the entire site, with potential for further removal as a result of the development, no alterations have been made to the site layout nor has a revised replanting scheme ben submitted to address the tree concerns for the site. It should be noted that the advice from DEFA forestry clearly detailed the lack of provision within the scheme to address the conflict between the proposed development and tree preservation/restoration for the site, whilst noting that the proposal will likely lead to a permanent reduction in canopy cover on the site, as well as a significant and permanent reduction in the size of the urban wooded copse, and this indicates that there would be a further decline in tree cover, rather than a preservation of the current situation or an improvement over the existing.
7.4.7 Given the importance of the trees in maintaining the character of the area, in addition to maintaining the identity of this part of Douglas whose character is defined by matures trees which line the boundaries of the properties and highway, and the requirements within Environment Policy 3 which stipulates that development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value, it is considered that the current scheme would be contrary to the principles advocated by Environment Policies 3 and General Policy 2 (f).
7.5 POTENTIAL IIMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY (EP 4, 5 & GP 2) 7.5.1 In terms of the ecological impacts of the proposed development, it is considered that the potential impacts upon biodiversity of the site has a direct relationship with the tree loss on site as the established flora on site are likely to provide a refuge for local wildlife particularly birds and bats. This is hinged on the fact that the trees on site, which have established links with the adjacent registered tree area, and the mature landscaping along the northern,
==== PAGE 15 ====
23/00942/B Page 15 of 17
western, and southern boundaries of the site, provide potential habitat for local species which exist in the area.
7.5.2 The interrelationship between tree loss and biodiversity on site was identified as a key concern for the site when the Appeal Inspector for PA 21/01468/B stated that it is important when considering the relationship of the mitigating tree planting for the site, the role of the linkages between the southern part of the site, and the registered trees on land to the west, as well as how the proposed trees would feed into this should be properly assessed, as the linkage would provide a green corridor for wildlife. Notwithstanding the request by the Inspector that these conflicts be addressed for the site, no ecological information has been provided with the current application to show that the conflict with biodiversity have been considered within the current proposal, save for the information provided in the Cover Letter to treat Japanese Knotweed, which only addresses a miniscule element of the sites biodiversity.
7.5.3 Accordingly, it is considered that it is still unclear how appropriate mitigation for the biodiversity loss could be achieved on the site, given that insufficient information has been provided to clearly explain how mitigation for biodiversity loss would be provided within the current scheme.
7.5.4 Therefore, it is considered that the proposal by reason of a lack of clarity regarding appropriate mitigation for loss of trees and the resultant impact on biodiversity, would diminish the quality of the wider locality and would adversely affect the nature conservation value of the site in the wider context. It is, therefore, considered that the development as proposed would fail to comply with the requirements of Environment Policies 4 and 5, and General Policy 2 (d) of the Strategic Plan.
7.6 IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY (GP 2h & I & TP 4) 7.6.1 In assessing the potential impacts on highway safety, it is considered that the proposed site entrance visibility provides for a reduction in access visibility over that previously proposed for the site, which was judged to already benefit from relaxation of 0.5m offset at the extents of the visibility splays, with DOI Highways insisting that they would not accept any further relaxation of the visibility splays further to this site, as Victoria Road is well trafficked, designated as a district route, and as there has been no indication that 85th percentile speeds are below the marked 30mph. Therefore, given that there has been no revisions of the proposed visibility splay to correct these anomalies with the proposed site visibility, it is considered that the potential for increased highway conflicts would result with the proposal.
7.6.2 It is vital to note that the increased intensity of use of the new access over the existing situation would also serve to further exacerbate the chances for harm associated with this access to increase, as the four new residential curtilages and their associated vehicular needs would considerably intensity the use of this access which would be unsafe and increase the possibility for incidents to occur. The concerns with the poor visibility at this part of Victoria Road was observed during the site visit where it was difficult to exit the site on foot, a condition that would be exacerbated when vehicles exit the site given that a drivers exit position would be set further back than a pedestrian; a condition that would not be helped by the intensified use from the proposed four dwellings which would support larger occupancy levels being that they would all be five bedroom dwellings.
7.6.3 Given the factors highlighted above, it is judged that scheme as proposed holds the potential to increase highway safety conflicts along this part of Victoria road, which support a high vehicular traffic and at average speeds on 30 miles per hour, and as such would be contrary to the terms of General Policy 2 (h and i) and Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.
7.7 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES (GP 2g & RDG 2021) 7.7.1 In assessing the impact of the proposed development, the key concern relates to the potential for overlooking of neighbouring properties, particularly for the rear garden of
==== PAGE 16 ====
23/00942/B Page 16 of 17
Sunnyside Cottage which would sits just 14m from the first and second floor windows proposed for the bedrooms on the right side of Plot 3. This impact would be particularly significant form the proposed second floor window which would have its base set at about 6.2m above the ground level, which the human eye from this window having elevated view from at least 6.7m, such that there would be clear views into this neighbouring rear garden over the fence on this boundary. The fact that there are two large trees and a shrub along this boundary would serve to reduce the levels of overlooking. However, views where still achievable of the application site from this rear garden during a site visit on 3 October 2023 through these trees. As such, it is considered that an elevated position would offer considerably more impacting views over the neighbouring rear garden. Besides, this potential for overlooking would be exacerbated during the autumn and winter months when the leaves on the trees would be significantly reduced. Therefore, the scheme as proposed holds the potential to significantly impact on the amenity of Sunnyside, when using their rear garden, and which is the only garden area available to this property. 7.7.2 The fact that new trees are proposed for this boundary are noted and would serve to diminish the potential for overlooking when fully grown. However, it must be considered that tree take several years to be fully grown to an extent that would provide sufficient screening.
7.7.3 It has also been noted that there exists the potential for direct overlooking of part of rear garden of Leyton to the north due to the orientation of Plot 6 which allows views form second floor bedroom windows into the garden of this neighbouring property. This impact could be significant depending on the use of this part of the rear garden which currently houses the shed and garage on this neighbouring site.
7.7.4 Overall, whilst Plots 4 and 5 would not result in adverse impacts on neighbours, the proximity and position of windows on Plot 3 relative to the rear garden of Sunny Cottage to the south, as well as the rear windows on Plot 6 relative to the garden area for Plot 6 would result in adverse impacts in terms of overlooking. The degree or intensity of impacts for Leyton would, however, be diminished due to the area of the garden impacted, although this impact remains. As such, it is considered that these elements of the scheme would be contrary to those sections of General Policy 2(g) and the Residential Design Guide 2021, and as such weigh considerably against the proposal.
7.8 FLOOD CONCERNS (EP 10, EP 13 & GP 2) 7.8.1 In terms of flood risks associated with the development, the site is considered to be within an area classed as having low likelihood of flood risks. However, the advice from DOI Flood Risk Management notes that the property suffers from surface water flooding from the adjacent field. As such there exists potential for flood impacts on the new dwellings from the flood flows from the adjacent field, as well as the potential for the development to intensify such flood impacts, as a result of the new hard surfacing areas proposed for the site, and this may have implications for the neighbouring properties 'Sunny Cottage' and 'Ballawana' to the south, particularly as these properties sit lower than the site level for the application site.
7.3.2 Notwithstanding the above factors which weigh against the proposal, the applicants have provided a Hydrology Statement which provides details of works that would be carried out on site to ensure that the site drains property without creating any flood impacts for the site and area. This document has been reviewed by DOI FRM who have reviewed and accepted the submissions within this document, whilst requesting that requesting that the document be conditioned. Based on the foregoing, it is not considered that there would be sufficient risk of flooding to the residential use of the site or adjacent properties to such as extent that would warrant refusal of the proposal.
7.8 OTHER MATTERS 7.8.1 No other concerns have been noted.
8.0 CONCLUSION
==== PAGE 17 ====
23/00942/B Page 17 of 17
8.1 Overall, it is considered that whilst the current proposal has addressed previous concerns with the quantum of development at the site, with the flood impacts of the scheme also considered acceptable, the unacceptable highway safety impacts, the lack of clarity on the impact of the proposal on the biodiversity of the appeal site and its linkages with adjacent treed areas, as well as the lack of clarity regarding appropriate mitigation for loss of trees on site, and the resulting impacts of tree loss on the character and appearance of the street scene, and this part of Victoria Road defined by the mature wooded copse which stretches into the adjacent registered tree area, would result in significant adverse impacts on the site and surrounding area. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to the terms of the following Isle of Man Strategic Plan Policies, General Policy 2 (b, c & f), Environment Policies 3 and 42, Strategic Policies 3, 4 and 5, and the relevant sections of the Residential Design Guide 2021.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
9.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status
9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Acting Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made: Refused
Date: 03.10.2024
Determining officer
Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan Acting Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal