Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/01468/B Page 1 of 20
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Application No. : 21/01468/B Applicant : Mr Tim Luft Proposal : Erection of 6 detached houses and associated parking Site Address : Land South Of Leyton Victoria Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 6AQ
Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 11.01.2022 Site Visit : 11.01.2022 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 06.09.2022 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. Due to the overall density of development, layout of the individual plots, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them, coupled with the quantum of development on the application site, resulting in a visual overdevelopment of the site. The scheme would also result in significant loss of trees which have public amenity value and contribute to the character of the locality. It is, therefore, considered that the development would result in detrimental impacts on the character and appearance of the area and the context of this part of Douglas, which is defined by detached buildings laid out within large plots with mature landscaping, thus failing to comply with Strategic Policy 4(b), Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 (b, c & f), and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan.
R 2. Whilst the site is within an area designated for Residential use on the Area Plan for the East, the development will result in the definite loss of a substantial number of mature trees of category B classification, as defined by BS5837:2012 on site, without adequate provision made for their replacement within the site, and would result in the removal of more mature trees and canopy cover, whilst encouraging further removal of trees, which would result in a significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the site and area. The proposal is, therefore, contrary to General Policy 2 (f), and Environment Policies 3 and 42.
R 3. It has not been demonstrated that the development could be undertaken without creating significant adverse impacts on the ecology of the site or biodiversity as insufficient information has been provided to indicate how the development could be sensitively integrated on site, without resulting in net loss of biodiversity. It is therefore, considered that the intensity of the
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/01468/B Page 2 of 20
development coupled with the lack of provision made within the scheme to address biodiversity concerns would be contrary to the requirements of General Policy 2 (d), Environment Policies 4 and 5 of the Strategic Plan, as well as, Strategic Objective 3.3 Environment (b), and habitat loss action 21 of the IoM Government Biodiversity Strategy.
R 4. The siting, height and design of Plot 2 which is proposed as part of the development would result in overbearing impacts, unacceptable overlooking and loss of privacy to the dwelling to the south (Sunny Cottage), contrary to General Policy 2 (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and the Residential Design Guide 2021. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
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:
DOI Flood Risk Management, Manx National Heritage, Manx Utilities Drainage
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):
'La Paz', Lucerne Court, Douglas, 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 __
Officer’s Report
1.0 SITE 1.1 The site defined in red is a parcel of land situated south of Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas located on the western side of Victoria Road. The site which measures approximately 0.86 acres in size also has Sunny side Cottage and Ballawana situated on the south-east boundary, the Willows on the south-west boundary and the Football Clubhouse Sports ground on the North-west boundary. The site is presently undeveloped and has its eastern boundary enclosed by a Manx stone wall which rises from about 1m to 1.5m along this boundary, and a thick line of mature trees that runs along the entire stretch of this boundary.
1.2 The boundary wall has two gated openings which provide access into the site, although both are currently closed. The site has a frontage to Victoria Road of around 55m, while its boundary with Leyton is about 49m. Also, the land to rear of the boundary wall on the eastern boundary wall is higher than the roadside and varies along the length of the boundary wall. There is also a large cluster of mature trees spread across the entire southern boundary, with a small cluster of trees on the boundary with Leyton in the north.
1.3 The suggested development area would cover about 40 percent of the site and is situated directly south of Leyton on the north and the entire front boundary is linked to Victoria Road. The southern boundary is set about 6m away from the base of the closest nature tree situated on the southern section of the site. There is a blue line boundary around Leyton indicating that the property is on land within the ownership of the applicants.
2.0 PROPOSAL
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/01468/B Page 3 of 20
2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of 6 detached houses and associated parking. The proposal includes a total of three detached house types, one two storey and the others are three storeys. The two storey proposal is for a four bedroom dwelling, while the other proposals are all six bedroom dwellings. All have at least two off road parking spaces and an integral single garage.
2.2 The external finish of the dwellings would incorporate natural slate roof, UPVC windows white or anthracite grey, red facing brick, aluminium bi fold doors in white or anthracite grey to rear elevation, ashlar style render to bay artstone cills and heads or brick cills. Four roof lights would be installed on all the roof planes, three at the rear and one in front, except the two storey dwelling (Plot 1) which would not have rooflights installed on its roof. Plots 3 to 6 would have their front elevations finished in pallet of materials consisting of ashlar style render, smooth render, 'timber' style cladding, facing brickwork, artstone cills and heads or brick cills. Plots 2 to 6 would all have a first floor balcony on the front elevation with metal balustrades.
2.3 Access to and from the site will be via Victoria Road.
2.4 The applicants have provided additional documents in the form of: 2.4.1 A cover letter: which details receipt of a demolition order and subsequent site clearance and tree removal to enable the removal of the former air raid shelter that was on site; engagement with the DEFA Forestry for tree removal licence and a tree replacement schedule agreed to facilitate tree removal and replacement tree planting; the introduction of a new footpath introduced to the Victoria Road frontage to afford sightlines and improve safety for pedestrians, actions to remove Japanese Knotweed on site; and site designation. The Cover letter also details considerations which influenced design and proposal such as road safety, the need to regenerate a brownfield site, character of locality, impact on adjacent conservation area, and chosen density which was designed to mirror the Little Switzerland Conservation Area (which has a density of 7.21 Houses per acre [17.84 per hectare] with the scheme proposing a density of 7.16 houses per acre or 17.7 per hectare).
2.4.2 Tree Documents: these include: o Forestry letter which allows removal of trees on the site dated 20 April 2021; o Forestry Licence to cut down or undertake work to registered trees dated 20 April 2021; o Manx Root data table which was recorded by Mr. Ryan Wilson on the 23rd of June 2021 to form part of an initial site investigation and feasibility study relating to future development proposals (dated June 2021); o Manx Root Tree Survey (Drawing No. TS-140721) dated 14 July 2021; o Replanting Plan dated 20 April 2021 (which shows tree replanting location on site); o Mitigation Tree Planting Plan submitted with PA 20/00293/A.
2.4.3 Other documents submitted with the application include: o A Japanese Knotweed Report prepared by Quest Landscape Services and dated 21 January 2022; o Road Safety Audit Report (Stage 1) prepared by Meraki Alliance and dated 20 March 2022; o Planning Statement Relating to Drainage prepared by BB Consulting and dated 30 March 2022.
2.5 No other Ecological Report was provided beside the Japanese Knotweed Report.
3.0 PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of "Predominantly Residential Use" under the Area Plan for the East (Map 4), and the site is adjacent/near to the Little Switzerland Conservation Area. The site is considered to have low likelihood of surface water flood risks. There are no registered trees on site and the site is not within a registered
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/01468/B Page 4 of 20
tree area, although it shares a boundary with the Glencrutchery Road Sports Field Registered tree area, with the trees forming a congruent unit with the trees within the registered tree area.
3.2 The site was previously classed under the Draft Area Plan for the East as a Category 2 site - Sites where there are policy decisions to be made about the proposed land use and therefore require assessment through the Site Assessment Framework. The Site Screening (Draft Assessments) of the site (DH050) within the Site Assessment Report which accompanies the Draft Area Plan for the East 2018 provided the following advice about the site.
3.2.1 Site Screening - Draft Assessments i. Treat as Greenfield but has been used in the past. Established coverage of trees / planting indication. ii. No registered tree areas on site but mature trees not protected and could be accommodated within the development, adjacent to a conservation area. iii. Surrounding land uses are compatible iv. Situated close to existing residential area with good transport links and community facilities. v. Required infrastructure could be easily provided in this area. vi. The site is developable
3.2.2 It is, however, worth noting that none of these were carried over to the final Area Plan for the East documents, nor was a development brief prepared for the site, and the site (DH050) was not mentioned in the final document.
3.3 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
3.4 General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.
3.5 Woodland 3.5.1 Paragraph 7.7.1 "The Island has a number of small woodlands in both private and public ownership, both of which are important for the appearance and visual amenity of the Island's countryside.
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/01468/B Page 5 of 20
Woodlands add variety to the landscape and are valued for their historical qualities and nature conservation interest. They should not be removed, damaged or fragmented and the Department will encourage additional broadleaf planting where appropriate. The 1982 Development Plan indicates areas of 'woodland' which are Registered and other areas deemed to be Registered, which gives them greater protection under planning legislation as well as the Tree Preservation Act 1993. Broadleaved woodlands can be damaged either directly or indirectly, and development close to woodlands will therefore be subject to the following policy".
3.5.2 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.
3.6 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."
3.7 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3."
3.8 Strategic Policy 3: "Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by: (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character".
3.9 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";
3.10 Strategic Policy 5: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies."
3.11 Environment Policy 36 states: "Where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area."
3.12 Environment Policy 42 states: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."
3.13 Housing Policy 4 states: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans..."
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/01468/B Page 6 of 20
3.14 Transport Policy 1: New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes.
3.15 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.
3.16 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".
3.17 Transport Policy 7: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
3.18 Strategic Policy 10: New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement
3.19 Energy Policy 5 - require proposals for more than 5 dwellings or 100 square metres of other development to be accompanied by an Energy Impact Assessment.
3.20 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant in the assessment of the proposal are; Infrastructure Policy 5, Community Policy 11, Community Policy 7 and Community Policy 10.
3.21 Previously Developed Land "Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.' The definition includes defence buildings, but excludes: o Land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings. o Land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures. o Land in built-up areas such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments, which, although it may feature paths, pavilions and other buildings, has not been previously developed. o Land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings). There is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed".
3.22 Paragraph 8.7.1 indicates that where optimum densities are set, they should not be used as argument for higher density development which have adverse effect on amenity of adjoining properties or character of area.
3.23 Housing policies 6 states that in the absence of design briefs, development should accord with the criteria set in paragraph 6.2 of the Strategic Plan (GP 2).
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING 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 residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions...". Sections 2.0 on Sustainable Construction, 3.3 on
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/01468/B Page 7 of 20
Transport Issues, 3.1 on Local Distinctiveness, and 7.0 Impact on Neighbouring Properties, are considered relevant to the current scheme.
4.2 Climate Change Bill 2020 "Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 amended After paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, insert - «2A All applications except those for approval for change of use, reserved matters, replacement windows and doors in conservation areas and minor changes (1) This paragraph applies to applications for planning approval except those referred to in sub-paragraph (2). (2) This paragraph does not apply to - (a) an application for change of use only; (b) an application for approval of reserved matters; (c) an application to replace a window or a door of a building in a conservation area; and (d) a minor changes application. (3) Every application to which this paragraph applies must - (a) demonstrate that the application has been made having regard to the following climate change policies - (i) the maximisation of carbon sequestration; (ii) the minimising of greenhouse gas emissions; (iii) the maintenance and restoration of ecosystems; (iv) biodiversity net gain; (v) the need for sustainable drainage systems; and (vi) the provision of active travel infrastructure; or (b) explain why consideration of one or more of those polices is not practicable in relation to the proposed development."
4.3 DEFA Agriculture and Lands Directorate Forestry, Amenity and Lands - TREE PROTECTION POLICY - Department Policy Relating to the Protection of Trees - Version 2.0, December 2021
4.3.1 "25. The Directorate will normally object to planning applications if any of the following is true: (a) The proposed development includes the removal of any tree(s) worthy of a category A or category B classification, as defined by BS5837:2012. (b) The proposed development includes the removal of more than 50% of existing tree canopy cover from the site. (c) The proposed development includes the removal of any tree(s) worthy of a category C classification, as defined by BS5837:2012, without sufficient mitigation. (d) The application includes insufficient information to properly judge the arboricultural impact of the proposed development (e) The application does not show how the proposed development 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. (f) The proposed development is likely to lead to significant future pressure to remove or prune trees, either by an application made under the Tree Preservation Act 1993 and/or by complaints made under the Trees and High Hedges Act 2005*. (g) The proposed development includes the removal of a tree, group of trees or woodland which is registered under Section 2 of the Tree Preservation Act 1993."
4.3.2 "29. The Directorate recognises that in terms of the relevant planning policies available at the time the application is determined, a proposed development may be acceptable despite its potential impact on existing trees and woodlands of merit. If the Directorate submits an objection to a planning application, it will consider the possibility that the application may be
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/01468/B Page 8 of 20
approved and make recommendations to the PBCD on how the impact to existing trees and woodland of merit can be minimised (e.g. by the use of conditions)."
4.4 The Little Switzerland Conservation Area Character Appraisal (2003) 4.4.1 Section 3.30 to 3.42 (on pages 12 to 16) which deal with Architecture are considered relevant.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 Approval was granted under PA 20/000293/A for Approval in principle for residential development addressing means of access. Within this scheme, the applicant clearly indicated that the intention was to protect the trees on site and as such a development area was defined to limit the current and future development of the site.
5.1.1 Relevant sections of the Planning Statement prepared by Kaz Ryzer Associates and dated February 2022:
"2.1 The Site is located on Victoria Road to the north of Douglas town centre and measures approximately 0.86 acres size. The site has direct frontage onto Victoria Road as illustrated on the submitted plans. The southern part of the site has a considerable number of mature trees which have been the subject of a detailed and comprehensive tree survey.
2.2 Plans submitted with the application provide details of a proposed indicative development area which has been identified taking into consideration the details of a comprehensive tree survey produced by Manx Roots Tree Management.
2.3 The proposed indicative development area suggests that any residential development should be limited to the northern part of the site as identified on the Development Area Plan.
2.4 A new vehicular access into the site is proposed directly off Victoria Road at the northern end of the site as illustrated on the submitted plans taking into consideration the need to minimise loss of those mature trees worthy of preservation as identified by Manx Roots Tree Management.
3.3 The indicative development area is the result of the tree survey that has been submitted and will provide ample scope for the residential development of the site.
5.1 In light of the above considerations and information submitted with the planning application, it is recommended that approval be granted for future residential development of the site, the siting of which would be limited to the indicative development area together with detailed approval of the reserved matter of vehicular access. It is requested that the reserved matters relating to siting, design, external appearance and landscaping should be reserved for future approval".
5.1.2 The following Conditions which were imposed on this application are also considered relevant: Approval Conditions:
"C4 All built development forming the dwellinghouse, excluding the access and driveway, should be kept within the "minimum development area" (shaded in green) as shown on drawing TR-16119.
Note: The applicant is strongly recommended to discuss any Reserved Matters application with the Planning Directorate prior to submission.
Reason: In order for the dwelling to fit comfortably and unobtrusively into the landscape.
==== PAGE 9 ====
21/01468/B Page 9 of 20
C5 The existing trees marked for retention shall be retained in accordance with the approved details. Any retained tree which within five years of the approved development being occupied or completed (whichever is the later) dies, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced by a similar species, of a size to be first approved in writing by the Department, during the next planting season or in accordance with a programme of replacement to be agreed in writing with the Department.
Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.
C9 The replacement tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the tree planting drawing (MP-11520) and the BS8545:2014 Mitigation Planting Plan (prepared by Manx Roots), submitted in support of the application. The planting shall be carried out in the first planting season following the removal of the existing trees. Any replacement trees which, within a period of 5 years from their planting, die, are removed, or, in the opinion of the Department, become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced as is reasonably practicable or in the next planting season with others of similar size, species and number as originally approved, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: to ensure that replacement tree planting takes place to mitigate the tree removal required to facilitate the development".
5.2 PA 21/01504/B for Erection of a dwelling with associated parking at the adjacent site situated directly north of the application site is also considered relevant. This site has a planning area with redline boundary overlapping the site for the current application. This development would be situated very close to mature trees on both site boundaries with potential to exacerbate pressure on trees within both sites.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DOI Highway Services had initially requested for further information/revisions (23 December 2021). Following review of a Stage 1 road safety audit and revised site plan, they state that they raise no objection to the proposal subject to all access arrangements, including vehicular and pedestrian visibility splays, to accord to drawing No.21/3074/05D (24 April 2022).
6.2 DOI Flood Risk Management Division have indicated that they do not oppose subject to conditions related to the provision of flood risk assessment for the site (31 December 2021).
6.3 DOI Highways Drainage have indicated that they oppose the application on the grounds that the proposed site plan does not indicate how surface water runoff from the proposed estate road will be drained and where it would drain to (31 January 2022).
6.4 Manx Utilities Drainage have indicated that they have no objection to the scheme (16 may 2022).
6.5 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team have made the following comments regarding the application: 6.5.1 Consultation dated 30 December 2021: o They object to these proposals due to the tree loss and lack of ecological consideration. o They recommend that the application is refused on the basis that the proposals present an overdevelopment of the area which is contrary to condition 4 of the site's approval in principle (20/00293/A). o They recommend that the original development boundary is retained and the treed area re-instated and protected.
==== PAGE 10 ====
21/01468/B Page 10 of 20
o They state that they would not object to development proposals contained within the originally approved development footprint with additional re-planting. o They state that development outside of the defined development boundary would result in a net loss for biodiversity and be contrary to IoM Strategic Plan Strategic Policy 4 (b), Strategic Objective 3.3 Environment (b), and habitat loss action 21 of the IoM Government Biodiversity Strategy. o They state that the planting of sparsely populated and small neighbourhood trees is not mitigation for the loss of at least 24 trees outside of the defined development boundary. o They acknowledge that many of these trees were removed to facilitate the demolition of the air raid shelter, but that the tree removal is intrinsically linked to this application because the demolition and thus the tree removal would not have taken place if not to use the site for housing. They state that there is no reason that the area of felled trees cannot be replanted and retained. o They provide advice on the role urban trees play in supporting a wide variety of biodiversity. o They state that the nature conservation value of the remaining trees will be substantially diminished because of a lack of an un-developed buffer area to protect the habitat from the disturbing impact of construction, people and lighting. o They state that should Planning be minded to approve this application, despite their objections, updated planting plans and details of ecological mitigation measures to be integrated on site are provided prior to determination of the application. o They recommend that the remains of the ash trees to be felled are retained on site in the woodland area and made into habitat piles for wildlife. o They suggest measures that should be secured via conditions.
6.5.2 Consultation dated 20 April 2022: o They provided advise on the required exclusion area for Japanese knotweed eradication at the site. o They state that checks should be made throughout the site to ensure that any previously unidentified areas of knotweed are identified and then treated. o They state their concerns with section of Report on Japanese knotweed eradication provided by Quest Landscape Services. o They also provide advise on the required treatment. o They still object to the application.
6.5.3 In response to the consultation comments made by the Ecosystem Policy Team, the applicants have provided a specification of works which will be instigated on receipt of planning approval, and indicated that these would be carried out together with additional works requested by the Ecosystem Policy Team in their consultation dated 20 April 2022. They however state that disagree with the Ecosystem Policy Team on the remainder of their objection and so will not be making further comment on their objections in this respect (27 April 2022).
the likelihood that the development will create a harmonious relationship between the trees (existing and newly planted) and the proposed structures.
o They note their concern for using Freeman maple as proposed mitigation for removal of the lime trees as the mature height of Freeman maple is 15m and the mature canopy spread is likely to be at least 8-10m, given that the proximity of the adjacent houses and footpaths
==== PAGE 11 ====
21/01468/B Page 11 of 20
reduces the likelihood that this planting will make any meaningful contribution to the local landscape or mitigate the removal of the lime trees.
o They state that the positions of other new trees, some of which are required to be planted as a condition of the tree removal licence 183/21 (cherry, hornbeam, birch), are also too close to the properties, making successful establishment and long term retention unlikely prospects.
o They state that the large number of broadleaf trees which the applicant claimed was necessary to facilitate the demolition of an unsafe structure, and which were removed under licence in 2021 were not presenting any significant risk to the public.
o They state that the replanting condition applied to the tree licence issued in 2021 was intended to supplement the natural regeneration that would occur if the existing land use (i.e. no use) continued. As such, a short term loss of canopy cover was deemed acceptable to facilitate the removal of an unsafe structure, and it was envisaged that canopy cover would be restored once the demolition was complete.
o They state that the long term loss of tree canopy cover, which is what will likely happen if this application is approved, shouldn't be deemed acceptable, regardless of zoning in the Area Plan for the East.
o They argue that by not allowing the tree canopy cover here to be naturally restored (and augmented with planting) following the demolition, the proposed scheme will have a detrimental impact on the locality.
o They note that the application is not supported by a tree protection plan showing how retained trees on the boundaries of the site would be protected during the construction process.
Other Matters Raised: o The proposed development includes the removal of trees worthy of a category B classification, as defined by BS5837:2012. o Although trees have been removed lawfully and for legitimate reasons, the proposed development would result in a permanent reduction of more than 50% of tree canopy cover from 2019 levels. o The application does not show how the proposed development 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. o The proposed development is likely to lead to significant future pressure to remove or prune trees, either by an application made under the Tree Preservation Act 1993 and/or by complaints made under the Trees and High Hedges Act 2005.
6.7 Manx National Heritage have stated that (13 January 2022): o There have been a great number of trees removed together with the woodland understory in an area which is outside the original development footprint (see PA/20/00293/A). o The work which has already been undertaken will have led to a net loss for biodiversity and could therefore be contrary to the IOM Strategic Plan, Policy 4, 'proposals for development must protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation of urban and rural areas'. o They would support the development outlined in PA/20/00293/a with the land outside the development boundary (outlined under this approval) being reinstated using native tree and shrub planting.
==== PAGE 12 ====
21/01468/B Page 12 of 20
6.8 Douglas Borough Council have stated that they no longer objects to the application and request that their previous objection against the proposed development is withdrawn (29 April 2022).
6.9 The owners/occupiers of 'La Paz', Lucerne Court, Douglas, object to the application on the flowing grounds: o The proposal adversely and negatively affects the character and amenity of the locality. o The development, and in the particular the new three-story property (Plot 2) will substantially overlook their property. o The development would impact on traffic flow on Victoria Road. o The description of the site as brownfield is incorrect. o The presence of rubble/soil mound on site.
7.0 Assessment 7.1 The issues with the current application are as follows: i. Principle of the development ii. Visual Impact iii. Impact on Adjacent Conservation Area iv. Impact on Trees v. Impact on Biodiversity vi. Impact on highway safety vii. Drainage/Flooding viii. Fire Safety ix. Designing Out Crime x. Impact on Neighbouring Amenity xi. Other Matters
7.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT (GP2, SP1, SP2, & HP4) 7.2.1 The application site is designated as predominantly residential land on the Area Plan for the East, as such, there is a presumption in favour of residential development here. The site is also considered to be a previously developed land where preference is placed for development other than greenfield sites, although it should be noted that the applications of the definition of 'previously developed land' are somewhat constrained here given that the former air raid shelter that once occupied this site (which was subterranean) had blended into the landscape over time, such that it was difficult to ascertain if this structure ever existed on site, until recently when the trees and vegetation were stripped off the site on the grounds of removing the unsafe structure.
7.2.2 Strategic Policy 1 also requires that developments optimise the use of previously developed land and ensure efficient use of sites (taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity) and that development should be located to make best use of planned and existing infrastructure, facilities and services; conditions which the proposed development would achieve given its location within Douglas. Whilst there is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed, it is considered that the principle of utilising this brownfield site for residential development would be more complimentary to the dominant residential character of the locality.
7.2.3 Given the above, it is judged that the redevelopment of this site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle. Albeit, the acceptability of the scheme proposed for the site would be dependent on further material planning matters as indicated previously, which need to be considered, to determine if the six (6) dwellings on the site would be appropriate for this brown field site. It is also important that any development carried out here reflects the character of the site and this part of Victoria Road which is defined by detached buildings laid out within large plots with mature landscaping. Development of this site should also consider that the trees on this site form an extension of the wooded landscape that stretches from the
==== PAGE 13 ====
21/01468/B Page 13 of 20
Playing Fields at St Georges AFC on Glencrutchery Road to the rear of Sea Court to the North of the application site, and adjoining the boundary of the site and as such contribute further to the landscaped setting of the area.
7.3 THE POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE AREA (GP 2, EP 42, STP4 & STP 5) 7.3.1 With regard to the impact of the proposed development on the visual amenities of the area, it is considered that the new dwellings will have red facing brick wall finishes and natural slate roof finish at a traditional pitch, which would be in keeping with the character of the dwellings within Lucerne Court and the Little Switzerland Conservation Area which is directly adjacent, and would be compliant with part of Strategic policy 3(b) which requires that new development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by having regard to the use of local materials.
7.3.2 In terms of the size of the dwellings, size of gardens, limited room for tree growth and cover within the proposed curtilages, and spaces between the buildings, which serve to define the character of the development (together with the materials used), it is considered that the density of the development would be at variance with the properties on this part of Victoria Road. A review of the densities of the dwellings on the western side of Victoria Road would reveal that the average density here is 3.2 dwelling per acre (1 dwelling per 1,244sqm). The density calculations for Lucerne court which has its south-western boundary directly abutting the site also shows a density of 2.3 dwellings per acre (1 dwelling per 1, 656sqm), with the current scheme proposing 7.16 dwellings per acre or 17.7 per hectare (1 dwelling per 552sqm), which is well over the densities currently obtainable within the locality.
7.3.3 Likewise, the size of the dwellings, size of gardens, limited room for tree growth and cover within the proposed curtilages, and spaces between the buildings (which is at average 1.7m save for plots 1 and 2) would be averse to the character of the locality. The density of development for the individual curtilages within the scheme would also be significantly higher than the existing built form within the surrounding sites, and as such is not considered to respect the dominant site layouts within the area, with the scheme failing to align with General Policy 2 (b) which stipulates that development should respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them. In fact, the existing curtilages within the locality are well laid out with considerably large separating distances set between the dwellings; the closest distance being between Manhattan House and Victoria House at Lucerne Court (which is about 3.81m at the closest but rises to about 9.31m due to the orientation of the buildings).
7.3.4 Moreover, the development proposed would result in decline in the general character of the landscape or wider environment, given the overall scale of built development when assessed within the context of this part of Victoria Road whose particular character and identity in terms of buildings and landscape character is defined by large buildings laid out within large plots with mature landscaping. It would be vital to note that the trees on the application site form an extension of the wooded landscape that stretches from the Playing Fields at St Georges AFC on Glencrutchery Road to the rear of Sea Court (situated north of the application site), and adjoining the boundary of the site, and as such contribute further to the landscaped setting of the locality. Therefore, the scheme as proposed would be contrary to Environment Policy 42 and the texts that precede it, considering the scheme has already been preceded by the removal of a significant number of trees on the site, with the proposed scheme not proposing an appropriate level of replacement, whilst offering limited room to ensure their reintegration to the levels prior to the removal of the air raid shelter in 2021.
7.3.5 Whilst the applicant has compared the proposed density with that obtainable within Little Switzerland Conservation area, which is situated south east of Victoria Road, and indicated that the density is 7.21 Houses per acre (17.84 per hectare), it would be vital to note here that the results obtained from our measurements which yield similar results for the
==== PAGE 14 ====
21/01468/B Page 14 of 20
application site shows that the Density in Little Switzerland is 4.02 dwelling per acre (1 dwelling per 1,000.6sqm) which is well below the proposed density for the application site, despite these properties being built in the 1890's and early 1900's which makes it difficult for them to be reminiscent of current policies and guidelines regulating development today. Furthermore, the proposed scheme in no way reflects the development at little Switzerland in terms of building form, appearance and character, as such it would be misleading to compare these developments. In fact, even if the measurements provided by the applicant on Little Switzerland was applied as a measure for comparison, it should be noted that the distance between the closest dwellings within Little Switzerland is about 3.67m (between Kent Lodge and Holly Bank), whilst the proposed scheme would have an average separating distance between dwellings set at 1.7m, save for plots 1 and 2).
7.3.6 Overall, it is considered that the density of development within the individual curtilages, the average density of the overall scheme, the site layout and spaces between buildings, landscape density and appearance, would be averse to the existing built form within the surrounding sites, and not considered to respect the dominant site layouts within the area, with the proposal resulting in decline in the general character of the landscape or wider environment, when assessed within the context of this part of Victoria Road. The proposal is therefore considered to also be contrary to the requirements of General Policy 2 (b, c & f), Strategic Policies 4(b), Strategic Policy 5, and Environment Policy 42.
7.4 IMPACT ON ADJACENT CONSERVATION AREA (EP 36) 7.4.1 The Department has a duty to determine whether development proposals outside, but close to the boundary of Conservation Areas will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area (EP36). With this in mind it is very relevant to evaluate the key views into and out of the adjacent (Little Switzerland) Conservation Area to ascertain if there would be any detrimental impacts from this scheme which is a modern introduction to the streetscape when viewed from key views within the Conservation Area.
7.4.2 A key guide in this regard is the Character Appraisal which highlights key views and other elements that do no good in promoting the character of the area. From reviewing the Little Switzerland Conservation Area Character Appraisal, the element on Architecture (3.30) indicates that the area was developed as a Victorian "Village" Housing Estate, and that the houses typified the arts and Crafts movement from plan design through to the smallest domestic detail. Here, emphasis is placed on use of traditional materials, individual approach to the interpretation of style and high quality properties (See Paragraph 3.31). The roof coverings are limited being mostly red clay (Rosemary) tiles with some blue slate (Paragraph 3.36). the walling materials are render and paint, tile hanging, half-timber and render, facing brick with timber and render, stone facing with timber and render, render with stone dressing, Pebble dash, with porches and canopies having metal or timber framed supports (Paragraph 3.37). There are a variety of window styles and proportions but are almost all timber Edwardian Arts and Crafts forms, although there are UPVC windows in the area (Paragraph 3.38).
7.4.3 From reviewing the elements of the Character appraisal identified above, it is noted that the what is proposed within the scheme would broadly be in keeping with the character of the adjacent Conservation Area given that the buildings would have steep roof pitches and be finished in slate, and the walls would have timber, brick facing (with red brick) and render, while the window styles on the front elevation of the proposed dwellings would not be dissimilar to those on the properties within Little Switzerland even though they are UPVC.
7.4.4 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the development would not affect adversely the character or quality of the setting of the adjacent Conservation Area, and as such would accord with Environment Policy 36.
7.5 IMPACT ON TREES (GP 2, EP 42, EP 3)
==== PAGE 15 ====
21/01468/B Page 15 of 20
7.5.1 In terms of impacts on trees, it is considered that the scheme as proposed would be averse to the development intentions and principles of the previous approval which sought to protect trees on the site under PA 20/00293/A, by limiting the development area to the northern section of the site where the tree cover was less dense. It would be vital to note here that condition 4 (on development area), condition 5 (on tree protection) and condition 9 (on replacement tree planting) were imposed to prevent future removal of trees on the site, as well as enforce their re-establishment should they be removed from the site or die in the process of developing the site; a situation that the current scheme would completely be at variance with and further impede, given that the scheme now proposed has considerably increased the development area, with its proposed tree replanting scheme considered to be considerably minimal when assessed against the level of tree cover that characterised the site.
7.5.2 Whilst the applicants may argue that a significant number of the trees have already been removed to enable the removal of the former air raid shelter within the site, the Department would argue that the tree removal was carried out to facilitate the development of the site area. In fact, the clear disregard for the development area proposed by the applicant under the approval in principle after the trees which were to be retained were removed on the grounds of site safety points to the intention to disregard the accepted development area which was established via the imposition of a condition under PA 20/00293/A. It is accepted that the current scheme should be assessed on its own merits, albeit, the current scheme lies on the basis of the approval in principle as the submission documents still refer to PA 20/00293/A with paragraph 3 of the Cover letter referring to the tree removal allowed under the approval in principle, although it does not acknowledge the requirements of Conditions 4, 5 and 9 of that approval which sought to restrict the development of the site to the north, and ensure that trees remove are adequately reinstated via a replanting scheme that would recreate similar tree densities prior to the tree removal on the site.
7.5.3 It would be vital to note here that condition 4 (on development area), condition 5 (on tree protection) and condition 9 (on replacement tree planting) were imposed under PA 20/00293/A to prevent future removal of trees on the site, as well as enforce their re- establishment should they be removed from the site or die in the process of developing the site; a situation that the current scheme would completely be at variance with and further impede, given that the scheme now proposed has considerably increased the development area, with its proposed tree replanting scheme considered to be considerably minimal when assessed against the level of tree cover that characterised the site and which the applicant clearly stated would be unaffected by development in their application documents for the 2020 application.
7.5.4 Furthermore, It should be reiterated here that the need to protect the trees on site and prevent future removal of trees on site formed the core the rationale for defining the development area under PA 20/00293/A with the Planning Officer building his arguments to support the scheme on this premise. See below extract from the officer report which reiterates that approval was granted on the notion that new trees would be planted to replace the removed trees and reinstate the tree cover for the site, particularly the southern section where the tree density was high: "6.4 LOSS OF TREES 6.4.1 The impact of the proposed alterations on the site boundary to facilitate the creation of a suitable access with appropriate visibility splays on the existing trees is another factor that requires due evaluation. Whilst a number of mature trees on the site frontage would be felled to provide adequate conditions for highway safety, the applicants have proposed satisfactory tree replacements, supported by a Mitigation Replanting Scheme to guide the systematic tree replacement on the site. As such, it is not considered that the loss of trees would be sufficient to warrant a refusal given that new tree species will be planted to reinstate the contributions of the trees on the site. As well, conditions would be attached to ensure that development on the site is contained within the proposed development area to ensure the protection of the trees
==== PAGE 16 ====
21/01468/B Page 16 of 20
marked for retention on the site, in addition to ensuring that the submitted replanting scheme becomes integral to the current proposal and future developments on the site".
7.5.4 The applicants have also argued that tree licence was issued for tree removal with the replacement planting now proposed compliant with the tree licence. However, it would be important to note here that a tree licence was granted for the removal of a number of trees to facilitate the removal of the former air raid shelter on site which was the subject of a demolition order, with no mention made of the intention to submit a planning application; a factor that should have been taken into consideration should it have been initially declared in the application for tree removal. This is clearly echoed in the Arboricultural Officer comments which states that "the replanting condition applied to the tree licence issued in 2021 was intended to supplement the natural regeneration that would occur if the existing land use (i.e. no use) continued. As such, a short term loss of canopy cover was deemed acceptable to facilitate the removal of an unsafe structure, and it was envisaged that canopy cover would be restored once the demolition was complete".
7.5.5 Further to the issues highlighted above, it should be noted that the Department gives significant weight to the comments of DEFA's Forestry and Arboricultural Officers, and in this case, the Arboricultural officer has clearly articulated his concerns for the proposed development; highlighting the removal of trees worthy of a category B classification, a permanent reduction of more than 50% of tree canopy cover from 2019 levels, the absence of sufficient information to show how the proposed development could be implemented without having a detrimental impact on the health and longevity of adjacent retained trees, or how this impact will be mitigated, as well as the resulting significant future pressure to remove or prune trees, either by an application made under the Tree Preservation Act 1993 and/or by complaints made under the Trees and High Hedges Act 2005, as sufficient reasons to justify refusal of the scheme.
7.4.5 Given the importance of the trees in maintaining the character of the area, in addition to maintaining the identity of this part of Douglas whose character and identity is defined by matures trees which line the boundaries of the properties and highway, it is considered that the development would result in the removal of more mature trees and encourage further removal of trees contrary to the principles advocated by Environment Policies 3 and 42, and General Policy 2 (f).
7.6 POTENTIAL IIMPACT ON BIODIVERSITY (EP 4, 5 & GP 2) 7.6.1 In terms of the ecological impacts of the proposed development, the application is supported by a Japanese Knotweed Report prepared by Quest Landscape Services and dated 21 January 2022 that seeks to address concerns related to Japanese Knotweed, which is a key ecological concern for the site. This report details the area of the site where there is extensive evidence of Knotweed and the works that would be required to eliminate these from the site. The Ecosystem policy Team have commented on this report and indicated that they disagree with certain elements of the report and highlighted the sections of the report they disagree with, whilst suggesting conditions which could be imposed to ensure that Knotweed is eliminated from the site should approval be granted. In this respect, it is felt that the application has satisfied the principles of Environment Policy 4 as a condition could be imposed to ensure that the required mitigation measures are implemented, should approval be grated for the proposal.
7.6.2 The potential impacts upon biodiversity of the site as a direct result of the tree loss on site has also been identified as a concern with the development which the Ecosystem Policy Team notes would result in a net loss for biodiversity and be contrary to the IoM Strategic Plans Strategic Policy 4 (b), and Strategic Objective 3.3 Environment (b), as well as the habitat loss action 21 of the IoM Government Biodiversity Strategy. Whilst a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) and its supporting technical note would have addressed these concerns in
==== PAGE 17 ====
21/01468/B Page 17 of 20
addition to providing the appropriate mitigation for the concerns highlighted, the application has not been accompanied by an ecological appraisal. The applicants have also argued that they do not accept the Ecosystem Policy Teams suggestions that the tree loss would impact on the biodiversity of the site, as they opine that the tree loss was consequent on the removal of the air raid shelter and that the scheme has been carried out to accord with the requirements of the tree licence issued for tree felling on the site, a position that explains their position to not provide additional information on ecology.
7.6.3 Notwithstanding the arguments put forward by the applicants, the removal of the trees would result in the destruction of existing habitats on site, with this impact considered to be significant given the pre-removal tree densities, and therefore result in significant adverse impacts on biodiversity. Granting the site conditions have changed in respect to the removal of trees under a tree licence, facilitated by a demolition notice for the air raid shelter, the current scheme would have sought to re-establish the biota on site via an environmentally sensitive scheme. These have, however not been taken into consideration as the current scheme seeks to exploit the use of the land with minimal environmental considerations.
7.6.4 Accordingly, it is considered that it is still unclear how appropriate mitigation for the biodiversity loss could be achieved on the site, given that insufficient information has been provided to clearly explain how mitigation for biodiversity loss would be provided within the current scheme. It is, therefore, considered that the development as proposed would fail to comply with the requirements of Environment Policies 4 and 5, and General Policy 2 (d) of the Strategic Plan.
7.7 IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY (General Policy 2h & I, TP's 1, 4, 6, & 7, & SP 10) 7.7.1 In terms of impacts on highway safety, it is considered that the site entrance has been repositioned to be almost central on the site frontage, to achieve better visibility splays for the site with footpath added to the site frontage to further improve sightlines and safety for pedestrians; a condition that will be an improvement on the current arrangement. The new access position would also be further away from the position of the access to Leyton to the north and the Little Switzerland entrance to the south which would be in the interest of highway safety. Additionally, the applicants have provided a Stage One Road Safety Audit report which has been accessed with recommendations considered acceptable by DOI Highways. As well, Highway Services have considered the new access, as well as the internal road layout and have confirmed that the proposal does not raise highway safety or network efficiency concerns, subject to all access arrangements, including vehicular and pedestrian visibility splays according with drawing No.21/3074/05D.
7.7.2 In terms of off road parking, each dwelling would have at least 2 spaces provided within the site, in addition to a parking space provide within the integral garages which would be more than sufficient when compared with the requirements of Transport Policy 7 and stipulated within Appendix 7 of the IOMSP. Additionally, the site is within a public transport corridor which increases the public transport options available to future occupants.
7.8 DRAINAGE/FLOODING (EP 13 & GP 2L). 7.8.1 In respect of drainage, it is noted that the scheme is supported by a drainage scheme (Planning Statement Relating to Drainage prepared by BB Consulting and dated 30 March 2022) which includes a surface water and foul water management for the entire site, which will feed into the existing sewer along Victoria Road and the surface water drainage system within little Switzerland. This strategy has been clearly depicted on a Plan which clearly shows every element of the drainage management scheme. These have been assessed by the relevant drainage Authorities Manx Utilities Drainage and DOI Highways Drainage who have confirmed that the submitted information satisfies their concerns.
7.8.2 In terms of flood risks for the site, it is considered that the site is not within High Flood Risk zone but there were initial comments from the Flood Management Division (DOI) in
==== PAGE 18 ====
21/01468/B Page 18 of 20
relation to the requirement for a flood risk Assessment for the site. The applicant has sought to resolve this with the relevant authority although no progress has been made in this regard. As mention above, only a small section of the site is classed as being susceptible to low likelihood of surface water flood risks, as indicated on the Isle of Man Indicative Flood Maps, as such it would be difficult to argue that a flood risk assessment would be required for the site, particularly as the site topography is such that would not create concerns with rapid surface water flows, minding the surface water drainage scheme has been considered acceptable by Manx Utilities Drainage. Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the scheme raises no flood risk to the new dwellings proposed on site or existing properties in the area.
7.9 FIRE SAFETY (COMMUNITY POLICY 10 & 11) 7.9.1 In terms of fire safety, it is considered that the new internal roads within the estate are wide enough to enable access into the site for fire-fighting vehicles should they be required. Also, the provision for at least two parking spaces within each property would serve to keep vehicles off the internal roads, so that there are no congestion issues if large fire vehicles require access into the site. Likewise, the scheme would not impede access to rear of the new dwellings created in case of fire since there is provision for access to the rear of all the dwellings, with a clear break created between the properties, which would be sufficient to prevent easy spread of fire. Additionally, no objection has been received from the Fire & Rescue Service or Highway Services in relation to access of fire apparatus into the site. As such, it is considered that these elements of the scheme aligns with the requirements of Community Policies 10 and 11.
7.10 DESIGNING OUT CRIME (CP 7 & GP2m) 7.10.1 In terms of designing out crime and antisocial behaviour, it is considered that the new residential curtilages have been clearly marked out so that visitors to the site can easily identify the properties they seek to visit. The development will also entail providing sufficient levels of external lighting to illuminate the shared spaces to ensure that these spaces do not become easy targets for crime, which would in turn improve that safety and security of the residents. Likewise, the new dwellings are positioned such that there are overlooking views from the front of the dwellings which would serve to promote community surveillance. Besides, no new confined spaces with easy access to those outside the site would be created, which would serve as easy hideouts for criminal activity or antisocial behaviour. When these elements of the proposal are assessed against the requirements of General Policy 2 (m) and Community Policy 7, it is considered that the proposed development complies with the relevant policies.
7.11 IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES (GP 2g) 7.11.1 In assessing the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring amenity, it is noted that the position of the new dwellings would have minimal impacts on neighbouring amenity towards the northern boundary of the site. This is hinged on the fact that most of the dwellings (Plots 1, 3 to 6) would be screened by the existing trees on the boundary with neighbouring properties (Leyton to the north).
7.11.2 In terms of impacts on the neighbours to the south, it is considered that Plot 2 would be only about 6.5m from the rear of Sunny Cottage, with the scheme offering first floor views to this neighbouring dwelling and over parts of the existing boundary treatment on this neighbouring property. Whilst the scheme purposes some tree planting on this boundary which would serve to ameliorate the privacy concerns for the occupants of Sunny Cottage, this would take a long period to be established. As such, it is considered that the position of Plot 2 its proximity to the neighbouring property at Sunny Cottage would result in privacy concerns, with the proposed height (9.69m) relative to this neighbour (6.4m high) also resulting in overbearing impacts.
7.11.3 Whilst the owners/occupants of La Paz situated east of Plot 2 have stated that there would be overlooking of their property, Plot 2 would be situated 22.3m from the boundary of this property and 27.9m from the nearest elevation of this property, distances that would
==== PAGE 19 ====
21/01468/B Page 19 of 20
ensure there are no detrimental impacts in terms of overlooking, overbearing impacts or loss of light. It is also noted that there is a thick cluster of trees on this boundary which would further serve to screen the new development from this neighbouring property.
7.11.3 Overall, whilst Plots 1, 3-6 would not result in adverse impacts on neighbours, the proximity and height of Plot 2 to Sunny Cottage to the south would result in adverse impacts in terms of overlooking and overbearing impacts. As such, it is considered that these elements of the scheme would be contrary to those sections of General Policy 2(g) and the Residential Design Guide 2021, and as such are considered unacceptable.
7.12 OTHER MATTERS 7.12.1 The comments related to the definition for the site has been addressed within the report and as such no further assessments would be made in that regard. The comments related to the presence of a mound/rubble on site has also been noted. However, that is not a planning matter and would be a matter for other authorities to address.
7.12.2 No other concerns have been noted.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The following issues weigh in favour of the proposal; the zoning of the area for residential development; the limited impacts on the adjacent conservation area; the highway safety impacts; the contributions to energy use and conservation; the approach to designing out crime and prevention; and flood impacts.
8.2 Conversely, the following issues weigh against the proposal; the potential adverse impacts upon the visual amenities of the area; the detrimental impacts on the landscape; the adverse impacts on trees and ecology, and impact on the occupants of Sunny Cottage, Victoria Road.
8.3 Overall, it is considered that whilst there are a number of factors which weigh in favour of and against the development, it should be noted here that the key considerations for determining the acceptability of development proposal here is the visual impact, impact on trees (given trees contribute significantly to the character of the area), the impacts on ecology given the current drive for no net loss of biodiversity and the impact on neighbouring amenity, as it is expected that the development should be seamlessly integrated into its current setting with minimal impacts on the area.
8.4 Therefore, on balance, given the weight assigned to ecological considerations and the need for developments to respect the character of the site and locality to which they are to be established, the application is recommended for refusal, as it would fail the requirements of General Policy 2 (b, c & f), Strategic Policies 4(b), Strategic Policy 5, and Environment Policy 42, Environment Policies 3, 4 and 5, and the relevant sections of the Residential Design Guide 2021.
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
==== PAGE 20 ====
21/01468/B Page 20 of 20
(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 a Principal Planner 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: 08.09.2022
Determining officer
Signed : A MORGAN Abigail Morgan
Principal Planner
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