Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00961/B Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00961/B Applicant : Department For Enterprise, Motorsport Team Proposal : Creation of a vehicular access Site Address : Lower Playing Field Nobles Park Adjacent To St Ninians Road Douglas Isle Of Man
Senior Planning Officer: Mr Jason Singleton Photo Taken : Site Visit : Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 17.01.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. 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.
R 2. 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).
R 3. 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.
R 4. 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).
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00961/B Page 2 of 11
R 5. 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). __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
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):
o 116 Woodbourne Road (08/09/21) o 310 Queens Court
(14/10/21) o 30 Tynwald Road
(15/10/21) o 116 Woodbourne Road
(08/09/21) o Eyreton Quarterbridge Road (13/09/21) o 10 Cronk Drean
(13/09/21)
o 53 Woodbourne Road (13/09/21) o 1 Upper Dukes Road (13/09/21 & 01/10/21 & 14/10/21) o 6 Berkeley Street
(17/09/21) o 18 Alexander Drive
(12/10/21) o Greeba House, Ballafletcher Road (13/10/21)
as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy; 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; as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and 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. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is a small section of the road side walling to the south of Nobles Park and north of St.Ninians Road. This section is characterised by residential dwellings to the south of the highway and to the north (the application site) is a Manx stone boundary wall approx. 70m in length with a pedestrian gate to the western boundary and to the east a more formal pillared entrance into Nobles Park and the Pavilion. The levels inside the boundary here fall from north to south with the land to the north of the boundary wall and trees laid as grass and used as playing fields with football nets and exercise equipment.
1.2 Behind the Manx stone wall are a number of very mature trees whose canopies interlink and overhang the roadway. It is noted these trees are registered, as a group referenced; RA2051 that extends parallel to the road and continues to the east and west of the site.
1.3 Those residential dwellings opposite are noted as Park View; Ballaquayle; Wyndways. The former two are detached dormer bungalows in a traditional 70's style pitch tiled roofs, with
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00961/B Page 3 of 11
ornamental gardens to the front behind a boundary wall. Parking is to the front of the dwellings on the highway. The latter (Wyndways) is a corner plot with a larger property that is two stories high with hipped tiled roofs and mature planting on its boundary with the highway.
1.4 The Character of the highway here is a 30mph speed limit, and on both side of the road here is double yellow lines along the eastern part of the highway lading to the existing entrance to the site. Adjacent to the Manx stone wall is a public footpath that runs the length of St.Ninians Road, on both sides and links from Nobles Park to the west to the junction with Ballaquayle Road in front of St.Ninians High School.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the creation of a vehicle access. On the application form the works are described as; "Create a new junction on St Ninian's Road adjacent to Nobles Park to enhance the facilities in and around the park area and serve to improve the visitor experience for the TT and Manx Grand Prix /Classic TT".
2.2 The scope of works would see the removal of approx. 8m section of wall and the removal of one of the mature tree (Elm) to create the proposed entranceway. The end of the walls would be formed to make pillars and bi-fold metal gates finished in dark green and would be installed across the width of the entranceway between the newly formed pillars.
2.3 Part of the entrance would see the installation of hardstanding bellmouth, 6.5m wide x 8.0m long into the site from existing kerb and kerbed with 125mm facing kerbs both sides and finished with DBM / Dense Bitumum Macadam or black Tarmac. Below this it is proposed to use Wrekin 'ProtectaWeb', within root protection zone areas.
2.4 The applicant notes the following; that the proposed exit would only be used during the TT and MGP/CTT events and it would be closed/locked for the rest of the year and only when there is a traffic management plan in place, with stewards are on site directing vehicles and temporary fencing is erected. This means that vehicles will not be able to deviate from the intended path. This proposed exit is intended for vehicles using the car park only. As large vehicles i.e. HGV's will not be using the exit, there will be no need for extensive pruning of adjacent trees to provide significant height clearance. This design was arrived at through liaison with BB Consulting and Manx Roots. This alignment is thought to be the option with the least impact as it only results in the removal of one tree whereas other alignments required additional trees to be removed. The Department are happy to commit to plant ten trees as an offset for the tree to be removed.
2.5 Also included is a Tree protection plan and a 13 page Arboricultural Impact Assessment with accompanying Tree Constraints and Tree Impact drawings, identifying the requirement to remove 1no category C wych elm (T09) in order to form the new entranceway. The removal of T09 and the potential premature loss of T08 and T10 should be mitigated with a considered tree planting proposal, this is as a result of the excavation within the root protection areas (RPAs) of 1no category B sycamore (T08) and 1no category B horse chestnut (T10) in order to achieve suitable levels between the existing highway and the open grassed area to the north. T08 - Sycamore T09 - Elm T10 - Beech
2.6 The proposed replanting is 5No. Himalayan birch approx. 3.5m tall and 5No. Sweet gum 2.5m tall. The planting is intended to be clustered in the south west corner of the site in a mostly disused area of grass that would provide an open woodland feel as well provide a net canopy cover increase.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00961/B Page 4 of 11
LOCAL PLAN POLICY, 3.1 the land use designation is Open Space with the notation 'P' which corresponds to 'Park' in the Legend on Map 4 Douglas on the Area Plan for the East. The constraints map identifies the area also within an area containing registered trees.
3.2 Within the written statement the broader application site is mentioned on page 93 where it notes; "Tourism Proposal 5 - The use of Nobles Park to support TT and Manx Grand Prix related uses will normally be supported, while applying the appropriate protection measures to open space and associated leisure and recreational facilities".
3.3 The site is not identified as being at risk of flooding, or is it identified or adjacent to a designation Conservation Area.
3.4 The site is within an area of Registered Tree Groups referenced; RA2051.
THE ISLE OF MAN STRATEGIC PLAN 2016 3.5 The following policies are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application;
3.6 Strategic Policy 4 (in part) 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;
3.7 General Policy 2 (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: (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (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; (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; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
3.8 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.
3.9 Recreation Policy 2 Development which would adversely affect, or result in the loss of Open Space or a recreation facility that is or has the potential to be, of recreational or amenity value to the community will not be permitted except in the following circumstances: (a) where alternative provision of equivalent community benefit and of equivalent or better accessibility is made available; and (b) where there would be an overall community gain from the development, and the particular loss of the open space or recreation facility would have no significant unacceptable effect on local open space or recreation provision or on the character or amenity of the area.
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00961/B Page 5 of 11
3.10 Transport Policy 4 The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan.
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site has been the subject of one previous planning application that is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.
4.2 06/01995/B - Creation of vehicular access and laying of turf reinforcement mesh to provide temporary car park, to be used during major events. Lower Playing Field Nobles Park Adjacent To St Ninian’s Road, Douglas. REFUSED.
4.3 This application was refused at officer level and further refused at appeal and the refusal recommendation upheld by the then Minister. The Minister inspector concluded; "The Minister has also noted that some of the proposed works have already been undertaken. In these circumstances, he has directed that, within three months of the date of this letter, the access must be closed off, the boundary wall must be reinstated to match the existing, and the parkland repaired and re-seeded. Failure to comply with this direction will result in consideration being given to enforcement action under part 4 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999".
4.4 The appeal inspector in their report dated 19th July 2007 noted the main issues are (a) the principle of development, (b) the visual impact, and (c) highway safety, and concluded within their reports at; (i) paragraph 26; "I conclude that the car park use would be contrary to the principle of the use of the land as public open space". (ii) Paragraph 27; "I conclude that the loss by the public of the informal green recreational area by traffic passing over it and through the access gateway would be contrary to its use as public open space". (iii) Paragraph 28; "the parking of cars and movement of cars across this area directly in front of dwellings and within an informal recreation area would be visually unacceptable, even on a temporary basis". (iv) Paragraph 29; " I consider that the position of the access is unacceptable".
4.5 20/01394/B - Creation of grass-crete roadway and pathway. Nobles Park, Douglas. Approved. The scope of works was mainly contained to north of the Nobles Park and connects onto Glencrutchery Road and internal pathways.
4.6 13/91530/B - Erection of a temporary 240 bed hotel and marquee for a two week period (Practice and TT Race weeks) on a permanent basis. Approved with conditions limiting the use; "The hotel hereby approved shall not operate for more than 14 days each year and shall not be operated unless in connection with the annual TT event. The hotel building and marquee shall not be erected more than 21 days before the first day that the hotel operates, and shall be dismantled within 10 days of the last day of the hotel's operation. The site shall be restored to its former condition within 1 month of the hotel building and marquee being removed".
4.7 07/02247/B - Creation of car park (refused at appeal), paving of roads and paths, formation of new pedestrian entrance, rebuilding of stone entrance piers and erection of metalwork arch (Split decision - partially APPROVED at appeal).
4.8 09/01606/R - Retention of tarmacked area (retrospective). Land Adjacent To Nobles Park Pavilion. Refused at appeal and upheld by the minister on 21 April 2010. Where the
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00961/B Page 6 of 11
minister agreed with the inspector and also noted the removal of the hardcore and aggregate base and the tarmac surface and returned to grass.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief - full reps can be read online)
STATUTORY CONSULTEES 5.1 Douglas Borough Council commented (03/09/21) & (05/10/21) to 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".
5.2 Highways Services have commented (01/09/21 & 30/09/21) with no objection.
5.3 DoI Highways Drainage Response Team have commented (30/09/21) seeking that no run off surface water run-off from the fields above drains on to the highway causing a concern for flooding. A form of private drainage would be required.
5.4 DEFA Eco-Systems Policy officer Commented (15/09/21) on the benefit of urban trees, the multiple inconsistencies between the supporting drawings and details contained within the tree survey and report. The need for an Arboricultural Impact Assessment and Tree Protection plan needs submitting. The loss of the trees would need a native replanting proposals to comply with Strategic Policy 4. Also there is evidence of bats in the surrounding area so there is potential for them to use the trees on site for either feeding or roosting. A bat survey would be needed.
5.5 DEFA Arboricultural Officer commented (04/10/21) to object; the inconsistencies between the drawings for tree removal; an up to date and correct AIA and TPP are required; With the removal of one tree, the surrounding trees roots would suffer damage as a result of excavation, compaction and disturbance; The trees either side of the removed tree would need extensive pruning to provide height clearance for vehicles; Concerns for the removal of ANY tree as they form an important visual feature in the streetscene and character of the area; the two veteran beech trees would be at risk of the bell mouth design and its proximity and should be afforded the highest level of protection. The cell web as proposed with its installation would not comply with the guidelines of best practice. Concerns on the level of tree removal, no replacement planting proposed. The existing AiA is wrong and flawed as the RPA have not been offset, Questions the validity of the categorisation of the trees; Tree 16 is not a cat B but needs reviewing. Strongly Objects.
On amended information commented further (10/09/21); (i) Drawings 2 and 10 now correspond to the AIA. Drawing 20 does not correspond with the Outline TPP; the use of ProtectaWeb or alike needs to abut the footway.
(ii) The AIA recognised the damage to (t8 and t10), potential for the trees either side dying from pathogens entering the wounds, creating a large gap in the row of trees if not managed correctly during construction.
(iii) The drawings show how the trees could be protected but a detailed AMS and site management would be required prior to commencement. The tree protection would protect the trees during construction but not when the access is in operation.
(iv) Concerns on the Bell mouth and potential for impact on future use of the temporary road on veteran trees t19 and t20 and the RPA would not be sufficient given current research for impact upon the trees roots, recommends a precautionary 20m radius of root protection is adopted.
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/00961/B Page 7 of 11
(v) issues regarding any potential temporary road could lead to adverse pressure on the existing trees and their root protection area within the vicinity of the site which could be damaging.
NEIGHBOUR REPRESENTATIONS (in brief) 5.6 There are a number of comments that have been received, who OBJECT to the proposals; o 116 Woodbourne Road
(08/09/21) o 310 Queens Court
(14/10/21) o 30 Tynwald Road
(15/10/21) o 116 Woodbourne Road
(08/09/21) o Eyreton Quarterbridge Road (13/09/21) o 10 Cronk Drean
(13/09/21) o 53 Woodbourne Road
(13/09/21) o 1 Upper Dukes Road (13/09/21 & 01/10/21 & 14/10/21) o 6 Berkeley Street
(17/09/21) o 18 Alexander Drive
(12/10/21) o Greeba House, Ballafletcher Road (13/10/21)
who between them raise the following material planning considerations that have been thematically categorised;
General Development impacts; o There is already 3 existing access points o Destruction to the park for the sake of the TT o No justification for another entrance o Should not be used as a commercial venue o Land is Public open space o 4 weeks use a year at the expense of mature trees o Green spaces need more protection for local residents o Children use the park which would be in conflict with the uses o Existing accesses are sufficient o Site was left for Douglas residents not commercial venture o North of the site is already being eroded for commercial venture o Don't exploit the green park lands o Legacy of damage left following previous events in the park o Placement of the yellow notice o Previous access from St.Ninians Church was unsuitable o Grass crete not visually appealing o Not a motorsports facility o Erosion of public open space o Proposed gates not in keeping with the character of the area o Loss of stone walling
Trees; o Abundant with wildlife o Popular for conkers o Contrary to the Island climate emergency o Detrimental to existing wildlife o Why destroy healthy trees o 18 cat c trees for removal is not o Long term damage to existing trees o Damage to roots o Volume of soil excavation o No replacement trees proposed o Contrary to our biosphere status
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/00961/B Page 8 of 11
Highway Safety; o Protecta web would be slippery when wet and dangerous o No protection measures for elderly and vulnerable using the site as pedestrians o Proposed access arrangements onto the highway o Confliction of users of the access o Visibility when joining the highway o Parking in the area and a net reduction in spaces o Visibility splays and ghosting area reduces parking o Dependency on vehicle users o Reduction in car parking spaces o Previous planning history for refusal in the area for road safety issues o No mention of ground reinforcement for HGV's in the area o Access would be used year round not just for TT o Existing access through the church grounds o New access off Glencrutchery road
6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; (i) Principle of development; (RP2; GP2a,k) (ii) Visual impact (GP2b,c,f) (iii) Impact on neighbouring amenity (GP2g) (iii) Highway Safety (GP2h,i; TP4) (iv) Trees and Bio Diversity (EP3, SP4b, GP2c)
(i) Principle 6.2 The starting point here is the land use designation, which is designated as open space / parkland for the benefit of the public to enjoy and appreciate. The proposal would only be limited to a small localised area to the south west aspect of the overall site whilst the remaining would remain unaffected and is not proposing a change in how it is used throughout the year.
6.3 The applicants have expressed that the proposed access would only be used for a temporary period that is specifically limited to correspond to those motorised events during TT and MGP in a calendar year, as an exit only and defined; "to improve the visitor experience".
6.4 It is noted from the previous planning application noted in para 4.2-4.4 of this report, this application was broadly similar which proposed the creation of a vehicle entrance and only 5.2m wide. This application is proposing an 8m wide entrance. In this case the case officer and the inspector could not support the application and this was refused. Since 2007 when this application was determined the same materially relevant policies within the strategic plan remain the same and the land use designation has not altered. The inspector could not justify any principle of development.
6.5 In considering this proposal 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 RP2, 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 RP2 as the principle cannot be justified and would equally fail the test of Gp2a, as the land is not zoned for development and would prejudice the use of the open space that GP2k seeks to protect.
(ii) Visual impact
==== PAGE 9 ====
21/00961/B Page 9 of 11
6.6 The entrance to the park of this highway is legibly at the corner or bend in the road and allows access and egress for all user of the 'park' year round. The proposal (if approved) would undoubtedly alter the character and appearance of the area by introducing an 8.0m gate way where there is presently none and the loss of a mature trees on site which may or may not include the reduction of a tree canopy. This loss of Manx stone walling, whilst small in scale of the overall perimeter wall that runs around Nobles park would be would be considered a detrimental loss to the character and setting of the area. 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 GP2b,c.
(iii) Impact on neighbouring amenity 6.7 The proposal, whilst only considered temporary in its use (limited to TT and MGP) would be introducing a vehicle entrance opposite those houses when this is otherwise a quiet leafy green area, irrespective of how often they use the access. 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 GP2g where the entrance use would affect adversely the amenity of local residents through the comings and goings of vehicles during the day but equally at night (when headlights are on) would be an unwarranted intrusion into the private enjoyment of those dwellings opposite. As it is the proposal would be contrary with GP2g.
6.8 Highway safety Highway Services have considered the merits of the proposed access to and from the application site from the highway and assessed the radius for vehicle tracking. As the transport professionals their comments are heavily relied upon and it is noted they do not object to this application when assessed against their design criteria.
6.9 Part of the proposal would see the extension of the existing double yellow lines for approx. 30m (average car length is noted as 6m in the PDO Class 14(g) which could equate to five on street car parking spaces being lost, which is not ideal. Nevertheless, the are no internal tracks or roadways shown / indicated connecting onto this entrance so it is assumed this "roadway" would be provided by temporary access or roadway to provide a stable road access to avoid scaring of the land.
6.10 It is further noted the proposal is only for car access, however the vehicle tracking drawing (05) shows the tacking of a 16.4m articulated vehicle, which raises queries as to how the access would be used and without a full traffic management and parking strategy leaves us only to assume matters. If the access is only for cars (size wise) the width of the entrance could be significantly less in width. Given the above, it is debateable as to the use and full impact of the proposal on the highway and those using both the highway and proposed access to fully understand the use and its overall impact. Also to be considered is the pavements are used by school children commuting to and from the nearby school, and whilst there are pavements both sides and the proposed use would coincide with school holiday there is an impact upon pedestrian users that is not addressed within the submission.
6.11 Having considered the highways safety aspect and the use of the proposed entrance in a safe and appropriate manner, it would be considered to have an element of doubt, in that it could create an adverse impact on the existing highway or upon those users entering and or exiting the site, from a planning perspective as is proposed. As such the proposal would be considered to conflict with the principles of Gp2 h&I and TP4.
6.12 Trees and Bio Diversity The proposal, as indicated on the drawings (ref; Tree Impact) would see the removal of three Elm trees ref; T07,T09,T12. T07 and T12 are Elm trees of a category 'U' and of poor structural and physiological health. Also excavation within the root protection areas of T08 (Sycamore) and T10 (Horse chestnut). The Arboricultural impact assessment notes in their summary; "the
==== PAGE 10 ====
21/00961/B Page 10 of 11
requirement to remove 1no category C tree (T09) in order to facilitate the proposed development. There will also be a requirement to excavate within the rooting areas of 2no category B trees and carry out minor pruning to the crowns of 2no category B trees (T08 & T10). A cellular confinement system (geocell) system will be required to protect the rooting environments of 2no category B trees." The report further identifies with the removal of T09, there could be sub sequential loss of T08 and T10 (those flanking trees of T09) which should be mitigated. The report identifies the current health of the primary tree (T09) to be removed as category 'C' and T08 and T10 category 'B'. The report does highlight best practice methods to mitigate any further damage to the existing trees
6.13 The AIA demonstrates that there would be an immediate loss of 3 trees within the registered woodland and that additional compensatory planting could be provided to mitigate against losses to enhance peripheral tree screening, with some benefit to the management of the woodland would remain. However, there are concerns regarding not only 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 as noted in the AiA. There is also the potential for further damage to the adjacent trees in future which needs to be considered. These competing issues has raised further queries and considerable doubt with the department's Arboricultural officer as noted in their response to the amended plans in para 5.5.
6.14 The current number of trees on site could currently support a wide variety of biodiversity uses that could include roosting, feeding, and commuting bats, breeding and feeding birds, invertebrates and other wildlife, in this urban environment. These trees provide an intrinsic benefit to the area and there is significant prospect that the loss of trees within this protected woodland would substantially exceed that predicted by the AIA in both the immediate and the longer term. The loss of any tree here would impinge directly upon the wildlife habitat and biodiversity value of this site / registered tree area.
6.15 The safest way to protect the current trees and biodiversity is to resist any future development that would impact upon the integrity of the trees in this small woodland area of public amenity and bio-diversity. The foregoing uncertainty regarding tree loss leads to equivalent doubt concerning the effect on ecology and there is no assurance that there would be no qualitative loss of biodiversity.
6.16 Whilst it is proposed some planting to replace these trees, the loss would undoubtedly alter the character of this row of mature trees for which there is significant concerns (addressed above) that does not seek to offset their loss. As such the proposal would adversely affect the character here (GP2c) and would detrimentally affect the public amenity value (Ep3) of this collection of trees where the proposal do not enhance or protect the landscape quality and nature conservation value (Sp4b) to this site.
7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons, the application cannot be supported and is recommended for refusal for five reasons.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 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;
==== PAGE 11 ====
21/00961/B Page 11 of 11
(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.
8.2 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 __
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Refused
Committee Meeting Date: 02.02.2022
Signed : J SINGLETON Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
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