21/00961/BRefused

3 February 2022 · Planning Committee

Creation of a vehicular access

Lower Playing Field Nobles Park Adjacent To, St Ninians Road, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 4be

Received12 Aug 2021

Validated19 Aug 2021

Consultation9 Sept 2021

Committee2 Feb 2022

Decided3 Feb 2022

6 months

Received12 Aug 2021

Validated19 Aug 2021

Consultation9 Sept 2021

Committee2 Feb 2022

Decided3 Feb 2022

6 months

Why was this refused?

Principle of development on protected open space without community benefit
Visual impact and overdevelopment harming park character
Adverse impact on residential amenity from vehicles
Highway safety and pedestrian concerns
Loss and damage to mature registered trees and biodiversity

The proposal involved removing an 8m section of Manx stone boundary wall and one mature elm tree (T09) to install bi-fold dark green metal gates, a 6.5m wide x 8.0m long macadam bellmouth entrance with concrete kerbs, and root protection measures using ProtectaWeb.

Refusal Reasons

✗There is no national over-riding need or rational reason demonstrated within the submission to warrant the creation of something 'temporary' which would not be introducing an element of harm (noted below thematically) to the area on a permanent basis. When cross referenced against Recreational Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan (2016), whilst the loss of open space is minimal, there has been not alternative provision explored or community benefit explored, it could be argued that it could create 'better accessibility'. However it is only for a seasonal use and not necessarily by the community on a continual basis. Also judging by the number of objections received there is little in the way of community gain. As such the proposal would not comply with Recreational Policy 2 as the principle cannot be justified and would equally fail the test of General Policy 2(a), as the land is not zoned for development and would prejudice the use of the open space that General Policy 2(k) seeks to protect.
✗The size of the proposed entrance gates and its bell mouth with macadam finish and concrete kerbs is not sympathetic to a park land setting or the character of the area and is considered over development with an adverse impact that affects the character of the setting, contrary to General Policy 2(b&c) of the Strategic Plan (2016).
✗The access would be introducing an element of development and use where presently there is none and would be considered to be read at odds with General Policy 2(g) of the Strategic Plan (2016) where the entrance use would affect adversely the amenity of local residents through the comings and goings of vehicles.
✗The use of the proposed entrance in a safe and appropriate manner would create an adverse impact on the existing highway or upon those users entering and or exiting the site contrary to the principles of General Policy 2(h&I) and Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
✗The proposed loss of trees would adversely affect the character and would detrimentally affect the public amenity value of this collection of trees where the proposals do not enhance or protect the landscape quality and nature conservation value to this site and hence the proposal is contrary to General Policy 2(c), Environment Policy 3 and Strategic Policy 4(b) of the Strategic Plan (2016).

Documents (41 · 4 superseded)

Officer Report Decision Notice Application Form

Find Similar Applications

Click a button above to find applications similar to this one.

⚖️

Compare this application

See how this application compares to similar ones — policies, conditions, and outcomes side by side.

Search for an application to compare with

Decision & Reasoning

Refused3 February 2022

The officer concluded there is no national over-riding need or rational reason for a temporary access that introduces permanent harm, failing Recreational Policy 2 as no alternative open space provisi…

Policies Assessed (5)

RP2

Recreation Policy 2

Requires no loss of open space/recreation facilities unless alternative provision of equivalent benefit or overall community gain with no significant effect on provision/character. Officer found minimal loss but no alternatives explored, only seasonal use not benefiting community continually, evidenced by objections, failing the principle.

GP2

General Policy 2

Permits development in accordance with zoning if respecting design, character (b&c), amenity (g), access/safety (h&i), and not prejudicing open space (a&k). Failed across multiple sub-clauses: not zoned (a), unsympathetic design/overdevelopment harming character (b&c), amenity harm from vehicles (g), highway doubts (h&i), prejudices open space (k).

EP3

Environment Policy 3

Prohibits development causing unacceptable loss/damage to woodlands of amenity/conservation value. Tree removal and root damage to registered trees (RA2051) detrimentally affects public amenity value without adequate protection/enhancement.

SP4

Strategic Policy 4

Requires protection/enhancement of landscape quality and nature conservation, especially near designations. Proposals fail to protect registered trees' landscape and biodiversity value, with risks to adjacent trees and habitat loss exceeding mitigations.

TP4

Transport Policy 4

Requires highways to safely accommodate development traffic per environmental objectives. Despite no Highways objection, officer found doubts on safe use impacting highway/pedestrians, lacking full traffic strategy.

Public Comments (5)

SupportDouglas Borough Council(statutory consultee)

support the application subject to the applicant submitting an updated tree survey and additional information demonstrating that the proposed work will be carried out in line with the recommendations made by DEFA

SupportHighways Services(statutory consultee)

no objection

ObjectionDEFA Arboricultural Officer(statutory consultee)

ObjectionDEFA Eco-Systems Policy officer(statutory consultee)

ObjectionNeighbours (116 Woodbourne Road, 310 Queens Court, 30 Tynwald Road, Eyreton Quarterbridge Road, 10 Cronk Drean, 53 Woodbourne Road, 1 Upper Dukes Road, 6 Berkeley Street, 18 Alexander Drive, Greeba Ho(neighbour)

Consultation Responses

DEFA Senior Arboricultural Officer and Ecosystem Policy Manager objected due to tree removal, root damage risks to veteran trees, inconsistencies in arboricultural documents, and lack of bat surveys and replanting proposals; Highways had no objection subject to conditions; Dougla…

Key concern: Tree removal and root damage to veteran beech trees T19 & T20

DOI Highways Development Control

Conditional No Objection

The proposal raises no significant road safety or network functionality issues. Accordingly, we raise no opposition subject to conditions for the vehicular access to correspond to Drawing no. 02.; Compliant exit visibility splays of 2.4 x 33m in each direction at 2.4m setback based on 85th percentile speeds of 25mph

Conditions requested: Vehicular access to correspond to Drawing no. 02; Separate s109(A) Highway Agreement for dropped crossing; Traffic Regulation Order amendment for double yellow lines; Provide run off / surface water drainage to prevent water flowing onto public road

Douglas Borough Council

No Comment

The Council would kindly request a time extension on PA 21/00961/B. This application is for a development on Council owned land

DEFA Senior Arboricultural Officer (Andrew Igoea)

Objection

Due to all of the outstanding issues raised above I would like to register the Directorate’s objection to this application at this time.; These are exceptional specimens which... should therefore be afforded the highest level of protection possible.

Conditions requested: Condition to control implementation of cellular confinement system by knowledgeable person

DEFA Ecosystem Policy Manager (Sophie Costain)

Objection

Our initial recommendation is that the new access should be re-positioned in order to minimise or avoid the need for tree felling.; Bat surveys should be undertaken in accordance with the Bat Conservation Trusts Bat Surveys for Professional Ecologists - Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition 2016)

DEFA Senior Arboricultural Officer (Andrew Igoea follow-up)

Conditional No Objection

The recommended wording for such a condition is as follows: Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS)...; I recommend that a precautionary principle should be adopted and a minimum root protection area of at least 20m should be

Conditions requested: Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) prior to commencement per BS5837:2012 covering protective fencing, wall/gate works, ground protection, excavations, surfacing, and monitoring; Minimum root protection area of at least 20m for veteran trees

Why was this refused?

Principle of development on protected open space without community benefit

Visual impact and overdevelopment harming park character

Adverse impact on residential amenity from vehicles

Highway safety and pedestrian concerns

Loss and damage to mature registered trees and biodiversity

Refusal Reasons

✗There is no national over-riding need or rational reason demonstrated within the submission to warrant the creation of something 'temporary' which would not be introducing an element of harm (noted below thematically) to the area on a permanent basis. When cross referenced against Recreational Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan (2016), whilst the loss of open space is minimal, there has been not alternative provision explored or community benefit explored, it could be argued that it could create 'better accessibility'. However it is only for a seasonal use and not necessarily by the community on a continual basis. Also judging by the number of objections received there is little in the way of community gain. As such the proposal would not comply with Recreational Policy 2 as the principle cannot be justified and would equally fail the test of General Policy 2(a), as the land is not zoned for development and would prejudice the use of the open space that General Policy 2(k) seeks to protect.
✗The size of the proposed entrance gates and its bell mouth with macadam finish and concrete kerbs is not sympathetic to a park land setting or the character of the area and is considered over development with an adverse impact that affects the character of the setting, contrary to General Policy 2(b&c) of the Strategic Plan (2016).
✗The access would be introducing an element of development and use where presently there is none and would be considered to be read at odds with General Policy 2(g) of the Strategic Plan (2016) where the entrance use would affect adversely the amenity of local residents through the comings and goings of vehicles.
✗The use of the proposed entrance in a safe and appropriate manner would create an adverse impact on the existing highway or upon those users entering and or exiting the site contrary to the principles of General Policy 2(h&I) and Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
✗The proposed loss of trees would adversely affect the character and would detrimentally affect the public amenity value of this collection of trees where the proposals do not enhance or protect the landscape quality and nature conservation value to this site and hence the proposal is contrary to General Policy 2(c), Environment Policy 3 and Strategic Policy 4(b) of the Strategic Plan (2016).

Policies Assessed (5)