Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
15/01173/B
Page 1 of 6
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 15/01173/B Applicant : Mumba Holdings Proposal : Re-instatement of boundary bank, erection of gardener's store with viewing platform, erection of garden shed and landscaping Site Address : Thie Ny Strooan Hillberry Green Douglas Isle of Man IM2 6DE
Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken :
Site Visit : 10.11.2015 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE
1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of a detached property known as Thie Ny Strooan, which is located within Hillberry Green, Douglas. The previously existing dwelling to the west of the site has been demolished and a replacement dwelling was recently under construction, although what stage the building works are currently at is unknown.
1.2 A watercourse runs through the site from north to south. The eastern half of the site rises towards the A18 Mountain Road and has mature tree planting within it. The section of the site closest to Mountain Road is more open but also has tree planting within it, focused mostly around the edges. The boundary with Mountain Road was until recently formed by a Manx sod bank; this has been removed, presumably in anticipation of the grant of planning approval for a previous planning application that was subsequently withdrawn.
1.3 Behind this boundary line sits an almost complete indoor tennis court.
1.4 To the southeast of the site is a cluster of three detached dwellings, Gleneagles, Glen Kella and Glen Nook, Mountain Road, Douglas. These properties share an access from the Mountain Road which is situated to the immediate north of Glen Kella and adjoins the southern boundary of the site. A brick wall runs along the boundary.
1.5 To the north are a number of detached dwellings which form a cul-de-sac development known as The Laurels. These properties are accessed from Mountain Road via Hailwood Avenue. Numbers 18, 19, 20, 22 and 23 have boundaries that adjoin or face directly onto the application site.
2.0 PLANNING HISTORY
2.1 The site has a broad and relevant planning history. Replacement dwellings were approved under successive applications submitted in 2012 (PAs 12/00545/B and 12/001279/B), though it is understood that it is the latter that has been implemented.
2.2 Also of relevance is the pair of approvals relating to the erection of the tennis court within the site, which was originally approved at appeal under PA 13/00423/B, and latterly approved under delegated authority to PA 14/00154/B; this subsequent application sought approval for an amended
==== PAGE 2 ====
15/01173/B
Page 2 of 6
design, incorporating the following differences as outlined in the officer report into that latter application:
o "whilst the new access is still proposed off the A18 as initially approved, the turning and parking area has changed slightly in shape and there is no longer a path link from this parking area to the main house" o "the path link from the tennis court building to the house has been relocated to the southern end of the building" o "new bridges are proposed within the woodland to facilitate the path link" o "the box hedge proposed between the building and Glen Kella and Gleneagles has been omitted and tree planting introduced" o "the building no longer has a retractable roof but the overall height remains as previously approved" o "the smaller annex has been handed such that the windows are in the southern part of the building" o "the north eastern elevation which faces the road has large dark grey coloured, powder coated framed glazed areas."
2.3 Following these two approvals, two applications were submitted but withdrawn before a decision could be issued. PA 15/00688/B sought approval for "Erection of boundary fencing and landscape design", while PA 15/00988/B sought approval for "Erection of a roadside gardeners store with roof top viewing platform, greenhouse and garden shed". In view of the fact that some elements of both applications were potentially unacceptable, and some acceptable, both applications were withdrawn. The current application has been submitted in an attempt to gain approval for all those elements considered likely to be acceptable.
3.0 THE PROPOSAL
3.1 Full planning approval is now sought for the erection of a viewing platform and a garden shed, in addition to landscaping works and tree-planting throughout the site. Also proposed is a turning area for maintenance and emergency vehicles (which is identical in floor area to an already approved such area, but has been squared off), while a pedestrian access onto the Mountain Road is also proposed. Finally, the re-instatement of the Manx bank is proposed, with a hedgerow behind (i.e. between the bank and the building). The species comprising that hedgerow have yet to be determined.
3.2 The vehicular access would have a pair of short stone walls returning into the site, with timber gates set on gateposts at the end of those walls. The pedestrian access gate would also be timber and is shown set within the hedging. The turning area would be edged with granite although the material itself is not immediately clear from the submitted details albeit that it would be intended to tie in with that which surrounds the building.
3.3 The viewing platform would provide a small kitchen, small hand tool store and WC, all to provide welfare facilities for the gardeners, with space above to view the TT course. It would be entirely clad in timber, with access to the platform above provided by a partially-curved staircase formed of metal. The gardeners shed would be timber clad and an illustrative drawing shows it would be flat-roofed, with the site plan and supporting letter identifying its location within existing trees; as the application site is the residential curtilage of Thie ny Strooan, and the shed would be 15sqm in size, this could actually be built under permitted development rights.
4.0 PLANNING POLICY
4.1 In terms of land use designation the application site is part zoned as Low Density Housing in Parkland and part zoned as Predominantly Residential use under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Douglas Local Plan) Order 1998. The proposed works are located within the part of the application site that is zoned as Predominantly Residential use.
==== PAGE 3 ====
15/01173/B
Page 3 of 6
4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan contains two policies that is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. General Policy 2 states (in part): "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 spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (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 unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them."
4.4 Whilst the proposed works are some distance from the watercourse, the watercourse is within the site and, as such, Environment Policy 7 should be noted: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which would not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:
(a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality; (b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted; (c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and (d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species."
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure offered no objection to the application on 11th November 2015, commenting as follows:
"Highways do not oppose the landscaping of the approved emergency/maintenance access. Highways would recommend that the pedestrian access is blocked up."
5.2 Douglas Borough Council offered no objection to the application on 6th November 2015.
6.0 ASSESSMENT
6.1 The proposal, despite the large building under construction on the site and also the long period over which the construction works that have been undertaken, are actually fairly minor in scale relative to the works still ongoing. The key issues are the impact of the proposed works on highway safety, visual amenity of the site in what is a very prominent position, and the living conditions of neighbours.
==== PAGE 4 ====
15/01173/B
Page 4 of 6
6.2 In the first instance, it is considered that the impact from the shed would be minimal. It cannot be ignored that a shed of the size proposed could be built under permitted development rights, and so this assessment can only extend so far in respect of its consideration of this element of the proposal. In any case, its size, form and materials are considered unobjectionable when considered against parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2.
6.3 From an aesthetic point of view, the viewing platform would be a welcome addition to the appearance of the site. It is not especially large and would in any case sit behind and amongst the natural landscaping. As much as it could be seen, it would neatly tie in with the finishes of the nearly complete tennis court and is unobjectionable when considered against parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2.
6.4 The re-instatement of the Manx bank is welcome. Its loss (without planning approval) was of significant concern to local residents and also to some extent to officers as well since, while this may not be an especially traditional feature within a town, it is a key and strong feature of this part of the Mountain Road, and its loss was therefore likely to have been unacceptable. This part of Douglas is not characterised by its built development and traditional countryside features would therefore be welcome here. This element of the proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable and fully in accordance with parts (b) and (f) of General Policy 2.
6.5 The landscaping proposed throughout the site, in the form of some low level walls and tree- planting, is considered to be helpful in strengthening this character by using, in the main, natural materials in the form of stone and timber and self-evidently natural features in the form of trees and grassland. It is noted that the trees to be planted adjacent to the nearby dwelling of 18 The Laurels would be to a maximum of 4m in height. While concern on this matter from the residents thereof in the past is noted and understood, it must be remembered that the Planning System can rarely be too heavily involved in controlling trees and tree-planting: the planting of a tree is not "development".
6.6 A condition requiring that the trees in this area be kept to 4m in height or below would be appropriate to attach in this instance in view of the concern raised previously, although it is arguable as to whether or not such a condition would be attached had the agent to the application previously indicated their contentment with such a condition (and the fact that the proposed landscape plan explicitly states this).
6.7 A similar condition with respect to the hedgerow to the highway-facing side of the site was also considered; the drawing submitted shows that the hedging would be a maximum of 3.3m in height but would grade down in height to a 1.7m at the point it ends at the common boundary of 18 The Laurels. This is considered to be acceptable and as it is explicitly stated on the submitted drawings a condition detailing this would therefore not be necessary.
6.8 It is also considered that a condition requiring full details of the planting programme be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department would not be inappropriate. This, apart from anything, will enable the trained Foresters within the Department to provide professional advice on the most appropriate species and locations for those within the site.
6.9 Turning to the highway safety impacts, it is noted and welcomed that the turning area remains intended for use for emergency and maintenance vehicles only. The condition attached that previously made this requirement on the earlier approved design would be appropriate again on this occasion, and again is something with which the agent to the application has indicated their contentment. The visual impact of this area will be suitably limited because of its size and will, in any case, be largely hidden from public view by the bank, hedge and gates proposed. A condition requiring a sample of the material to be laid on this area would be appropriate.
6.10 The proposed pedestrian access has in the past proved a little controversial, but it is not considered that this in itself could form a standalone reason to refuse the application. The access is
==== PAGE 5 ====
15/01173/B
Page 5 of 6
for personal use of the applicant, who enjoys walking in the nearby countryside, and though providing a pedestrian access onto a road without a pavement is not ideal, it must be remembered that the applicant would be the sole user of this and any risk associated with its use will be borne by him alone. Highway Services' support of the proposal overall is noted and, while they express a preference for the pedestrian access to be blocked up, this is not judged reason enough to refuse the application. It is therefore considered the proposal is in accordance with parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2.
7.0 RECOMMENDATION
7.1 Subject to the various conditions discussed, it is recommended that the application be approved.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o 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; o Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 23.11.2015
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. The vehicular access from the Mountain Road hereby permitted shall be used only by vehicles maintaining the building permitted by this approval or by emergency vehicles required emergency access to the application site. Private access to the building permitted by this planning approval shall be achieved only internally to the application site via the Hillberry Green access.
Reason: The access, given its limited visibility and location on a primary highway, is acceptable only because of the very limited and small-scale nature of the use predicted for it.
C 3.
==== PAGE 6 ====
15/01173/B
Page 6 of 6
Prior to the laying of the hardstanding for the proposed turning area, a sample of the material proposed for that turning area shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.
Reason: In the interest of safeguarding the appearance of the application site.
C 4. Prior to the use of the approved tennis court coming into operation, a tree-planting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The scheme shall include the numbers, species and positions of all trees and hedges to be planted on the site. All the tree-planting shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Department.
Reason: In the interest of safeguarding neighbouring residential amenity and to ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
C 5. Any trees planted on the area marked "Fruit Trees in Natural Meadow Grass" as shown on approved Drawing Number P0008 shall at no time be of a height exceeding four metres.
Reason: In the interest of safeguarding neighbouring residential amenity and to ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
The development hereby approved relates to the following Drawings, date-stamped as having been received 21st October 2015: X0001 Rev B, P0008, P3003 Rev A, P3005 and P3006.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Permitted
Date : 23.11.2015 Determining officer
Signed : J CHANCE
Jennifer Chance
Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal