Loading document...
| Application No.: | 20/01390/B | | :-- | :-- | | Applicant: | Marbeg Properties Limited | | Proposal : | Erection of 3 detached dwellings | | Site Address : | Land Adjacent To | | | Arbory Vicarage | | | Main Road | | | Ballabeg | | | Castletown | | | Isle Of Man | | | IM9 4EE |
| Planning Officer: | Mr Paul Visigah | | :-- | :-- | | Photo Taken : | | | Site Visit : | 25.09 .2021 | | Expected Decision Level : | Officer Delegation |
| | Recommendation | | :-- | :-- | | Recommended Decision: | Refused | | Date of Recommendation: | 05.01 .2022 |
R 1. Whilst the site is within an area designated for Residential use on the Area Plan for the South, the development will result in the definite loss of a number of the trees on site as shown in the submitted plans, which would result in a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the site and area. The proposal is therefore contrary to General Policy 2b, c, and f, Environment Policy 3 and Environment Policy 42.
R 2. It has not been demonstrated that the development could be undertaken without creating further pressure on trees which are shown to be retained on the site. The intensity of the development would result in additional pressures on the retained trees and would impede future attempts to integrate additional tree-planting designed not only to soften the impact of the development, but also to enhance the landscape, contrary to the character of the locality; considering the trees contribute significantly and positively to the character of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Landscape Proposal 16 of the Area Plan for the South, General Policy 2 (b, c and f), and Environment Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan.
R 3. The proposed dwellings would, by virtue of their siting, form, landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them, and scale of development on the application site, result in a visual overdevelopment of the site, and would create a visual amalgamation of the dwellings on the broader site area when viewed from the A7, contrary to General Policy 2b, Environment Policy 42 and Strategic Policy 3b.
It is recommended that the following organisation 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):
The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society as they do not own or occupy property that is within 20 m 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, and 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.
Arbory Burial Authority 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.
1.1 The application site comprises land adjacent to the Arbory Vicarage, Main Road which is situated on the northern side of the A7 Main Road which links Ballabeg with Colby. This rectangular backland plot currently has a number of trees which are situated close to its northern boundary, where there is a hedgerow; and also close to its western boundary. These are mostly sycamores, but include a couple of poplars and a cypress. 1.2 The ground slopes upward from the road to the northern boundary which is bounded by open countryside. Flanking each side of the driveway are two two-storey dwellings which have frontages to Main Road. 1.3 Within the site and on the northeast section of the site exists work for the erection of a dwelling which has commenced, but not progressed. This area is enclosed by trees on the site.
2.1 The proposal seeks planning approval for the erection of 3 detached dwellings on this plot which previously had approval for two dwellings. The new dwellings will be two storey buildings with projecting, two storey section at the front which faces south. The pitch roof of these dwellings will be finished in natural slate, while the external walls will be finished in painted render. There would be contrasting render bands around the windows which would be Anthracite grey uPVC double glazed windows. Each of the dwellings will have an integral garage to the front elevation which would have Anthracite grey composite garage doors. The proposed bi-fold doors as well as the front doors will also be finished in Anthracite grey. 2.2 The buildings are designed such that each building would be slightly different from the other, with their front porch positions, projection front gables and garage positions slightly varied on the plans. Plot 1 has a driveway wide enough to take two vehicles, while the driveway for plot 2 would comfortably take a car with pedestrian walk spaces around the car. The driveway for Plot 3 will be suitable for a single car, although two vehicles could be parked on site at varying angles, with limited pedestrian walk spaces. Dwellings 2 and 3 would be built over the position of the previously started but uncompleted building on the site. 2.3 The applicants have provided a tree plan, tree survey and report, as well as Arboricultural Impact Assessment which indicates that a number of trees on the site would be impacted by the development. This plan shows that three Sycamores, two Poplar, two Macrocarpa, and one Prunus tree will be removed to enable the development. One of the trees is a category B tree, two are category C, while five are category U trees. The plan also shows
that five trees comprising two Sycomore (Category B) trees, and three Poplar (Category C) trees would be pruned to increase building clearance. 2.4 The plans include root protection areas (RPAs) for each of the trees that are shown to be retained. Some of the RPAs will be over the proposed hardstanding areas for vehicular parking on Plots 1 and 3. The Arboricultural Impact Assessment concludes that due to the number of trees being retained on the site, the overall loss of arboricultural value resulting from the development is deemed low. It however states that due to the proximity of the proposed dwellings to the retained trees on site, it is likely that the retained trees would come under more pressure for pruning or removal to increase sunlight reaching the rear gardens and alleviate litter issues in the Autumn. It further states that the pruning specifications recommended in the assessment would minimise short-term pressures, and if repeated at 3-5 years intervals will reduce longer-term pressure for tree removal.
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South as Residential. It also lies within the proposed Conservation Area for the village. The site is not within a Flood Risk Area or a Registered Tree Area, although there are protected trees on site. 3.2 The Landscape Character Assessment in the Area Plan contains the following on Ballabeg: 3.2.1 "3.19 Description and General Strategy 3.19.1 Arbory is a largely rural parish, stretching from the Round Table, over Slieau Earystane, to meet the sea at Pooil Vaaish. Between the hill-slopes and the flat land to the south sit the villages of Ballabeg and Colby, strung out along the A7. The two villages are classified as such in the Island Spatial Strategy. The older and most attractive part of Colby Village around the Glen Road is protected by the Conservation Area designation. Ballabeg Village has a strong sense of community, arising in part from Arbory School, the Church, the Chapel, the Parish Hall, and, hopefully, the replacement shop which has now been completed but not yet opened. Part of Ballabeg is also proposed to be designated as a Conservation Area recognising the special nature of the older elements of the Village.
Landscape Type: Uplands, Incised Slopes, Undulating Lowland Plain Landscape Area: E9 (Bay-ny-Carrickey), A2 (Southern Uplands), D14 (Ballamodha, Earystane and St Mark's), F8 (Poyll Vaaish and Scarlett Peninsula) i. To protect the tranquil, rural character of the area with its open views. ii. Sensitive location of new buildings and the use of screen planting. iii. Avoidance of physical or visual amalgamation of roadside housing. iv. Protection and enhancement of the identity of Ballabeg and Colby by the conservation of the rural character of the adjacent landscape". 3.2.2 Landscape Proposal 16: Any new residential development in the settlements of Colby and Ballabeg should include tree-planting designed not only to soften the impact of the development, but also to enhance the landscape. 3.3 Given the nature of the proposal and the location of the property within a Proposed Conservation Area, the most appropriate Strategic Plan policies to be applied are as follows: 3.4 General Policy 2: 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; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan".
Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and underused 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(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services. 3.6 Strategic Policy 3: Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by: (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character. 3.7 Strategic Policy 10: New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement 3.8 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 where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10; (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14. 3.9 Environment Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development. 3.10 Environment Policy 3: 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. 3.11 Environment Policy 42: New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of
open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans.
The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7.
These standards may be relaxed where development: (a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or (b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape; or (c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area. (d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality. 3.13 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant in the assessment of the proposal are; Infrastructure Policy 5, Community Policy 11, Community Policy 7 and Community Policy 10.
4.1 CHARACTER APPRAISAL FOR PROPOSED BALLABEG CONSERVATION AREA 4.1.1 Evolution and landscape context 4.1.1.1 Paragraph 3, Page 7 "More recently, there has been the construction of housing estates, large and small - housing a mix of local residents, retirees, and people who commute to Douglas or elsewhere. In Ballabeg, Friary Park is a large early example from the 'sixties or 'seventies, and Ballacubbon Close a more sophisticated recent development from the late 'nineties. Both suffer from 'developers' layout syndrome', being more interested in site density than in respecting aspect, orientation or contour. Entering both, one is confronted by a sea of tarmac. Fortunately, both are sited away from Main Road, and in that respect, are well sited, so don't obtrude".
4.2.1 Whilst not adopted planning policy, DEFA's Residential Design Guidance is a material consideration in the assessment of this application as, "It is intended to apply to any residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions". Sections 2.0 on sustainable construction, and 7.0 which deals with impact on neighbouring properties, are considered relevant to the current scheme. The following paragraphs are particularly relevant:
"3.1.3 New residential development should be informed by the best qualities of our existing residential areas. However, this does not mean that all new residential developments should seek to replicate the appearance of older ones, and good quality contemporary design is encouraged. 3.1.4 Nevertheless, it is important that the design of new residential developments, including their scale (including height), form, layout/orientation, and detailed design (including the materials used) is informed by and respects both the nature of the development site and the character of the neighbouring buildings and surrounding area.
3.1.5 The character and context of any residential development is created by the locally distinctive patterns and form of development, landscape, culture, and biodiversity. These elements have often built up over a considerable time and tell a story of the site's history and evolution - the creation of a 'sense of place'. 3.1.6 The character and context of a site should influence design positively so that development does not simply replace what was there but reflects and responds to it, for example by allowing the long-term retention of existing mature landscaping features such as trees or water features. 3.1.7 The initial site context should also identify established building heights, lines, and orientation of buildings that are adjacent to the site and should have a positive relationship with established housing and other development, including ease of pedestrian and vehicular movement sought to deliver high quality sustainable development that reflects up-to-date technologies and aesthetics and creates a strong "sense of place".
4.3.1 Appeal Inspectors Report for PA 18/00134/B (AP180058) "Inspector's Assessment 16 I consider the main issue in this case to be the effect of the proposed development on the existing trees on the appeal site.
17 There is no evidence to indicate that the proposed building works would necessarily cause damage to any of the existing trees on the site, particularly if a planning condition were imposed to ensure that these trees were protected during the construction period. The appeal site is zoned for residential use in the Area Plan for the South, and planning approval has previously been granted for the erection of a dwelling on this land. I am not persuaded that the proposed development would be contrary to either General Policy 2 or Environment Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan. In my view, these considerations must tell strongly in favour of allowing the present appeal.
18 I recognise that if planning approval were granted, and the proposed house were built, its prospective occupiers might, at some future date, seek the removal of some of the existing vegetation, so as to enhance the natural illumination of the interior of their house; improve their outlook; increase the useable garden space available to them; protect themselves from the potential danger of falling trees or branches; and/or deal with potential inconvenience caused by leaf fall. However, to cut down, uproot, or otherwise destroy a tree (with a trunk diameter exceeding 8 cm ) they would need a licence from the Department, under Section 3 of the Tree Preservation Act, regardless of whether the tree has been registered. It seems to me that this would give the Department continuing control over the trees in question. Three of these trees have now been registered, and therefore could not be topped or lopped without a licence. An application for a licence to remove or prune any of the trees on the site would, of course, have to be determined on its merits.
19 In the circumstances, I consider that the appeal should be allowed, and that planning approval should be granted, subject to conditions as set out in paragraph 13 above".
5.1 The overall area has been the subject of applications for residential development in the form of the principle of three new dwellings - 10/00137/A. This was followed by the details of two of the dwellings - 10/01244/B and 10/01245/B for the broader site area. The development on plot 1 has been completed, whilst plot 2 was commenced but not completed.
Note: The dwellings for Plots 1 and 2 of the current proposal would be built over the development area for Plot 2 which was commenced but has not been completed.
5.2 Planning approval was granted for the erection of a dwelling on the western part of the current application site (plot 3) under 10/01246/B, but this was not implemented. 5.3 The most recent application for the site for the erection of a detached dwelling under PA 18/00134/B was refused on 5 December 2018, but approved at appeal in March 2019. The site is the same as the site for 10/01246/B which was granted approval but not developed until the approval lapsed. 5.3.1 The reason for the initial refusal states thus: "The development as proposed, by virtue of its design, position and orientation of internal rooms and light thereto, would have a harmful impact on the future retention of the trees to the rear and side, which are of amenity value and should be retained. The development is thus contrary to GP2b, c, f and g of the Strategic Plan".
Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only. 6.1 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division have stated that the proposal does not raise significant highway safety or network efficiency issues and despite some aspects not meeting current standards, the historic circumstances of approvals at the site for residential development, allow Highway Services to not oppose the proposal subject to conditions for plot access, parking and turning to accord with Drawing No: 18/02707/01, garage retention, and details of bicycle parking (6 January 2021). 6.1.1 Having reviewed the additional documents submitted by the applicants DOI Highways stated that they continue to raise no opposition subject conditions as set out in our response dated 6 January 2021, in a letter dated 16 June 2021. 6.2 DEFA's Arboricultural Officer has written in to object to the application on the following grounds (08 January 2021):
The 3 reasons for objecting outlined in my original submission (8th January) were as follows:
The impact of this will be to reduce tree canopy cover in the local area and have a negative impact on the amenities of the area. o this objection is still valid; perhaps even more so, given that that trees 14 and 19 are now being retained. 2) The development includes the removal of 2 category B (BS5837:2012) trees which should be viewed as material constraints to development.
o this referred to Trees 19 and 14 which are now being removed. Tree 2 is being removed, but as I explain in the attached, I do object to this. This concern has therefore been addressed. 3) The development does not include a tree protection plan and the risk of damage is occurring is judged to be high, so the successful retention of any tree (marked as being retained) is not guaranteed. o A tree protection plan has been provided but I am not confident in the outcome in the outcome for trees 14,19 and 21 . This concern has been reinforced in the supporting documentation which states thus: "As previously stated BS5837 defines RPAs as '...the minimum area around a tree deemed to contain sufficient roots and rooting volume to maintain the trees viability...'. The AIA assumes this incursion won't be significant but I think this optimistic for 3 reasons. A) the grade changes required to accommodate the dwellings will change the local hydrological conditions across the site (including within the retained portions of the RPA) which the trees have adapted to. B) does this assumption account for the fact that root loss will occur simultaneously to the loss of leaf area due to pruning AND ground disturbance elsewhere within the RPA (with the best will in the world, when you're building this close to a tree where will be some ground disturbance) C) does this assumption account for the fact that following completion of the proposed development the ground around this tree with be cultivated to create a garden, adding an extra stressor to the trees situation.
In my original comments I expressed concerns about the likelihood of future pressure to remove trees. The AIA confirms this and, although it offers a short term solution in the form of pruning, it doesn't remove my concern". 6.3 DEFA's Ecosystem Policy Officer has made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 7 July 2021:
Due to the number of trees to be removed to facilitate the erection of the 3 dwellings, the Ecosystem Policy Team recommend that new native hedge planting is incorporated into the plans along the western edge of plot 3, using trees such as hawthorn and blackthorn. Plans showing new planting should either be provided prior to determination of this application or as a condition on approval 6.4 The Arbory and Rushen Parish Commissioners had previously made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 21 January 2021:
The Board felt that the application represents a significant over development of this sensitive site. Access to the site involves crossing a pavement used by children going to and from school and DOI Highways acknowledges that the sight lines are inadequate for this access point. 6.4.1 Having reviewed the additional information provided by the applicants, the Commissioners state that they remain opposed to this development due to the highway safety concerns. They further state that their concerns over the proposed development are exacerbated by the amended plans and find that the loss of healthy mature trees proposed by this plan is wholly unacceptable (21 June 2021). 6.5 The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society object to the application on the following grounds (30 July 2021:
The Society considers that both the increase in proposed density of development and the loss of such a large proportion of the trees which are a characteristic of the former vicarage ground and which, along with the break of slope at the rear of the site, help distinguish it from the agricultural ground to the north, are contrary to the aims of the proposed Conservation Area. 6.6 The Arbory Burial Authority who are responsible for the Graveyard adjacent to this site have stated that they have no comments to make on the application at the moment, but request that they be made party to the proceedings on the application (15 January 2021). 6.7 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.
7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; (i) The principle of development (STP1, HP4); (ii) The visual impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.(STP3, GP2b,c,j, EP42, EP 35) (iii) The impact upon the amenities (overlooking, loss of light; over bearing impact, privacy and visual amenity) of the neighbouring properties. (GP2 (g)) (iv) Highway Safety (STP10, GP2 h&i, &TP7) (v) Impact on the trees (EP3 and EP 42)
7.2.1 In assessing developments such as the current scheme, the starting point is the land use designation within the area plan which stipulates the specific use of the site. In the case of the application site, it is considered that the land is designated for residential development on the Area Plan so there should be a presumption in favour of residential development here. Moreover, the site was previously granted approval for the development for two dwellings, with one of the dwellings started but not progressed. The site is also within the town boundary as the site is adjacent to and surrounded by existing residential dwellings; conditions which would ensure that residential development here broadly aligns with Strategic Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4. Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the principle of residential development on the site is acceptable. This however, does not denote approval of the scheme as the acceptability of the development in its entirety would be subject to the works not having any adverse impact on other key considerations identified in 7.1 above.
7.3.1 The proposed layout of the scheme would see the erection of two new buildings over the area of the site with existing part construction of a dwelling, with an additional dwelling erected west of these. When read in conjunction with the other approvals for the site, the scheme would see the creation of three dwellings on site, which is an intensification over the previously approved schemes for two dwellings on site, which created room around the dwellings to be in keeping with the locality. This element of the development would increase
the density on the site, as the largest separating distance between the proposed dwellings would be only 3 m ; a condition that would be at variance with the character of the locality given that the closest separating distance between buildings (not terrace or semi-detached) is more than 6 m . Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the development would fail the requirements of Strategic Policy 3b in terms of character and the spaces between the dwellings. As well, the development would be contrary to the landscape character which stipulates that physical or visual amalgamation of roadside housing in the area should be avoided. 7.3.2 Strategic policy 3(b) requires that the individual character of our towns and villages are protected or enhanced by new development in terms of use of local materials and character, and in the current case, the material used for the dwellings would align with this policy as the design of the buildings would be similar in appearance and finishing to the building previously erected on the site, and other modern dwellings in the locality. As such, it is considered that whilst the development would not reflect the character of the site and locality (failing parts of General Policy 2b, Strategic Policy 3b and Environment Policy 42), the design and finishing of the dwellings would not be at variance with that obtainable within the site and broader area. 7.3.2 In terms of the visual impact of the scheme with regard to relationship between the new dwellings and landscape features on and around the site, it is considered that the new two storey dwellings with the narrow 3 m gaps between dwellings would completely replace the existing green backdrop to the site with the dense built forms forming the new backdrop from the highway when viewed from the A7 Main Road. This would result in the removal of the open and green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity of the area contrary to Environment Policy 42. As well, the scheme would involve the removal of a number of trees and possible removal of trees to be retained on the site in the future due to increased pressures, which would be at variance with the character of the area, given that the trees on the site and boundaries form part of the character of the locality. 7.3.3 Whilst the streetscene is varied, the existing dwelling houses and the plot sizes of the existing dwellings on the broader site area are fairly large. Thus, the subdivision of the land for which planning approval was previously granted to house two dwellings with land area to match the neighbouring properties to the south, into three plots, each approx. 11m wide(although plot 3 is 20 m wide), with narrow separation distances between them (approx.3.0m), could be read at odds with those within the broader site area; considering General Policy 2 (b) stipulates that new development should respect the site and surrounding in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them. 7.3.4 It is also vital to note that the Character Appraisal for the Proposed Ballabeg Conservation highlights the challenges the densities of new residential areas (Friary Park and Ballacubbon Close) pose to the character of the proposed conservation area and suggests that these areas do not obtrude on the grounds that they are sited away from the highway. With the current proposal, the new dwellings would be situated about 41 m from the highway with clear views attainable when passing the site. As such, it is considered that the new density which does not align with the existing site character (in terms of its dense outlook with very limited space between the buildings) would have a detrimental impact on the character of the proposed conservation area, contrary to Environment Policy 35 and General Policy 2c. In fact, the Character Appraisal states that developers of new residential developments in Ballabeg are more "interested in site density than in respecting aspect, orientation or contour"; conditions which the new scheme could be considered to broadly reflect.
7.4.1 In assessing the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring amenity, it is noted that the position of the new dwelling would not cause harm to the enjoyment of the neighbours. Whilst it is noted that the separating distance between the dwellings and the
nearest neighbours on the south, east and west is between 15-21m (with the properties to the south 15 and 16 m away from the new dwellings), there are mature trees on the boundary with these neighbouring properties and these would serve to diminish any privacy impacts, loss of light or overbearing impacts. This relationship would, however, be altered if the existing trees on the boundary are removed. Also, the nature of the boundary treatment between the new buildings and the existing built form on the site would ensure that any forms of overlooking would be mutual as the boundaries allow intervisibility and there are first floor windows with views to the neighbouring properties on the broader site area. It is further noted that no objections or comments have been received from the adjoining neighbours. On balance, these aspects would be considered to be compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g) and the Residential Design Guide 2021.
7.5.1 With regard to impacts on highway safety, it is considered that the application site already features an existing access which serves two dwellings linked to the existing driveway. Besides, Highway Services have considered the merits of the proposal, in terms of access to and from the site from the highway, as well as parking and highway safety and considered the scheme to be acceptable. Whilst the comments made by the Commissioners regarding highway safety have been noted, given that DOI Highway advise are heavily relied upon when assessing highway impacts, it is considered that the proposal aligns with the principles of Transport Policy 7 and GP 2 (h&I) of the Strategic Plan. 7.5.2 Similarly, the proposed access would accommodate the vehicle movements associated with the dwellings, with the parking provisions for the dwellings on each site appropriate for the residential uses. On balance, it is considered that the proposal would comply with Transport Policy 7 and GP 2 (h&I).
7.6.1 In assessing the impacts of the development on trees, the decision made by the Appeal Inspector for PA 18/00134/8 is considered relevant here, in that the inspectors considered that erecting a single dwelling on the western half of the site, where previous planning approval was granted for a single dwelling as acceptable given that any impacts on trees would not be amplified to such a point that would prevent the development. The Inspector, therefore, opined that the previous approval weighed in favour of the scheme. With the current application, the number of dwellings on the site would be increased significantly over that which was considered acceptable; thus exacerbating the impact on trees and adding further pressure on retained trees when further works may be required to facilitate the creation of conditions that would improve amenity for the occupiers of the proposed dwellings when complete. It is also vital to note that a condition was imposed (C2) to prevent future removal of trees on the site; a situation that the current scheme would completely be at variance with. Given the importance of the trees in maintaining the character of the area, in addition to maintaining the identity of this part of Ballabeg (as landscape features), the development which would intensify the use of the site and encourage further removal of trees would be contrary to Environment Policy 3 and Environment Policy 42. 7.6.2 It is also vital to note that the Department gives significant weight to the comments of DEFA's Forestry and Arboricultural Officers, and in this case, the Senior Arboricultural officer has clearly articulated his concerns for the proposed development; highlighting the reduced tree canopy cover in the local area as a factor which would have a negative impact on the amenities of the area. He further states that the solutions provided in the provided tree documents are short term solutions that would not ensure the protection of the retained trees in the future. These concerns have been further reinforced by the Arbory and Rushen Parish Commissioners, as well as the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society who consider the loss of mature trees to enable the development as unacceptable, and at variance with the character of the area; considering the trees on the former Virage ground, along with
the break of slope at the rear of the site, help distinguish the residential area from the agricultural ground to the north. 7.6.3 In terms of impact on ecology, the Ecosystem Policy team considers that there will be an impact on ecology due to the loss of trees on the site and have recommended conditions to ensure that new native hedge planting is incorporated into the plans along the western edge of plot 3, using trees such as hawthorn and blackthorn. Whilst this would serve to minimise the impacts on ecology, there is still concern with future pressure for tree removal on the site, as further tree alterations may be required to create the required amenity conditions for the new garden and patio areas; circumstances that could impede future planting of trees on the site given that there are thick tree clusters around the entire site with tree canopies spreading over the proposed building, patio and garden areas.
8.1 Whilst the land is within an area designated for residential use on the Area Plan for the South, the additional residential development on this site beyond that which was previously approved would result in further loss of trees on the site, and would impede the opportunities for further tree plantings and soft landscaping of the site, which would be to the detriment of the character and appearance of the site and area. 8.2 The layout of the development would also be read at odds with the character of the surrounding streetscene and is considered over development of the site leading to an adverse visual harm with a perceived impact upon adjacent trees, and the locality as it could result in visual amalgamation of roadside housing contrary to Landscape Proposal 16 of the Area Plan, and Environment Policies 3 and 42 of the Strategic Plan 2016. The planning application is, therefore, recommended for refusal.
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 Director of Planning and Building Control 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.
Decision Made: Refused Date: 07.01.2022
Determining officer
Signed: J CHANCE Jennifer Chance Director of Planning and Building Control
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
