Officer Report

Application No.: 15/00552/A Applicant: Port St Mary Commissioners Proposal: Approval in principle for a residential development with associated car park, addressing siting, means of access and landscaping Site Address: Land Adjacent To And Chapel Gate Car Park Bay View Road Port St. Mary Isle Of Man Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 30.07.2015 Site Visit: 03.06.2015 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE LEVEL OF CORRESPONDENCE WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED

THE SITE

1.1 The site is a piece of land which lies between Cronk Road and Bay View Road in Port St. Mary and between the Church hall and New Baptist Church and associated car park. The site is accessed via a 2.8m wide lane off Bay View Road. The lane passes across a roughly finished existing car park which can accommodate around 25 vehicles and then rises up by 6m across 28m to Cronk Road. The houses to the west on Cronk Road - 1 and 2, Bay View Villas and Fairview and Concord which are two and a half and two storey properties respectively, all of which sit half a storey above ground level in front of the houses which itself is elevated above the road level. - 1.2 The plot has a number of trees on it, mainly concentrated in the southern half and on the southern boundary. There is a gap in the wall, formed specifically to allow access and there is

• a worn path in the grass down to the lower level.

1.3 Cronk Road has built development abutting the eastern side at the ends of Victoria Road and Gellings Avenue but after Chapel Court flats, the car park for which abuts this site, there are relatively few buildings abutting Cronk Road which project above the roadside wall, before one gets to some garages on Lhargan which serve properties which front onto Bay View Road. - 1.4 The view across this site of Cronk Road towards the sea is impeded by the existing trees and on this site where there are no trees, little of the sea or bay can be seen above the roofs of the properties fronting onto Bay View Road. - 1.5 To the immediate north of the site is Wavecrest Cottage, a land-locked property which has no amenity space outwith the footprint of the property. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is the principle of residential development of the site. Two potential schemes are shown - one for four dwellings facing south east and stepping down the site and the other six apartments. Both schemes cover a similar amount of ground and are located in the same

• position in respect of the existing trees, both having a pedestrian footpath from Cronk Road through the site to Bay View Road; this will be available for public use. Both schemes involve the loss of a number of trees which lie in the northern half of the site and both involve the introduction of retaining walls at the top, bottom and alongside the new footpath. The land to the south of the new path will be retained as public open space with a path meandering through the trees. 17 car parking spaces will be retained as public spaces and spaces to the north of the access will be provided for the occupants of the new dwellings (2 per unit).
• 2.2 Sectional information has been provided which demonstrates the likely profile of the buildings relative to Cronk Road. The apartments scheme is higher and has its ridge level with the first floor of 1 and 2, Bay View Villas.
• 2.3 The application is for the principle of the development of the site, deciding the access, siting and landscaping although whilst the plans do show the position of a 2.4m high protective fence, the proposed footpath encroaches into this area and whilst the application suggests that Cellweb or a similar protective matting will be used as protection for the roots in that area, the introduction of the steps may well involve excavation and changes in level which such systems could not accommodate satisfactorily on their own. 17 trees are to be removed as part of the application with 17 more planted as mitigation, mainly along the northern boundary with the car park and within the existing car park area.
• 2.4 Port St. Mary Commissioners consider that there is a need for public sector housing in the village with little opportunity to provide such and with a specific current demand for one and two bed units as family sizes have reduced and there is a larger proportion of single people on the local authority waiting lists than any other type. The Commissioners' waiting list confirms this as of the 16 applicants, 6 are awaiting one bed properties, 9 for two bed units and only one family needs a three bed house. Their current supply is 58 three bed units, 51 two bed and only 13 one bed units. Older residents are remaining in their properties for longer due to better provision of care and as such are not releasing their properties as frequently and with fewer smaller units there are fewer opportunities for existing tenants to downsize. No affordable housing has been provided within Port St. Mary since the 1990s.
• 2.5 In order to improve visibility for drivers emerging from the site onto Bay View Road the Commissioners intend to suspend on street bay parking 30m either side of the junction. PLANNING STATUS

3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as Mixed Use with the lower area identified as car park. The site also lies within a much larger area which is identified for consideration as a Conservation Area. The use proposed would be compatible with that and as such the general standards of development set out in General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan are applicable as follows:

"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:

• b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them;
• c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;

• e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;

• h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• i) does not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The lower part of the site was approved for use as a car park under PA 93/01246/B. A recent application for the principle of the development of the site was submitted but withdrawn prior to a decision being taken (PA13/00611/A). REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Forestry hope that a detailed arboricultural method statement (AMS) provided by a qualified arboriculturalist at the detailed application stage (29.05.15). They confirm that no works - excavation, mounding of soil, parking of vehicles or storage of material, should be undertaken which would adversely affect the retained trees in the southern part of the site and the AMS must be able to demonstrate that this can be achieved as well as the introduction of a path within the wooded area which could cause compaction and damage to the trees. The Statement must demonstrate how heavy machinery will be excluded from the wooded area. DEFA would prefer that there is no path within the wooded area. The Statement should also include a timetable for when the works may be inspected. Replanting in the north should take the form of shrubs and small trees as if the trees grow too large there may be potential issues of shadowing, leaf drop and maintenance. They strongly recommend the applicant to engage the services of a professionally qualified arboriculturalist to provide a comprehensive tree protection plan of which there are some on Island.

5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services comment that the existing site is a car park served by a substandard access in terms of width, pedestrian provision and visibility. The proposal is to replace approximately 10-13 sub-standard parking spaces with residential development with a maximum of 12 parking spaces and leave 17 public car parking spaces. The existing public car park will generate both vehicle and pedestrian traffic at various rates throughout the day with all access and egress via the existing lane. The number of car parking spaces for the apartments will be roughly equivalent to the loss of public car parking although there is likely to be a higher number of vehicle movements associated with the residential parking at peak times. The lower number of parking spaces associated with the houses will help to offset this increase.

Both proposals include a pedestrian route through the site linking Cronk Road with Bay View Road, while this is beneficial as it provides an alternative pedestrian access it is also likely to lead to an increase in pedestrian movement in the existing lane due to the new through route. It is recommended that lighting is provided along this route to ensure that pedestrians are visible at all times.

This application is finely balanced and Highways would prefer to see a reduction in the total number of parking spaces rather than the status quo or an increase due to the changes in the pattern of vehicle movements and the increased pedestrian use of the access lane.

The proposal to remove on-road parking is subject to public consultation via legislation outwith the planning process and should not be relied upon by the applicant; parked vehicles are not normally considered when establishing visibility as they are viewed as transient obstacles (14.07.15).

If the application is to be approved the following conditions should be attached:

• 1. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the car parking and manoeuvring space shall be provided and remain free from obstruction and available for the parking of vehicles in association with the dwelling thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the car parking standards are adhered to and limited use of the public car park by residential vehicles.

• 2. Any application for reserved matters shall include details of a lighting scheme to ensure the proposed path and existing access lane are suitably lit. Reason: In the interest of pedestrian safety
• 3. Any application for reserved matters shall include a transport statement showing by evidence that the proposal will not result in an intensification of use of the access lane by vehicles so as to cause a danger to existing highway users. Reason: In the interests of highway safety, in particular within the access lane.
• 4. The proposed path shall be suitable for ambulant disabled access in accordance with BS 8300:2010 as far as is practicable. Reason: to ensure that the path is available for as many pedestrians as possible.
• 5.3 Objections have been received from a number of local residents and from people who live further afield, either as individual submissions or as part of two letters which have been signed by multiple parties. In terms of individual representations, the following have expressed concern:

• i) The owner of 8, The Lhargan which lies 44m to the south of the site, is concerned that there is no need for the dwellings as there are properties lying empty within the village. She also considers that it would be more beneficial to the village to retain the existing area for parking rather than building upon it and creating more demand for parking spaces (18.06.15).
• ii) The owner of 4, Seafield Avenue, Port St. Mary which lies 500m to the south of the site, is concerned about the position of the site notice, highway issues which need considering to ensure that the village continues to be a thriving community and particularly highway safety in the area around Chapel gate and Bay View Road, considering that Bay View Road is the principal route in and out of the village. She asks whether there has been any archaeological investigation of the site as there could be remains of the villages historic past connected to St. Marys Church and the burial ground of Ballabrara and remains have been found within the area known as Chapel Gate. She queries how many spaces will be lost as a result of the proposal and wonders whether the development is fully accessible by the emergency services. She wonders whether there are other sites which the Commissioners could be considering for development in less congested parts of the village (18.06.15).

• ii) The owner of Mount Pleasant, The Lhargan which lies 54m to the south of the site is concerned that the area is already very congested and finding a parking space is often very difficult. She has seen how difficult things can be when new developments are undertaken, following the construction of the two new houses to the rear of the police station and also when Bay View Road is unavailable for any reason (there have been land slips in the past) The Lhargan and Cronk Road are the alternatives for all traffic to get in and out of the lower part of the village. She is not convinced of the need to build on this land given the number of properties in the area which are for sale and she thinks that it would be more beneficial for the village to have an improved car park on the site than more housing (23.06.15).

• iii) The owners of 3, Viking Close, Ballakillowey which is some distance from the site, but the authors are regular visitors to the village as their children use the primary and pre-school facilities there and for other purposes, are concerned at the loss of green space within the village together with the loss of trees on the site. The provision and retention of green spaces within built up areas offer better air quality, increased noise reduction and a general sense of tranquility and wellbeing. The replacement of existing mature trees with smaller specimens will not have the same impact. They are concerned that the proposal will result in a loss of car parking spaces and disputes that the car park only accommodates 15 spaces at present (they suggest it accommodates closer to 28 vehicles). The result of this will be an increase in parking on the adjacent highways and a shortage of spaces for those using the village shops and services and increasing dangers to pedestrians and cyclists. They do not accept that there should be more public sector housing in the village nor a need for more open market properties given the number currently unoccupied or for sale (18.06.15).
• iv) The owner of 1, Bay View Villas expresses concern at the position of the site notice, the

• loss of parking, which is more than as stated in the application as there can be at least 28 vehicles parked there. Parking is an issue for the village (18.06.15).

v) Rushen Parochial Church Council objects to the application on the basis that the loss of parking will adversely affect the use of St. Mary's Church and the associated church hall. The church has developed a range of services and functions which attract a lot of people, some of whom have limited mobility and who find the existing car park very useful. When there are weddings, funerals or other large events there can be up to 100 people many of whom will struggle to find a car parking space. The proposal will result in a loss of car parking spaces, more than is suggested in the application. If the number of people using the church falls, so will the income which goes to the maintenance of the church facilities. They note that access is narrow and emergency vehicles would find it difficult to get to the proposed building. They question whether people will want to live on the site, which is surrounded by other buildings and feel that there must be other alternatives for affordable housing within the village.

5.4 Two petitions were submitted which are identical in content, both received on 9th July 2015 and which express concern about the loss of parking and the impact that would have on the village and the proposed pedestrian gate onto Cronk Road would further exacerbate problems in the Cronk Road area. They feel that the application is misleading in that it underestimates the number of spaces which will be reduced - they consider 15 spaces will be

lost and this car park is useful to the village, the church and local businesses. The reduction in parking will also put additional pressure on the adjacent highways. They consider that the site could be better used to provide additional parking which will be needed if the village becomes a more popular destination for tourists. They consider that the pedestrian gate onto Cronk Road will provide an additional road safety hazard given the narrowness of the road. They disagree that the trees to be removed are "stems" and consider their loss would be detrimental to the amenities of the village and for future generations of residents and visitors. They also consider that the proposed buildings will have an imposing impact on Cronk Road and could raise issues of light and privacy for the existing properties there. They are not assured that the housing is for public sector tenants nor any guarantee that the housing would be "affordable". As there is only one development site in Port St. Mary, and the Area Plan states that the provisions in the plan for planning approvals already granted and the proposed development sites should make adequate provision for the future housing demand, they question whether there is a need for further housing on this site.

5.5 These petitions were signed by owners of the following properties. Those in capital letters are considered to be close enough to the site to be afforded interested person status: Un-numbered property in Linden Avenue ST. MARY'S CHURCH an unnamed property in Fistard

Colloway, Clifton Road North, Port St. Mary

• 10, Fairway Drive, Port Erin
• 11, Creggan Mooar, Port St. Mary 35, Croit-ny Glionney, Colby BALLAMONA, BAY VIEW ROAD, PORT ST. MARY

• 7, Ballakeyll, Colby Porthaven, Fistard, Port St. Mary Carosel, Castletown Road

12, Cooil Veg, Port St. Mary 28, Port St. Mary Promenade

• 8, Snaefell House, Port Erin Berwyn, Beach Road, Port St. Mary Windy Rig, Clifton Road, Port St. Mary Lhagagh, Colby Inglebrae, Howe Road, Port St. Mary Athol Lodge, Fistard, Port St. Mary 120, Ballacriy Park, Colby 14, Lhag Mooar, Port Erin Fois Fraon, Fistard Road, Port St. Mary The Parish of Rushen Elysian, Linden Avenue, Port St. Mary 25, Rhenwyllan Close, Port St. Mary Seamount, Fistard, Port St. Mary 10, Fairway Close, Port Erin 51, Ballamaddrell, Port Erin Cornaa, The Promenade, Port St. Mary FAIRVIEW, CRONK ROAD, PORT ST MARY

- 1, BAY VIEW VILLAS, PORT ST. MARY - 2, BAY VIEW VILLAS, PORT ST. MARY

• 6, CARRICK MEWS, PORT ST. MARY 1, 2 and 3, LIGHTHOUSE BUILDING AND "LIGHTHOUSE BUILDINGS", BAY VIEW ROAD, PORT ST. MARY 23, BAY VIEW ROAD, PORT ST. MARY 12, PRIMROSE TERRACE, PORT ST. MARY and CONCORD, CRONK ROAD, PORT ST. MARY

5.6 Manx Utilities Authority seeks consultation regarding the provision of electricity to the development (29.05.15). This is not a material planning consideration. ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The issues in this case are whether the principle of development of the site for residential purposes, on the scale of that shown in the illustrative plans would have an adverse impact on: highway safety car parking the living conditions of those in nearby residential property the character and appearance of the area.

Impact on highway safety

6.2 The development will have an impact on highway safety in respect of the change in nature of vehicles using the access to the existing car park and the exit out onto Bay View Road. It is clear that the view of Department of Infrastructure Highway Services is that this is substandard and as it is incapable of being improved due to the existence of buildings on each side, traffic should ideally be reduced not increased. The lane is narrow and incapable of two way traffic. On the second site visit the reporting officer's vehicle met a van trying to

enter the site, at the junction of the lane with Bay View Road, resulting in the van having to reverse out onto the main road and wait on the highway whilst the officer was able to emerge from the site. The visibility to the left on emerging onto the main road is relatively good but to the right is more difficult due to the alignment of the road. It is not considered that the access is suitable for any increase in traffic and as such, the reduction in the amount of public spaces is considered to be a positive aspect of the development, despite local concern that the loss of public spaces is something to be resisted.

Impact on car parking

6.3 Whilst the local people who have expressed concern about the loss of public car parking are right to be concerned about any changes which could affect the attractiveness of the village to traders and visitors, it is also highly relevant that the access to this parking area is far from ideal and inconvenient for the other users of the lane not to mention highway safety on Bay View Road where vehicles cannot immediately turn in if there is a vehicle coming out. As such, the loss of car parking space must be measured against the safety of the access and for this reason the loss of public car parking spaces is not considered, in this case, to be unacceptable. Whilst local people may be well aware of the parking area, to someone unfamiliar with the car park, such as a visitor, it is not likely that this car park would be one which would be considered as a parking opportunity and as such, the loss of the spaces to the visiting public is not considered a significant issue here nor one which will lead to significant levels of parking on Cronk Road or the Lhargan as an alternative as there are parking spaces available which are closer to the village amenities - the public car park opposite the town hall, parking on Bay View Road, Gellings Avenue or Victoria Road which are likely to be considered first.

Impact on the living conditions of those in nearby residential property

6.4 The residents who will be the greatest affected by the proposed buildings are Wavecrest Cottage to the north, Concord, Fairview, and 1 and 2, Bay View Villas. Whilst the rear of the properties abutting Bay View Road to the east look towards the site, the small number and size of the windows, combined with the distance from the proposed buildings lead to these properties being affected very little by the proposed buildings.

6.5 The proposed buildings will be 20m from the windows of the proposed buildings and applying the 25 degree rule of thumb in respect of light, the proposed buildings would not interfere with the natural light to these properties. As such, whilst the buildings would affect what can be seen from the windows of the properties opposite the site on Cronk Road, it is not considered that the proposed buildings of either scheme would adversely affect the living conditions of those in adjacent property such that the application should be refused for that reason. Impact on the character and appearance of the area - 6.6 The character of this side of Cronk Road is mostly with development starting slightly lower than that on the western side of the road and cascading down the relevant hillside, whether this be Victoria Road, Gellings Avenue. The site as it is appears currently is a welcome break in the otherwise built frontage to Cronk Road although there is no public view of the sea across the site from Cronk Road, which would be something to be protected under General Policy 2. As the existing more mature trees to the south will be retained as public open space, and as long as the development makes adequate protection of the trees during the development process, some element of this benefit will be retained and as such the development is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the character or appearance of the streetscene. - 6.7 The Conservation Area appraisal which is publicly available does not refer to the application site as an area of positive or negative quality and only refers to views over existing development or out to sea from Cronk Road, echoing the point raised in 6.6 above in respect

• of public views of the sea. The site is only referred to in respect of car parking, the appraisal noting that "The second car park off Bay View Road has inadequate signage and is often overlooked. Both the car park and its access are un-surfaced and potholed" and then going on to recommend that consideration may be given to extending the car park and potential access onto Cronk Road and recommending that additional signage be introduced to make the car park better known. The issue of additional car parking and access onto Cronk Road make no reference to the natural slope of the site and the trees present on the site, nor any assessment of the capability of the lane or existing access, nor of the potential for a safe and acceptable access to be provided onto Cronk Road. It is suggested that in both cases, the site's limitations would stifle any proposals for increased usage of the lane and access onto Cronk Road. It is clear from the appraisal however that this site is not one which is identified as being worthy of protection from any development, change or additional surfacing.
• 6.8 As such, it is not considered that the proposal will result in an adverse impact on the proposed Conservation Area, should it ever be adopted.
• 6.9 The development must also be considered in the light of the pursuit of sustainable forms of development as set out in the Strategic Aim which is to plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment, giving particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage, and also Strategic Policy 1 which states:

"Development should make the best use of resources by: a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings and re-using scarce, indigenous building materials; b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards and c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services".

6.10 Whether and how land should be developed is clearly a balance between the benefits of having additional housing in a highly sustainable location within easy walking distance of shops and amenities and next to a public transport network and with a new, managed area of public open space, against the potentially negative factors which in this case are the loss of some trees, the loss of car parking spaces accessed via a lane which is single width and with limited visibility at its entrance. On balance, it is considered that the scheme should be supported and is recommended for approval subject to conditions including ones for the protection of the trees during and after development.

PARTY STATUS

7.1 7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

List any Depts who do not raise material considerations and who should not be afforded interested person status under the Order.

In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be

treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.

In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13: 8, The Lhargan Mount Pleasant, The Lhargan St. Mary's Church Ballamona, Bay View Road Fairview, Cronk Road

• 1, Bay View Villas
• 2, Bay View Villas

6, Carrick Mews 1, 2 and 3, Lighthouse Buildings and "Lighthouse Buildings" 23, Bay View Road 12, Primrose Terrace and Concord, Cronk Road

In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest to be awarded the status of an Interested person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13, due to the distance between their property and the application site: 4, Seafield Avenue

• 3, Viking Close, Ballakillowey an unnamed property in Fistard Colloway, Clifton Road North, Port St. Mary

• 10, Fairway Drive, Port Erin
• 11, Creggan Mooar, Port St. Mary 35, Croit-ny Glionney, Colby

7, Ballakeyll, Colby Porthaven, Fistard, Port St. Mary Carosel, Castletown Road

• 12, Cooil Veg, Port St. Mary 28, Port St. Mary Promenade

• 8, Snaefell House, Port Erin Berwyn, Beach Road, Port St. Mary Windy Rig, Clifton Road, Port St. Mary Lhagagh, Colby Inglebrae, Howe Road, Port St. Mary Athol Lodge, Fistard, Port St. Mary 120, Ballacriy Park, Colby 14, Lhag Mooar, Port Erin Fois Fraon, Fistard Road, Port St. Mary The Parish of Rushen Elysian, Linden Avenue, Port St. Mary 25, Rhenwyllan Close, Port St. Mary Seamount, Fistard, Port St. Mary 10, Fairway Close, Port Erin 51, Ballamaddrell, Port Erin Cornaa, The Promenade, Port St. Mary

With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT

The Committee endorsed the recommendation of the case officer subject to review of conditions 4 and 7 (as suggested within their report) to set down specific requirements necessary in any reserved matters application.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation:

30.07.2015

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun either before the expiration of four years from the date of this approval or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013.

• C 2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Department before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved. Reason: To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
• C 3. Approval of the details of siting, design, external appearance of the building[s], internal layout, means of access, landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Department in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013.

• C 4. The application for reserved matters must include a detailed arboricultural method statement (AMS) provided by a qualified arboriculturalist which demonstrates that and how the development may be practicably undertaken without adversely affecting the health of the trees shown to be retained both during and after the construction period. No works - excavation, mounding of soil, parking of vehicles or storage of material, should be undertaken which would adversely affect the retained trees in the southern part of the site and the AMS must be able to demonstrate that this can be achieved as well as the introduction of a path within the wooded area which could cause compaction and damage to the trees. The Statement must demonstrate how heavy machinery will be excluded from the wooded area. It may be that there is no path within the wooded area if this is in the best interests of the health and future of the trees but if a footpath is proposed it must be suitable for use by the ambulant disabled

in accordance with BS 8300:2010 as far as is practicable. The Statement should also include a timetable for when the works may be inspected. Replanting in the north should take the form of shrubs and small trees as if the trees grow too large there may be potential issues of shadowing, leaf drop and maintenance.

Reason: in order to practicably retain the trees which are shown in the plans to be retained, in the interests of the ecology and character of the area.

Note: the applicant is strongly recommended to engage the services of a professionally qualified arboriculturalist to provide a comprehensive tree protection plan, of which there are some on Island.

• C 5. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the car parking and manoeuvring space shall be provided and remain free from obstruction and available for the parking of vehicles in association with the dwelling thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the car parking standards are adhered to and limited use of the public car park by residential vehicles.

• C 6. Any application for reserved matters shall include details of a lighting scheme to ensure the proposed path and existing access lane are suitably lit. Reason: In the interest of pedestrian safety
• C 7. The application for the reserved matters must demonstrate that there is no overall increase in the number of parking spaces available on this site.

Reason: in the interests of highway safety as the access is narrow and visibility limited at the entrance onto Bay View Road.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------This approval relates to drawings P01, P02 and P03 all received on 19th May, 2015.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : ……PER…… Committee Meeting Date:…10.08.2015 Signed :…………S CORLETT…………….. Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee 2 conditions were revised YES/NO