Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00796/B Page 1 of 14
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 21/00796/B Applicant : JM Project Management Ltd Proposal : Creation of new vehicle access, erection of boundary fence and landscaping Site Address : Close Jairg Beg Old Church Road Crosby Isle Of Man IM4 2HA
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 17.06.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. There is insufficient reason demonstrated within the submission to warrant the creation of the access which would be introducing an element of harm to the character of the area. The application also seeks to alter part of the sod bank, which does not have a net benefit to the area. As such, the proposal would not comply with Environment Policy 1, General Policy 3, and the Manual for Manx Roads, as the principle cannot be justified and as the land is not zoned for development.
R 2. The proposed loss of trees and the potential for further tree loss would detrimentally affect the public amenity value of this collection of trees given that the proposals do not enhance or protect the landscape quality and nature conservation value to this site. Therefore, it is considered that the scheme as proposed would adversely impact registered trees and a registered tree area contrary to Environment Policy 3, General Policy 2(c and f), and Strategic Policy 4(b) of the Strategic Plan (2016).
R 3. The application includes insufficient information to properly judge the arboricultural impact of the grade changes and landscaping, as well as the impacts of the new access to be created through the Registered Tree Area. The application also does not show how the grade changes and landscaping could be implemented without having a detrimental impact on the health and longevity of adjacent retained trees, and does not show how this impact will be mitigated. Therefore, it is, considered that the scheme as proposed would be averse to the requirements of Environment Policy 3, and General Policy 2 (f).
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00796/B Page 2 of 14
R 4. In the absence of clear justification for the proposed development, the proposed access and levelling works would considerably alter the character of this part of the countryside with protected trees, established sod bank and semi-natural grassland habitat, in conflict with the Landscape Character Appraisal for Braaid (D10) contained within the Area Plan for the East - which refers to the need to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the well treed valley with some scattered and nucleated settlements. In addition, the development would be contrary to Environment Policies 1 and General Policy 3 which protect the countryside for its own sake and where the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration and as the development is not recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.
R 5. The new access would be at a point along the road where it would cut through a designated on-street parking area and the only pedestrian walkway along the road, with potential to increase the risk of delays and accidents at this point and is not considered safe for either the applicant or other road users. This would be contrary to Transport policies 4 and 6, and General Policy 2 (h & i) of the Strategic Plan 2016.
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Marown Memorial Playing Fields;
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
Audley House, Main Road, Union Mills
As they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy.
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
Manx National Heritage,
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that although they have made written submissions these do not relate to planning considerations:
The Cabinet Office __
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00796/B Page 3 of 14
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site represents the curtilage of Close Jairg Beg, Old Church Road, Crosby which is a detached dwelling within large grounds which faces west opposite the Marown Memorial playing fields. This property which sits just north of the Heritage Trail has its driveway situated on the south-western end of the site.
1.2 To the north of Close Jiarg Beg is a large house, Close Jiarg, while a large field which is within the ownership of the applicants sits directly east of the application site. The site is visible from the Heritage Trail to the south as the boundary between it and the site is formed by thin vegetation through which it is possible to see.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks planning approval for creation of new vehicle access, erection of boundary fence and landscaping.
2.2 The first element of the scheme would involve the creation of a new gravel driveway positioned about 39m north of the existing driveway serving the site. This new driveway would be about 4m wide and terminate in front of the dwelling where it meets the existing driveway. A section of the existing boundary treatment on the site frontage would be removed to enable the creation of sight lines provided to show min 2.4m x 34m to the North and in excess of 2.4m x 49m to the south with no obstruction or vegetation above 1.05m in height.
2.3 Also proposed is the erection of a new boundary fence that would be 1.8m high to replace the existing fence. A new hedge to match the new fence height would also be erected on this boundary. 10 new trees to include Elder, Silver Birch, Hazel, Aspen, Holly, Hornbeam, Oak and Sessile would be planted along this boundary as indicated on the proposed site layout.
2.4 The applicants have also indicated that the site would be landscaped (although no details of the landscaping works have been provided). This would, however, be preceded by the levelling of the garden area to 40m average level across garden area (The dominant spot heights recorded for the garden area are between 39.80 to 39.99m). No new material would be imported to the site.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site is within an area not zoned for development on the Area Plan for the East (Map 10 - Crosby), although the draft Plan originally issued in 2018 showed part of this site designated as Predominantly Residential - site reference MH003. Following concerns raised about sustainability and highway network capacity, the site was changed to a Strategic Reserve site for future not immediate release for development.
3.2 The revised designation on the final Area Plan for the East document was however the subject of a recent statutory proceedings with a High Court judgment brought under Section 5 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 delivered on the 19 November 2021. The High Court has quashed Map 10 in so far as it affects the property Close Jairg Beg, Old Church Road, Crosby, set out in the approved Area Plan for the East. As a result of this judgment, no part of the title of Close Jairg Beg including the existing bungalow is within the settlement boundary on Map 10 of the Area Plan for the East, which was brought into operation by the Town and Country Planning (Area Plan for the East) Order 2020. As a consequence, Map 3 has also been updated to reflect this.
3.3 The site lies outwith the settlement boundary for Crosby. The trees along the western boundary of the site are all within a registered tree area and there are registered trees on the
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00796/B Page 4 of 14
eastern boundary of the site. The site is not within a Conservation area, but large sections of the site area are considered to be prone to high flood risks.
3.4 The Area Plan incorporates the findings of the Landscape Character Appraisal as follows: 3.4.1 Union Mills, Glen Vine & Crosby (C3) Landscape Strategy "Conserve and enhance a) the character, quality and distinctiveness of the well treed valley with some scattered and nucleated settlements."
Key Views "Open views up to the Northern Uplands and the upper slopes of Foxdale in places. Glimpsed views in the east towards the urban edge of Douglas."
3.5 The following parts of the written statement are also considered relevant: 3.5.1 Natural Environment Proposal 4 (Green Gap) "Between the settlements of Glen Vine and Crosby, development which would erode the separation and detract from the openness between the settlements is unlikely to be supported".
3.6 Given the site designation, location of the site and the nature of development proposed, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (adopted 2016) has the following policies which are also considered relevant:
3.6.1 Strategic Policy 1 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(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."
3.6.2 Environment Policy 1 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."
3.6.3 General Policy 3 indicates development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan other than for some given exceptions, none of which relate to the current proposal. However, given that the site has an established residential use, General Policy 2 which sets out the general Development Control considerations is relevant.
3.6.4 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;
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00796/B Page 5 of 14
(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; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
3.7 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". 3.8 Environment Policy 4 seeks to protect species and habitats of international importance, national and local importance.
3.9 Strategic Policy 4: Proposals for development must: (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance.
3.10 EPs 10 and 13 presume against development which would affect or be affected by flooding.
3.11 General Policy 2 presume against development which would adversely affect the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape, wildlife or locally important habitats, landscape features, highway safety, and neighbouring amenity.
3.12 Transport Policy 6: In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users.
3.13 Environment Policy 7: Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could 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.
3.14 Paragraph 7.4: Landscape Protection "7.4.1 Development which is permitted in 'Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance' or in important landscape and coastal areas as recognised by any new landscape classification, will be subject to higher design standards than would normally be required. Development must be properly integrated into the landscape in terms of scale, materials, architectural style, engineering works and landscaping. Landscape features such as trees, hedgerows, sod banks or traditional stone walls which are important to landscape character should be retained. In cases where development is not capable of being sensitively and unobtrusively integrated into the landscape, permission will not be granted".
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Whilst not adopted planning policy, DEFA's Residential Design Guide (2021) is a material consideration in the assessment of this application as, "It is intended to apply to any
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00796/B Page 6 of 14
residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions. It is envisaged that separate guidance will be provided for dwellings in the countryside, although some of the broad principles set out within this document may still be relevant to such proposals". Section 6.3 of the guidance relates specifically to driveways and front gardens.
4.2 Manual for Manx Roads: Movement and Place Practitioner's Guide 4.2.1 The Manual for Manx Roads sets out the minimum requirements for vehicular visibility splays from driveways. The guide for achieving the required visibility splays are clearly illustrated in Section B.3 of the Manual. Paragraphs 5.2.37 and 5.2.38 of the manual relates specifically to visibility along the street edge from driveways, while paragraphs 5.2.39 and 5.2.40 refer to obstacles to Visibility.
4.2.2 Section B4: Access Layouts It states: "B.4.1 The general rule is one access point to and from a property. More than one access point increases the potential for traffic conflict. Applications for two access crossings to a single property or a second access point where one already exists require you to provide strong evidence that it will add significantly to highway safety.
B.4.2 For such applications to be considered, the applicant will need to show: o how a second access will add to the safety of the access arrangements o why such added safety cannot be achieved from a single access, or by improving or repositioning an existing access
4.2.3 Direct Access "B.4.8 You must provide an access of consolidated and bound surfacing material over at least the first 5.0 m (6.0 m for a field access) adjacent to the public highway to minimise the risk of loose material being carried onto the highway".
4.3 The Isle of Man's First Biodiversity Strategy 2015-2025
4.3.1 Habitat loss "Biodiversity is being lost around the world despite the CBD target to halt biodiversity loss by 2010. Monitoring of indicators is required to quantify biodiversity losses, confirm the main causes and enable targeted action to halt this trend.
Our knowledge of Manx terrestrial habitats and land use is based on maps made between 1991 and 1996. This urgently needs revising in order to quantify habitat changes, understand the reasons and address the causes. Loss is caused not just by active destruction, but also lack of effective management and natural changes such as scrub invasion. Wildlife legislation on the Isle of Man is designed to prevent habitat loss".
4.3.2 Habitat loss actions "21. DEFA will continue to promote a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for. 22. By the end of 2015 complete a land use and terrestrial habitat assessment to understand rates of habitat loss, use this information to help prioritise habitat and species conservation, through Biodiversity Action Plans, and consider how to monitor success".
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 Close Jiarg Beg was approved under 87/04110/A and 88/00415/B. These enabled the erection of the dwelling with its current layout, including the driveway. The only key difference between the current site setting and that approved under the above applications is the site boundary which has been realigned to include the triangular piece of land and trees situated
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/00796/B Page 7 of 14
north of the driveway which were within the curtilage of Close Jairg. These now form part of the curtilage of the application property.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division indicates the following regarding the application (16 August 2021/26 January 2022/14 April 2022): o They oppose the application. o Whilst the proposed access meets the required standards for geometry and visibility, it would result in two direct accesses to one dwelling which would be in direct contradiction to Manual for Manx Roads guidelines. o The justification for two separate accesses to the same dwelling is insufficient to allow a deviation from the standards. o If the existing retained access is to be used for purely agricultural means that does not require a route to the same location the proposed access will lead to, the plans should be amended to remove the tarmac drive ensuring there are not two accesses to the dwelling. o They state that the amended plans submitted by the applicant has not addressed the concerns raised by Highways, nor provided the additional justification requested in the response dated 26/01/2022. o They further state that the amended plans now show the provision of cellular web at the surface of the proposed access. As such, if the proposal is to gain permission, Highways Development Control would like to add the condition that angular stone/gravel infill is used, as opposed to rounded, in order to minimise the risk of loose material being dislodged and brought onto the highway.
6.2 DEFA's Senior Arboricultural Officer has made the following comments regarding the application (18 January 2022): o The protection proposed here for the large trees adjacent to the road is obviously inadequate, and there is no outline tree protection plan for the rest of the site. o If an acceptable outline TPP was submitted, in the event that the application is approved, a condition could then be applied requesting a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement, which would have to include details of on-going supervision. o Raising soil levels around trees can disturb the delicate relationship between roots and the surrounding soil. This can result in root mortality, decline in vigour and, depending on the extent of the grade changes, sometimes death of the affected tree(s). o He raises concerns with the proposed site layout, which uses spot heights instead of contours which would make it particularly difficult to properly assess the potential arboricultural impact to retained trees from the levelling works. He opines that the existing and proposed spot levels need to be interpolated as contours so that the edge of the grade change areas are visible. o He states that If clearer site plans (existing and proposed) and an outline Tree Protection Plan are not provided to support this element of the application the Directorate would have to object to this proposal on the basis that: a) The application includes insufficient information to properly judge the arboricultural impact of the grade changes and landscaping b) The application does not show how the grade changes and landscaping could be implemented without having a detrimental impact on the health and longevity of adjacent retained trees, and does not show how this impact will be mitigated.
6.2.1 Following receipt and review of Amended Plans provided by the applicant on 7 February 2022, DEFA's Senior Arboricultural Officer has made the following comments (10 February 2022):
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/00796/B Page 8 of 14
o 21/01/PL04 shows the length of driveway to be constructed over a cellular confinement system has increased from 7m to 10m but this still doesn't cover the expected RPA of retained trees. o The section shown in 21/01/PL04 shows that the cellular confinement system will be set below existing ground levels, defeating the purpose. As shown by this drawing, at the western end, where the ground level rises towards the sod bank, an excavation of approximately 600mm would be required. Beyond this gradient, where it is proposed to match existing levels, an excavation of approximately 300mm would be required. o The site plan now shows some sections of Heras fencing but this is not adequate as a tree protection plan because the amount of fencing doesn't reflect the area of likely constraints and there is no CEZ marked on the plan. o Other points raised in my initial comments have not been addressed.
6.3 DEFA's Ecosystem Policy Team has made the following comments regarding the application (7 February 2022): o They have concerns about the proposed levelling of the garden. o Two of the photos provided with the application shows that the garden has a nice area of semi-natural grassland habitat which will be destroyed by the levelling of this area and there does not seem to be any reason provided for this work. o This area of land forms part of the Central Valley Curragh which would likely fulfil the criteria for designation as an Area of Special Scientific Interest, and therefore it requires further investigation. o They opine that because of the area of semi-natural habitat and likely impact on the retained trees, that this aspect of the application is unnecessary and unjustified and would result in a net loss for biodiversity, contrary to IoM Strategic Plan Strategic Policy 4 (b): "Proposals for development must protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas" and habitat loss action 21 of the IoM Government Biodiversity Strategy: "DEFA will continue to promote a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for". o They recommend that the application is refused as unnecessary and damaging. o They state that their mapping programme shows that there are ditches immediately adjacent to the southern and eastern boundaries of this site, with the levelling works having the potential to have significant detrimental impacts on riverine ecology, and therefore the DEFA Inland Fisheries Team should be consulted on this application. o They request that a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA), adhering to CIEEM (2017) Guidelines for Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (2nd edition), be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecological consultancy, and submitted to Planning prior to determination of this application. o They state that should the PEA identify the likelihood for ecological important features or protected species, then additional surveys will be required and a mitigation plan for their protection during and after the development, as well as any necessary compensation and avoidance measures, should be submitted to the Department prior to the determination of the application.
Any works must mitigate the mobilisation of sediment (from run off) entering the Dhoo River. Reason: To avoid disturbance or injury to spawning fish, or to the spawn and fry of fish, during the season in which they are most at risk. o They advise that they be contacted by the applicant prior to any works when works commencing.
==== PAGE 9 ====
21/00796/B Page 9 of 14
6.5 The Cabinet Office wrote to inform of the statutory proceedings initiated by the applicant relating to the application site. The indicated that it is the view of the Cabinet Office, that the outcome of the proceedings under s. 5 of Town and Country Planning Act 1999 will be relevant to determination of the planning application (23 September 2021).
6.6 Manx National Heritage made the following comments regarding the application (2 February 2022): o They expressed concern with the positioning of the new entrance between 2 large mature trees, with reference made to possible impact on tree root system and degradation of the soil environment. o The note the absence of an Arboricultural Impact Assessment. o They note that the existing hedge along the length of the property and bordering Old Church Road appears to be well established with vegetation and would therefore be of benefit to wildlife. o They refer to the Manx Hedgerow Management Code of Practice 2009, and the need to retain the hedges along the site frontage.
6.7 Marown Parish Commissioners object to the application on the following grounds (19 August 2021/ o They are not convinced that the reasons given for the proposal are sufficient for their objection to be revised. o The removal of mature trees which are protected. o The breach in the wall/hedge. o Poor visibility splays without the removal of the parking spaces on the eastern part of Old Church Road. They note that the demand for the parking spaces exceeds availability.
6.7 The owners of the following neighbouring properties object to the application: i. Marown Memorial Playing Fields; ii. Audley House, Main Road, Union Mills
6.7.1 Their reasons for objecting border on: o Inadequate justification for the new access; o The location of the new entrance at a narrow stretch of the highway; o The new access position would result in alterations to the area of parking restriction; o Possible danger to pedestrians as a result of the changes to parking along this stretch of the highway; o Suspicion that this current application is a precursor to a further attempt to develop the area, despite it not being designated either as a residential allocation or as a strategic reserve in the Eastern Area Plan. o The intension of the applicants to monetise the land without consideration of people living within the locality (This is not a planning concern).
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The key considerations in the assessment of this planning application are: i. The principle of the development; ii. the visual impact on the character and appearance of the site and wider street scene; iii. Highway Safety Impacts; iv. Impact on Trees; and v. Impact on Biodiversity
7.2 The Principle (EP1, GP 3, MFMR) 7.2.1 In ascertaining the acceptability of the principle of the proposed scheme, the starting point here is the land use designation, which is not designated for development on the Area Plan for the East. It is also considered that the site has an existing access which is sufficient (in
==== PAGE 10 ====
21/00796/B Page 10 of 14
terms of width, position along highway and finish) to serve the existing residential use of Close Jairg Beg and the adjoining field which is also within the ownership of the applicants.
7.2.2 The justification provided by the applicants indicate that they seek to provide two separately dedicated accesses for the fields and the dwelling. However, given that access to the fields could be created via a new driveway branching off the existing driveway with the existing access shared between the field and the dwelling, it is not considered that there is sufficient justification for the new access, considering the site is within an area not zoned for development.
7.2.3 The Manual for Manx Road also stipulates (in Paragraph B.4.1, Section B4: Access Layouts) that "The general rule is one access point to and from a property as more than one access point increases the potential for traffic conflict. It further states that applications for two access crossings to a single property or a second access point where one already exists require the provision of strong evidence that it will add significantly to highway safety. This was further articulated in Paragraph B.4.2 where it was stated that the applicant would need to show how a second access will add to the safety of the access arrangements, and why such added safety cannot be achieved from a single access, or by improving or repositioning an existing access. In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the scheme would improve highway safety for the application site, or that the existing access cannot be improved or repositioned to better serve the dwelling and field. Thus, it is considered that the scheme would fail to comply with the requirements of Transport Policy 4 and the Manual for Manx Roads.
7.2.4 Likewise, Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 are clear that the countryside is to be protected for its own sake. In this specific circumstance, given that the dwelling and field are controlled/owned by the applicant, the need for a new access to serve the existing dwelling, with the existing access reserved for the agricultural field is not considered acceptable. It should be noted here that the size of the existing field is not such that would generate a level of traffic intensity sufficient to require a dedicated and segregated traffic from the existing dwelling (considering the field is only about 4.5acres, a size smaller than many fields on the island which share access with the dwellings to which they are attached or neighbouring dwellings). Furthermore, the proposed scheme is not recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative. Thus, this element of the scheme would fail the requirements of Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3.
7.2.5 The other elements of the proposal which involves the landscaping of the site is also not considered acceptable in principle as no clear justification has also been provided to state why the works are necessary, considering it holds the potential to trigger associated environmental impacts (See section 7.6 of this report).
7.2.6 Therefore, in the absence of information to demonstrate that the new access is vital for the operation of the field and dwelling, or would improve highway safety; as it is also not uncommon for dwellings and fields to share access in many parts of the island's countryside; as no justification has also been put forward as a reason for the landscape works; and as there is no supporting information to demonstrate that the works would not result in detrimental impacts on the site and area, it is considered that the principle of the development is not acceptable.
7.3 Visual Impact (GP 2, and SP 1b) 7.3.1 As referenced earlier in this report, General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan requires that development respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them. The frontage of Close Jairg Beg as existing is largely characterised by the mature sodbank and trees, with a break only created by the existing access. What is proposed here would involve the removal of a section
==== PAGE 11 ====
21/00796/B Page 11 of 14
of mature boundary treatment (about 5 - 6m wide), with the sod bank and trees further pruned or lowered on both sides to the new opening to provide the required visibility. The works would also involve the installation of a large area of hardstanding linking the new driveway with the highway.
7.3.2 It is also important to note that the proposed changes would result in reduction of tree canopy, although small in scale compared to the overall cluster of trees that runs along the western boundary of the site. These changes proposed to the site frontage would considerably alter this part of Old Church Road and would be a detrimental loss to the character and setting of the area; considering the Manx stone sodbank and trees contribute to the general character of this part of Crosby.
7.3.3 In assessing the visual impact of the proposed landscaping works, it is noted that this change would not be visually apparent from the abutting highway unless when directly in front of the existing access, given the nature of boundary treatment along the western boundary of the site. Albeit, this change would be particularly apparent from the heritage trail which abuts the southern boundary of the site and is heavily trafficked. Granting these would create some uniformity for the garden area within this site, this site is situated within the countryside and in an area dominated by natural and semi-natural habitats which form a congruent unit with the semi-natural grassland habitat within application site. Given the above, it is considered that the element of the scheme would be contrary to General Policy 2 (b & c).
7.3.4 Overall, it is considered that as the works are not essential (as no clear justification has been provided for the new access as demonstrated in section 7.2 of this report), this element of the proposal would fail to respect the site and surroundings and is considered to result in an unacceptable loss of existing sodbank and trees, as well as the semi-natural grassland habitat which contribute to the character of this part of Old Church Road and Crosby, resulting in an adverse visual impact on the character of the locality, the streetscene and the wider countryside landscape, contrary to GP 2 (b), (c), (f) and (g), and Strategic Policy 1b.
7.4 Impact on Highway (GP 2 h&i, Transport Policy 4 & 6, RDG, & MFMR) 7.4.1 In terms of impacts on highway safety, it is considered that the existing access is more than appropriate for the existing use of the field and dwelling, and as such it is not considered to be expedient for the use of the site. As well, that new access would result in highway improvements as it holds the potential to increase the potential for traffic conflict as it would result in multiple accesses crossing the pedestrian walkway abutting the site. To put it simply, the new access would disrupt the use of the designated segregated pedestrian walkway which is only one situated along the entire stretch of Church Road, and as such could be considered to increase the risks to pedestrians using the walkway, and at variance with the requirements of Transport Policy 6 which requires that the needs of pedestrians be given similar weight to the needs of other road users.
7.4.2 The introduction of the new access at a point where it would interrupt or cut through the on-street parking on this side of the road would result in a situation where the visibility for vehicles existing the site from the access would impeded by parked vehicles; a situation that would increase the chances for accidents to occur, particularly during times when the playing fields are in use with vehicles parked along the stretch of the road as is common here. This would increase the highway safety risks associated with the development and be at variance with the requirements of General Policy 2 (h&i), Transport Policy 4,
7.4.3 it is also important to note that the proposal would see the reduction in available on street parking on this side of the road which serves the locality, particularly the Marown Playing Fields which serves the wider community, including children, which is not ideal. As the proposal would result in reduction in overall car-parking capacity for the area, the scheme would fail to align with the principles advocated by the Residential Design Guide (See Paragraph 6.3.8) and General Policy 2 (h).
==== PAGE 12 ====
21/00796/B Page 12 of 14
7.4.4 The amended plans also show the provision of cellular web at the surface of the proposed access which is an unbound driveway surface. Given that the driveway would connect directly to the existing highway, the scheme could increase the risk of loose material being dislodged and brought onto the highway; thereby impacting on highway safety for road users, particularly motorcycle and cycle users. This would be averse to the requirements of the Manual for Manx Roads which stipulates that at least the first 5m of any access adjacent to the highway be made of consolidated and bound surfacing material to minimise the risk of loose material being carried onto the highway (See Paragraph B.4.8 of the MFMR). Given the above, it is considered that this element of the scheme would be contrary to General Policy 2 (i).
7.4.5 Additionally, Highway Services have also assessed the details of the proposed access to and from the application site from the highway and have indicated that they oppose the application with reasons well-articulated in their consultation comments dated 16 August 2021, 26 January 2022, and 14 April 2022. As the transport professionals their comments are heavily relied upon and it is noted they object to this application when assessed against their design criteria.
7.4.6 Having considered the highways safety aspect, the existing design criteria for roads and accesses, and the use of the proposed access, and the prevailing scenario on site, it is considered that the development would result in adverse highway safety impacts and would not meet the requirements of General Policy 2 (h & i), Transport Policies 4 and 6, the principles advocated by the Residential Design Guide, and the Manual for Manx Roads.
7.5 Impact on Trees (EP3 & GP2) 7.5.1 With respect to the impact of the proposal on trees within the application site, it is noted that the proposed scheme would involve the removal of three (3) trees within the site area to facilitate the widening of the access, with two trees already removed. Given that the trees to be remove are within a registered tree area, with no clear justification provided, it is considered that the scheme would result in undue removal of trees within a registered tree area contrary to the requirements of Environment Policy 3.
7.5.2 It is also vital to note that the concerns with this scheme not only relate to the initial tree loss but the pruning of those tree canopies and the potential impact during and after construction upon the neighbouring trees root structure and the level of excavation required for the construction of the access which would inevitably cause root damage to nearby trees within the registered tree area as has been noted by the Arboricultural Officer who has reviewed the access section provided by the applicants and considered that the lowered ground level at the entrance would create further pressures on the retained trees.
7.5.3 Another factor that weighs against the scheme is the fact that whilst some mitigation has been suggested by the applicants (as the revised site plan now shows some sections of Heras fencing around some of the trees around the work areas), the protection proposed within the scheme is obviously inadequate given that it only factors in the trees by the highway and makes no provision for the registered trees on the eastern boundary of the site which could be impacted by the levelling works proposed within this scheme, and there is no outline tree protection plan for the rest of the site or a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement, which would have to include details of on-going supervision. The need to protect the registered trees on the eastern boundary is particularly relevant as raising or lowering soil levels around trees can disturb the delicate relationship between roots and the surrounding soil; a condition that can result in root mortality, decline in vigour, and sometimes death of the affected tree(s).
7.5.4 Whilst it is noted that the proposed planting would contribute to the tree cover within the site when fully mature the loss of the existing trees on site which are protected, with potential for further tree loss would undoubtedly outweigh any benefits the new planting would
==== PAGE 13 ====
21/00796/B Page 13 of 14
offer given that the affected trees have been established for a long time on site and offer particular benefits to the site and area (hence they are now protected). As such, the proposal would detrimentally affect the public amenity value of this collection of protected trees (EP3), with resultant adverse impacts on the landscape quality and nature conservation value to this site failing Strategic Policy 4(b).
7.5.5 Overall, in the absence of information to demonstrate that the development could occur without detriment to the existing trees on site, some of which are Registered and some within a Registered Tree Area (RA0346, Registered 1982), the development cannot be considered to accord with Environment Policy 3 and General Policy 2(f) of the Strategic Plan.
7.6 Impact on Biodiversity (EP1, EP4, SP4, & GP2) 7.6.1 In assessing the potential impacts on ecology, it is noted that there is potential for the site to have ecological value, given its open character and as this area of land forms part of the Central Valley Curragh which would likely fulfil the criteria for designation as an Area of Special Scientific Interest. Notwithstanding, no information has been provided to demonstrate that the development will not have an adverse impact on ecology, nor has a Preliminary Ecology Assessment been provided as recommended by Ecosystems Policy Team. As such, it is considered that the proposal would fail to comply with the requirements of Environment Policy 4 and General Policy 2d of the Strategic Plan for the reason that it fails to demonstrate that the development would not have adverse impacts on the ecology of the site and surrounding area.
7.6.2 Another issue worth considering is the impact the proposed development would have on the sod bank, trees, and the area of semi-natural grassland habitat which will be destroyed by the levelling of part of the site area and there does not seem to be any reason provided for this work; considering these have the potential to serve as habitats for wildlife on site. The Ecosystem Policy Team have assessed this element of the scheme and opine that no justification has been provided for these changes to the site ecology, and consider that this aspect of the application is unnecessary and unjustified and would result in a net loss for biodiversity, contrary to IoM Strategic Plan Strategic Policy 4 (b), and habitat loss action 21 of the IoM Government Biodiversity Strategy which promotes a policy of 'no net loss' for semi- natural Manx habitats. In fact, they conclude that the proposal unnecessary and damaging. These trees and sodbank provide an intrinsic benefit to the area and there is significant prospect that the loss of trees and sodbank within this protected tree area would significantly impinge directly upon the wildlife habitat and biodiversity value of this site / registered tree area.
7.6.3 Overall, given that there are no clear justifications for the scheme at the current location, and there is no over-riding national need in land use planning terms for the proposed scheme which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas (not zoned for development) from undue ecological disturbance, it is considered that any works to alter existing habitats on the site to enable the scheme through site clearance, tree and sod hedge removal would be unnecessary and averse to the requirements of Environment Policy 1 which seeks to protect the countryside and its ecology for its own sake, and Environment policy 4 which seeks to protect species and habitats of international importance, national and local importance.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 For the above reasons, it is considered the proposed development, given the insufficient justification of need, the fact that it is located within the countryside and area not zoned for development, and with the access and level changes being apparent from public views would result in a detrimental visual impact and harm the character and quality of the landscape contrary to General Policy 3; Environment Policy 1, and General Policy 2 of the IOM Strategic Plan. The scheme would also result in impacts on trees, and the ecology of the site with concerns also raised for potential impacts on highway safety for the area.
==== PAGE 14 ====
21/00796/B Page 14 of 14
8.1 Overall, it is concluded that the planning application does not accord with the provisions set out in the aforementioned policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and as such is recommended for refusal.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
9.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status
9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __ I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status
Decision Made : Refused Date : 24.06.2022
Determining officer Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
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