Loading document...
The site represents a piece of land which includes part of the A5 public highway together with a piece of land at the entrance to the Poacher's Pocket (formerly Silverburn Lodge).
The previous application (PA 02/0712) proposed the development of 22 plots, road and sewers and was approved on appeal. This decision required a number of elements to be completed or undertaken prior to the commencement of other elements of the development including the completion of the new access prior to the commencement of any other development on the site.
This in turn was not to be commenced until such times as the main river designation of the Silverburn River pursuant to the provisions of the Land Drainage Acts has been extended to incorporate the flood alleviation and mitigation measures shown in the application.
This application proposes the creation of a new and better access to the site, in the form shown and approved with the previous application (PA 02/0712). However, the applicant wishes for this to be considered almost in isolation from the proposed development on the basis that whatever were to be approved on the site - this development or something else, this would require an upgraded access in the form of that now proposed and previously approved. Also, this should be considered in isolation from the proposed flood mitigation measures required with the previous application and that the applicant should be able to undertake the improved access prior to the other elements of the previous application as this could be considered without regard to this. In reality I think the applicant simply wishes to start work on site whilst he argues about the form of the development itself. Other applications submitted including those for plots 1, 2 and 19 (PAs 04/1660, 1661 and 1675) and (04/3130) for ten plots, particularly the last include arguments along similar lines.
This proposal involves re-positioning the access, further to the west and as such at a level higher than the existing affording better visibility than does the existing. The area of development is outwith the area at risk from a 1 in 50 year flood. The actual width of the access is 4.2m - just two cars' width wide with footways on each side. One tree is very close to this kerb and will probably need to be removed. This is mentioned in the application form but not shown clearly on the plan. The Inspector mentions this at paragraph 147 but does not refer to in any disparaging way and adds that more replacement trees may be planted to compensate. Clarification of this would be useful. I understand that this tree has actually been removed, having been blown over (along with others) in the recent storms.
The applicant has provided further information on the levels at the entrance and it is now clear that the access will be workable.
As this proposal was considered acceptable in the previous application, I cannot see how we can now consider it dangerous, sub-standard or any of the other descriptions suggested by the objectors. I also accept the applicant's explanation that the provision of a safe access is important, regardless of the use of the site or whether the layout of 22 dwellings is taken up or not.
Recommended Decision : Permitted
Date of Recommendation : 04.03.2005
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
C 1.
The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2.
This permission relates to the alterations to the access as shown in drawing 0430/PL011 received on 13th October, 2004 and 0210/PL02B received on 31st January, 2005.
C 3.
No other works as shown in the approved plans may commence until such times as the entrance junction with the adopted highway has been set out to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority after consultation with the highway authority.
Note: the applicant is encouraged to consult the Department of Transport in respect of compliance with Manx Roads 2 and the Highways Act 1986 with which the proposed works should comply.
N 4.
During works, the applicant must make every effort to safeguard against water pollution to the watercourse from run-off and sedimentation. Materials must not be disposed of in the river.
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
View as Markdown