Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/01567/B Page 1 of 22
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 21/01567/B Applicant : Hartford Homes Ltd Proposal Replacement of existing dwelling with the erection of 7 detached dwellings with integral garages and associated access, drainage and landscaping Site Address Netherby Douglas Road Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1TN
Case Officer :
Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken :
26.04.2022 Site Visit :
26.04.2022 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 14.06.2022
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
C 2. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied/brought into use unless the bat boxes, bird boxes, and Bee Bricks have been installed/constructed in accordance with details submitted.
The mitigation bat, bird and bee boxes/bricks are to be erected on site as detailed in the Proposed Site plan (Drawing No. 3 Rev A) and the Plot 1 - Plot 7 Plans and Elevations Drawings all dated December 2021, (Drawings no. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 & 14)
The boxes/bricks shall be retained thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of protecting and enhancing the biodiversity of the environment.
C 3. Notwithstanding the details that have been submitted, the development hereby approved shall not commence until a detailed landscaping strategy which includes the creation of a long- term habitat management plan for the wildflower areas shown in the most up-to date landscape plans, has first been submitted to the Department in writing to be agreed. The strategy shall include a timescale for implementation.
The detailed landscape strategy shall include a detailed landscaping layout, details of planting (no none non-native species), hard surfacing materials, site levels, and details of the landscape features (hedges and trees) marked to be retained on site.
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/01567/B Page 2 of 22
Soft landscaping works shall include: planting plans (at a scale not less than 1:100), written specification of planting and cultivation works to be undertaken and schedules of plants, noting species, plant sizes and proposed numbers / densities and a programme for the implementation, completion and subsequent management of the proposed landscaping.
No Wildlife Act 1990 Schedule 8 non-native invasive plant species are to be planted on site.
The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved scheme and shall be retained as such thereafter unless changes to the landscaping have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Any additional removal must be compensated for by replacement planting in accordance with details which have first been approved in writing by the Department.
Reason: To ensure that the development achieves a high standard of design, layout and amenity and makes provision for hard and soft landscaping which contributes to the creation of a high quality, accessible, safe and attractive environment.
C 4. Prior to the removal of Tree no. 4618 a Preliminary roost assessment by a suitably qualified ecologist shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department, as this tree was found to have potential roost features for bats in its trunk and is due to be removed.
Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site.
C 5. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied/brought into use unless the stacked Log pile creation or a hibernaculum suitable for Common Lizard as detailed in the Proposed Site Plan dated October 2021 (Drawing no. 3), and referred to (with details shown) in Appendix VII of the Manx Wildlife Trust Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report dated June 2021 have been installed/constructed in accordance with details submitted. The stacked log piles shall be retained thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of protecting and enhancing the biodiversity of the environment.
C 6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a detailed external low level lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The lighting of the site will be designed in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8 Bats and Artificial Lighting (12th September 2018).
The lighting details shall include detailed drawings of the proposed lighting columns and fittings, information about the levels of luminance and daily duration and any measures for mitigating the effects of light pollution.
The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plan.
Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site.
C 7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved (including site clearance), a Working Method Statement and eradication plan for Schedule 8 non-native invasive plant species shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the submitted Method Statement.
Reason: In order to protect and enhance biodiversity in the environment.
C 8. Prior to any works (including site clearance) commencing on the site, a Precautionary Working Method Statement for common lizard, common frog and breeding birds, shall be
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/01567/B Page 3 of 22
submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the submitted Method Statement.
Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site.
C 9. The Wildflower areas shown in the landscape plan (Drawing No. 06 Rev A) dated 18 February 2022, shall be created and managed via the methodology specified in the Habitat section in Table 1 of the Manx Wildlife Trust's Technical Note: Biodiversity Metric and Ecological Mitigation Plan - Netherby. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plan. The Wildflower areas shall be retained thereafter.
Reason: In the interests of protecting and enhancing the biodiversity of the environment.
C 10. The existing trees marked for retention on the Outline Tree Protection Plan (Drawing No. OTP-201221) 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.
The Arboricultural monitoring indicated in the Arboricultural Method Statement, which forms part of the tree protection for the site shall be carried out in accordance with the details outlined in the Manx Root Tree Survey and Report.
Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.
C 11. 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.
C 12. No development shall commence on site until a programme of archaeological work, to include excavations where required, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The programme shall indicate the degree of supervision by a qualified archaeologist. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the programme of archaeological work so approved.
Reason: To ensure that archaeological remains and features are adequately recorded.
C 13. The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use unless the access, visibility, vehicular and pedestrian access and all parking and turning areas, have been provided and surfaced in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans (Drawing Nos. ITB16403-GA-007, ITB16403-GA-007 and 03 Rev A). Once provided, all access, parking and turning areas shall thereafter be permanently retained as such.
Reason: To ensure the provision of a means of access, parking and turning space to an adequate standard in the interests of road safety.
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/01567/B Page 4 of 22
C 14. No development in connection with the development hereby approved shall be occupied/brought into use unless the proposed foul sewage and surface water drainage system[s] have been provided in accordance with the approved plans (Drawing No. 16 Rev A received 28 February 2022, and 03 Rev A received 18 February 2022). The foul and surface water drainage system[s] shall be permanently retained thereafter in accordance with the approved scheme.
Reason: In order to ensure that adequate drainage facilities are provided, and retained, in the interests of the amenity of the area.
C 15. Except for excavation and demolition work, you must carry out any building work which can be heard at the boundary of the site only: o between 08.00 and 18.00 Monday to Friday; o between 08.00 and 13.00 on Saturday; and o not at all on Sundays, bank holidays and public holidays. You must carry out excavation and demolition work only: o between 08.00 and 18.00 Monday to Friday; and o not at all on Saturdays, Sundays, bank holidays and public holidays.
Reason: to protect the local environment.
C 16. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2012 or any order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order no means of enclosure, structures or other free standing buildings, other than that shown on the approved plans and other documents listed on this decision notice, and any drawings approved subsequently in writing by the Department pursuant to any conditions on this decision notice, shall be erected on the site without an express grant of planning approval from the Department.
Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the development.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is concluded the proposal complies with the relevant planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, Residential Design Guide 2021 and the Area Plan for the South and therefore it is recommended the application is approved subject to conditions as listed.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
D: This approval relates to the following plans and documents: Drawings o Hart 55-01 Location Plan o Hart 55-02 Existing Site Plan o Hart 55-03 rev B Proposed Site Plan o Hart 55-04 Airport Flight Safety Site Plan o Hart 55-05 Fencing Schedule o Hart 55-06 rev A Landscape Plan o Hart 55-08 Plot 1 Plans and Elevations o Hart 55 -09 Plot 2 Plans and Elevations o Hart 55-10 Plot 3 Plans and Elevations o Hart 55-11 Plot 4 Plans and Elevations o Hart 55-12 Plot 5 Plans and Elevations o Hart 55-13 Plot 6 Plans and Elevations o Hart 55-14 Plot 7 Plans and Elevations o Hart 55-15 Street Elevations o Hart 55-16 rev Drainage Plan Pumped Option
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/01567/B Page 5 of 22
o CGI Sheet 1 of 2 o CGI Sheet 2 of 2 o Manx Roots - Tree Constraints Plan o Manx Roots - Tree Impact Plan o Manx Roots - Tree Protection Plan
Reports o Hartford Planning Statement o MWT - PEAR Report o MWT - Ecology Mitigation Plan o Manx Roots - Arboricultural Impact Assessment o Manx Roots - Tree Report o Manx Roots - Tree Root Report o RPS - Archaeological Statement o Delta Planning - Housing Need Statement o Black Grace Cowley - Property Market Statement o I Transport - Transport Statement
Relevant Emails o George Li to Paul Visigah 17/2/2022 Additional information in support of application o Paul Brew to Paul Visigah 28/2/2022 Response to MUA Drainage o Paul Brew to Paul Visigah 9/3/2022 Highway Drainage o Paul Brew to Paul Visigah 17/3/2022 Response to Forester queries o Paul Brew to Paul Visigah 29/3/2022 Response to Flood query o Paul Brew to Paul Visigah 04/04/2022 Confirmation from Flood Team that they are happy with the development o George Li to Paul Visigah 27/4/2022 Response to Neighbour's Concerns o Paul Brew to Paul Visigah 27/5/2022 Confirmation of pumped drainage, inc. technical details
__
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 be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):
2 Brookfield Avenue, Castletown, Tir Nan Og, Brookfield Avenue, Castletown, Braemer, Douglas Road, Castletown
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/01567/B Page 6 of 22
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. __
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE DEVELOMPENT IS CONTRARY TO THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE AREA PLAN BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of Netherby, an existing detached dwelling which sits to the north east of Brookfield Avenue and to the south of an open field all to the west of the A5 Castletown/Douglas Road opposite the southern part of the Isle of Man Airport. The house sits in the very far northern corner of the site with a long drive leading to the A5 which cuts through a lawned area with some conifers and planted beds scattered within the site. The site is around 1 hectare in area.
1.2 The boundary of the site to the A5 is provided by in the most part, a rendered wall painted cream with a white coping although the eastern 17.5m take the form of a slightly higher stone wall which ends just past the eastern edge of the application site, abutting the land to the east which has a low bank and hedging atop as its boundary to the A5.
1.3 The existing dwelling and the site are not particularly prominent as one approaches the site from the east (Ballasalla). Netherby can be seen through the roadside hedge but it and its grounds are largely screened by the conifers within the site. As one reaches the rendered boundary wall, there is less planting and a clear view into the garden is achievable.
1.4 The boundary with the Brookfield Avenue properties is formed by a low bank with trees and shrubs on top - quite an informal boundary but there are also trees within the grounds of the application site which provide separation between the more open lawned areas and this boundary.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the replacement of existing dwelling with the erection of 7 detached dwellings with integral garages and associated access, drainage and landscaping. The proposal includes a total of four house types; the dwelling type closer to the highway are dormer bungalows, while the other dwelling types situated further into the site are all two storeys. The proposals are all five bedroom detached dwellings. All have at least two off road parking spaces and also have access to double garages, integral for the two storey dwellings and detached for the dormer bungalows.
2.2 Access to and from the site will be via a new access which would at a more centralised position when compared to the existing access. The driveway would be altered to accommodate the new dwellings on site.
2.3 The application drawings also illustrate zones where the height of buildings is restricted in association with air traffic safety regulations, effectively keeping the dwellings closer to the highway and airport at a lower height, with the dwelling height increasing as you move further into the site and away from the airport flight zone.
2.4 Foul drainage from the dwellings on site would be discharged via a private pumping station designed to have 24 hour storage dual pumps and visual fault alarm. The system will be connected to the public sewer as indicated on the drawings and agreed with MUA. The applicants have indicated that the final pump station will be dual pumps with 24 hour storage to cover any failures. It will also to be provided with a visual alarm and telemetry to make the
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/01567/B Page 7 of 22
management company aware of any failures and instigate repairs. They further state that the pumped station is the preferred solution over the onsite sewage treatment option, and that this is as a result of discussions with MUA.
2.5 On management of sewage and other services on the site, they state that as the roads, open space and drainage will all remain private, they would propose that a management company is formed with each purchaser owning 1/7 share (same as Apartment Blocks). The Management Company would be set up with annual service fee to cover the following: i. Property Insurance ii. Maintenance of Pumping station iii. Cleaning of Road and Road Gullys iv. Maintenance of Open Space v. Sinking Fund (for future works i.e. replacement pumps or repairs)
2.6 A total of 17 trees are to be removed (14 Category C trees, 2 Category U trees, and 1 Category B tree), and 57 new native trees would be planted throughout the site as mitigation for the tree loss.
2.7 In support of the application the applicants have provided the following documents: i. Housing Need Statement dated December 2021; ii. Property Market Statement dated December 2021; iii. Arboricultural Impact Assessment prepared by Manx Roots Limited, dated 21 December 2021; iv. Root Report Assessment prepared by Manx Roots Limited, dated 2 March 2022;
v. Archaeological Statement prepared by RPS Group: This concludes that that there are buried archaeological remains within the site, and the information recovered on the archaeological potential of the site is sufficient to inform a planning decision. It further states that the archaeological remains predominantly relate to a medieval settlement, perhaps related directly to the lintel burials recorded previously in the road and in the wider area. There is some limited evidence for prehistoric activity on the site, although at present this is ill-defined. The trial trenching has identified that the archaeological features and deposits are relatively well-preserved. These buried archaeological remains are considered to be of local to regional interest, and would require mitigation should planning permission be granted. It is anticipated that a scope of works for any mitigation would be agreed with MNH in the event of planning permission being granted, and that the mitigation required could be secured through an appropriately worded condition placed upon the planning consent; vi. Transport Statement prepared by i-Transport LLP and dated 17 December 2021: The main conclusions of the highways statement are that: o The proposed site access arrangements provide safe and suitable access to the site from Douglas Road appropriate for the prevailing conditions; o A Stage One Road Safety Audit report which concludes that the development raises no overriding safety issues with the proposed access; o Car and cycle parking will be provided in accordance with the parking standards set out in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; o The proposed layout will provide adequate refuse collection arrangements with a large refuse vehicle being able to access, turn within, and egress the site in forward gear; and o Future residents will be within a short walking distance of frequent local bus services to Castletown town centre and Douglas and will therefore have genuine and realistic opportunities to access a wider range of facilities and destinations by public transport, including travel to/from work and shopping trips.
vii. Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report prepared by Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy and dated June 2021: The key constraints and mitigation are:
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/01567/B Page 8 of 22
o Presence of Schedule 8 invasive non-native plant species. o Presence of trees with Potential Roost Features (PRFs) for bats and birds. o Precautionary Working Method Statement (PWMS) for Common Lizard and Common Frog. o Timing of work to avoid offences under the IOM Wildlife Act 1990 (as amended).
2.8 The applicants have provided a Planning Statement which articulates the justifications for the scheme, as well as the sensitive design choice to ensure the scheme fits within the site context. They consider that the proposal represents an opportunity to make more efficient use of a parcel of land which is already used for residential use, for much needed housing. They state that the site has previously been deemed appropriate for an intensified residential use by the Planning Minister, and the proposals are in line with the layout previously considered as being acceptable. They further state that: i. This site is immediately surrounded by land zoned for residential use to the west, the airport to the south and employment use (as a zoned strategic reserve site) to the north and east. Thus, in planning terms, it is fully surrounded by developed or developable land and not open countryside. ii. The proposed layout, positioning the houses towards the rear of the site, will maintain the parkland appearance of the front of the site when viewed from Douglas Road, thereby having a minimal visual impact. iii. The new houses will also be screened from the adjacent land by retention of all the site perimeter trees and by additional tree planting and the creation of an additional ecology area that will result in an ecological net gain especially so as most of the site is currently mown residential lawn. iv. The site abuts six properties on the adjacent housing estate. Only one proposed property (plot 3) abuts, side on, to this boundary, and adjoins just two existing properties on Brookfield Avenue. Though given the separation distance (39m to single storey garage and 45.9m to main dwelling) and existing tress, and new planting mix of evergreen and native trees
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site is not designated for development on the Area Plan for the South 2013 (Map 4) and it is not within a Conservation Area. The site is, however, flanked by a Strategic Reserve on the northeast and northwest boundaries, while a Predominantly Residential Area forms the southwest boundary. The site is not prone to flood risks, or within a registered tree area and there are no registered trees on site.
3.2 The Character Appraisal within the Area Plan for the South states thus concerning the area: Landscape Character Area: Castletown and Ballasalla (F7) "The overall strategy is to conserve the character, quality and distinctiveness of this open area that contributes to the setting of Castletown and Ballasalla, to enhance the river field pattern and to conserve the aquatic habitat corridor of the Silverburn.
Key Views: Open and panoramic views out to sea and over Langness' rocky shoreline beyond the Airport. Key views to the prominent landmarks of Castle Rushen and King William's College."
==== PAGE 9 ====
21/01567/B Page 9 of 22
3.3 The following proposals within the Area Plan are also considered relevant: 3.3.1 Landscape Proposal 6: In determining applications for development consideration should be given to the siting of tall vertical elements so that they do not affect the setting of King William's College and Castle Rushen.
3.3.2 Green Gap Proposal 3: Between Castletown and the Airport/Ronaldsway Business Park (inclusive of Site SR2), development which would erode the separation and detract from the openness between the two areas will not be permitted.
3.3.3 Development Brief SR2
3.3.4 "Business Parks A development encompassing land for light industrial purposes, warehousing, new technology companies involved in scientific, commercial, or industrial research or development and office accommodation as the corporate headquarters of companies having multiple and diverse
==== PAGE 10 ====
21/01567/B Page 10 of 22
interests (but excluding financial/professional services to visiting members of the public); buildings should be set in parkland which should dominate the landscape".
3.4 The Strategic Plan stipulates a general presumption against development in areas which are not designated for a particular purpose and where the protection of the countryside is of paramount importance (EP 1 and GP3). However, since the site has an established residential use and the site is within a location with existing properties, it would also be relevant to consider the general standards of development as set out in General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42.
3.4.1 General Policy 2: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (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".
3.4.2 Environment Policy 42: New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans.
3.5 Other relevant Strategic Plan Policies include: 3.5.1 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings and re-using scarce, indigenous building materials; b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards and c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services".
3.5.2 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3".
3.5.3 Strategic Policy 3: "Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by:
==== PAGE 11 ====
21/01567/B Page 11 of 22
(a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements."
3.5.4 "Sustainable urban extensions" are defined in the Strategic Plan as involving "the planned expansion of a city or town and can contribute to creating more sustainable patterns of development when located in the right place, with well-planned infrastructure including access to a range of facilities, and when developed at appropriate densities".
3.5.5 Housing Policy 5 states: "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more."
3.5.6 Transport Policy 1: New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes.
3.5.7 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.
3.5.8 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.
3.5.9 Transport Policy 7: The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7. Typical Residential - 2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling.
3.5.10 Environment Policy 4 protects biodiversity (including protected species and designated sites).
3.5.11 Environment Policy 22: Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution.
3.5.12 Strategic Policy 11: "The housing needs of the Island will be met by making provision for sufficient development opportunities to enable 5,100 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2011 to 2026".
3.5.13 Paragraph 4.3.4 In terms of how those dwellings should be distributed, Housing Policy 3 states: "The overall housing provision will be distributed as follows: o North 1,200 o South 1,300 o East 2,500 o West 1,000 o All Island 6,000"
3.6 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are to be considered are; Environment Policies 10 and 13, Infrastructure Policy 5, and Community Policies 7, 10 and 11.
4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS
==== PAGE 12 ====
21/01567/B Page 12 of 22
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. It is envisaged that separate guidance will be provided for dwellings in the countryside, although some of the broad principles set out within this document may still be relevant to such proposals". Sections 2.0 on Sustainable Construction, 3.0 on New Homes, and 5.0 on Architectural Details are particularly relevant.
4.2 UNESCO Biosphere Isle of Man 4.2.1 The scope of the UNESCO Biosphere Isle of Man Pledge is deliberately broad and inclusive but the context of the Pledge principles are set out below (in part): o 'Protecting our natural resources - this could relate to anything you're trying to do better that will impact positively on our natural resources, from managing water use to planting trees. o Developing our economy in a sustainable way - doing business responsibly, balancing the need for growth with respect for our natural, social and cultural environment. Responsible businesses tend to be more resilient, contributing to a diverse economy which is more sustainable than a 'monoculture' economy. o Making our environmental impact positive wherever possible - closely related to the first principle of protecting our natural resources, this could include anything from energy saving and waste management measures to support of local environmental projects. o Engaging with the local community - through environmental, social or community groups, whichever fit best with business.
4.3 The Castletown Housing Land Review (2017-18) and Residential Land Availability Study (2020) are relevant. The Castletown Housing Land Review identified potential additional housing land for Castletown and applications were made. An Appeal decision (AP19/0047) on planning application 18/00987/B set out a clear assessment on the status of the Review. The Inspector in his Report on the application for 48 dwellings on land at Knock Rushen (Site G in the CHLR) stated: 'Whilst the Castletown Housing Land Review asserts the need for additional dwellings to support Castletown's position in the settlement hierarchy, its findings are open to question; and have not been examined at a public inquiry or subsequently approved by Tynwald. It cannot therefore carry as much weight as the Island Development Plan.'
4.4 It is noted that the 2020 RLA stated in paragraph 5.6, "The South having the most up to date Area Plan has few issues in delivering the targets of the Strategic Plan with the exception of Castletown that has seen less development than either Malew (Ballasalla) or Port Erin. As the Area Plan for the South draws closer to its 10th anniversary the need to review the plan and address this issue will become more pressing".
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 Planning permission has been sought and granted for a range of alterations and extensions to the house, none of which is relevant to the consideration of this current proposal.
5.2 Permission was refused for the principle of the development of the site for offices and for a nursing home (PAs 97/02068 and 98/00266). These applications were refused for similar reasons, referring to fact that the site is not designated for development and that "the largely green site" was considered to contribute to the open space separating Castletown from Ronaldsway and where the erection of a larger building and associated car park could lead to the gradual coalescence of the built development of Ronaldsway and Castletown and would reduce the contribution of this currently open space. In addition, the increase in traffic and activity on the site were considered to increase the impact on the residents of the adjacent Brookfield Avenue properties and there were concerns about the drainage of the site.
5.3 The most relevant application on the site to the current scheme is the application for Approval in principle for the demolition of existing dwelling and outbuildings and redevelopment of plot to create a residential layout with associated services under PA 14/00291/A which was
==== PAGE 13 ====
21/01567/B Page 13 of 22
refused by the Planning Committee. The Appeal Inspector also upheld the Committee decision and recommended refusal for the scheme. The Minister on his part approved the application subject to conditions with the following arguments:
The Minister noted that there is generally no disagreement that the application site could accommodate more development than that which is currently served by one dwelling notwithstanding that the Minister notes that some parties to the appeal fundamentally objected to the principle of the development of the land per se.
The Minister notes in Paragraph 19 of the Inspectors report that, "...The Area Plan does not absolutely discount future development within the Green gap", to the extent that the application, in his opinion turns on whether it would, "...erode the separation and detract from the openness between Castletown and the existing Business Park.
The Minister was not persuaded that on evidence before him that, in the round, development of the application site would erode the separation and detract from the openness between Castletown and the existing Business Park. In support of his opinion, the Minister draws on the Inspector's comment at paragraph 21 that "...it should not be presupposed that the requirements of the SR2 Development Brief will all be met". To the extent that this creates uncertainty as to the development of the SR2 lands and also having regard to the fact that the lands comprise a 'Strategic Reserve' allocation, in the Minister's opinion and when assessed in the context of both the aforementioned test and the current situation, the Minister is not persuaded that the development of the subject lands will erode the 'separation' or 'detract from the openness' between Castletown and the existing Business Park. In that regard, the Minister is satisfied that the proposal is not contrary to the provisions of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 or the provisions of the Area Plan for the South 2013.
The Minister also reached the conclusion that a development of 7 dwellings on the application site is the appropriate density of the development.
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division Consultation: 6.1.1 Consultation dated 18 January 2021: o They note that the proposal site is well connected and does not raise significant road safety or network functionality issues. The layout is satisfactory. Car and cycle parking are to be provided in accordance with the parking standards. Electric vehicle charging points for each unit should be considered. As the proposed street is intended to be private, a waste bin collection point may be necessary. o They raise no objection subject to conditions for the proposal to meet drawings: a) Access, i-Transport's: ITB16403-GA-007 b) Visibility Splays, i-Transport's: ITB16403-GA-007 c) Layout meeting: 03, including closure of the existing redundant vehicular access and reinstatement.
6.1.2 Consultation dated 18 February 2022: They notes the additions and amendments uploaded on 18 February 2022, and state that the proposed drainage channel should be set back from the line of the new footway. They state that the comments made in response dated 18 January 2021 remain valid for the most part. The condition for the proposed layout of the access, new footway and internal street should refer to the amended drawing no: 03 Rev A.
6.1.3 Consultation dated 18 March 2022:
==== PAGE 14 ====
21/01567/B Page 14 of 22
They note the amendments uploaded on 14 March 2022 and amend drawing number to that referenced in previous comments 18 February 2022 to 03 Rev B.
6.1.4 Consultation dated 28 March 2022: They note the re-consultation letter received on 21 March 2022 and makes no further comment on the proposal.
6.2 DOI Highways Drainage have stated that they are satisfied with elements of the scheme shown to prevent surface water runoff from private areas draining onto the public highway (19 February 2022).
6.3 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team Consultation: 6.3.1 Consultation dated 09 February 2022: o They confirm that the Manx Wildlife Trust's Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (PEAR) for Netherby dated June 2021 is all in order and that a suitable level of assessment has been undertaken. o They recommend a list of measures that should be secured via condition on approval to ensure that there is no net loss for biodiversity on site. The conditions would cover mitigation for bats, birds and bees; landscaping of the site; preliminary roost assessment of Tree no. 4618 prior to its removal, as this was found to have a potential roost features for bats; log pile creation as detailed in Proposed site Plan; tree planting plan; external lighting; Working Method Statement and eradication plan for Schedule 8 non-native invasive plant species; and Precautionary Working Method Statement for common lizard.
6.3.2 Consultation dated 16 March 2022: o They confirm that they are satisfied with the Manx Wildlife Trust's Technical Note: Biodiversity Metric and Ecological Mitigation Plan - Netherby, dated 9th February 2022. o They state that in addition to the conditions requested in their previous response which covers most of the avoidance, compensation and enhancement measures detailed in the MWTs Technical Note, they also request that the following measures are secured via conditions on approval: Creation of Wildflower areas and long-term habitat management plan for the wildflower areas. o They request that the landscape condition be updated to make reference to the most up-to-date landscape plans (Drawing No. 06 - Revision A) as submitted to Planning in February 2022.
6.4 DEFA's Arboricultural Team: 6.4.1 Consultation dated 17 February 2022: o They note that the proposed development requires the removal of 1 category B tree (T4633, ref BS5837:2012) which would normally result in an objection to the application. However, mitigation planting proposed will provide a net increase in canopy cover and a net improvement in amenity value, and as such they do not object to this application. o They note that several 'New Horizon' (disease resistant hybrid cultivar) elms will be planted adjacent to Castletown Road which should, if they are properly maintained until established, make a significant contribution to the amenities of the area for many years to come. o They note that the proposed development also requires the removal of 13 category C trees and 1 Category C group, but believe the mitigation proposed is sufficient. o They estimate that approximately 800m2 of canopy will be removed as a direct result of the proposed development, but at least this amount (probably more) will be restored within 10 years if the replanting is successful. o They request that concerns regarding incursions for trees 4628, 4621, 4617 and 4610 be addressed prior to determination of the application (17 February 2022).
6.4.2 Consultation dated 28 March 2022:
==== PAGE 15 ====
21/01567/B Page 15 of 22
o Following receipt of test pit results which show that RPAs don't need to be offset, with the amended protection plan addressing that concern, they have indicated that they have no objection to the proposal. o They recommend that the amended Tree Protection Plan be secured with a condition, should the application be approved.
6.5 DEFA EPU have indicated that the preferred option for sewerage infrastructure for the site to use a pumping station and connection to MU infrastructure at the southern roundabout by Ronaldsway (24 May 2022). They state that with regard to the noise, odour and vibrations from a pumping station, they are not able to comment on the impacts of this on neighbouring residents (19 May 2022).
6.6 DOI Flood Risk Management initially requested that a Flood Risk Assessments be provided before planning consent is given (16 March 2022). Following receipt of additional information from the applicants, they note that the development would not be in a flood risk zone and as such indicate that they do not oppose (4 April 2022).
6.7 Manx Utilities Drainage have stated that they are happy with the proposals for the above mentioned planning application and can confirm that the drainage will remain private and will not be adopted by Manx Utilities (28 March 2022).
6.8 Manx National Heritage have provided an advisory regarding nesting birds on trees within the site during the summer months from the beginning of April to the end of August. They further state that any works on the trees would ideally take place outside the nesting season and must only commence once a check for nesting birds has been undertaken (1 February 2022).
6.9 Malew Parish Commissioners have no objections to the application (19 January 2022).
6.10 There are objections to the development from the residents of the following properties in Brookfield Avenue that lie on the south-western side of the site: i. 2 Brookfield Avenue, Castletown; ii. Tir Nan Og, Brookfield Avenue, Castletown; and iii. Braemer, Douglas Road, Castletown
6.10.1 They all object to the application on the following grounds: o The time span for development has lapsed, o Conflict with the landuse zoning as a Green gap, o The development would erode the separation and detract from the openness between the two areas, o The previous approval was in conflict with the Green Gap Policy, o Impacts on highway safety, o They question if there has been any impact assessment completed to determine potential impact of recent residential developments in Castletown and Ballasalla on local schools and GP Practices to meet increased demand. o They refer to contents of Housing Needs Assessment and Property Market Statement which refers to Castletown and now Malew where the application property is located. o They note that there has been a number of housing developments within few miles of Netherby since the original application was approved in 2014. o They state that the site is of ecological importance and that the Geophysical Survey mentioned in the Archaeological Statement only covers a small proportion of the site (2 percent). o They refer to impact on trees. o Potential impact of sewage treatment plant positioned close to their property (smells, noise and vibrations).
==== PAGE 16 ====
21/01567/B Page 16 of 22
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to be considered with this application are: 1. Principle of residential development; 2. Potential impact upon the character/appearance of the street scene; 3. Potential impact upon trees; 4. Impacts on Ecology; 5. Highway issues; 6. Drainage/Flood issues; 7. Potential impacts upon Neighbouring Residential Amenity; and 8. Archaeological Concerns
7.2 PRINCIPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 7.2.1 As indicated within the 'Planning Policy' section of this report, the site is not designated for development on the Area Plan, although the site has an established residential use. It has, however, already been established under the previous application for the site (PA 14/00291/A) that the principle of residential development for the site is acceptable. Under PA 14/00291/A, it was also established that there is generally no disagreement that the application site could accommodate more development than that which is currently served by one dwelling, with the Minister reaching the conclusion that a development of 7 dwellings on the application site is the appropriate density of the development.
7.2.2 Another factor that bodes well for the scheme is the fact that since the 2014 approval, there have not been material planning changes which have arisen in terms of policy as the Area Plan for the South has not been updated, and the Strategic Plan would only be due for review starting in 2022 but will not be brought before Tynwald until 2023. Based on the foregoing, the policy test provided in 2014 when approval in principle was granted for the development of seven dwellings on the site would still be valid.
7.2.3 Attention has been drawn to the level of housing provision to date, and whether there is a need for any additional housing. Whilst it is noted that there have been recent approvals for new housing in Castletown, it is also noted that the Castletown Housing Land Review was not successful in bringing forward additional sites, and the findings of the 2020 Residential Land Availability Study indicated a continued need for additional housing in Castletown. Furthermore, the housing figures in the Strategic Plan are targets rather than maximum limits. Therefore, it is not considered that questions of housing need are a barrier to this proposal.
7.2.4 Another positive sign for the proposed scheme is the requirement in Strategic Policy 1 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 the site's proximity to Castletown and related amenities which would make it sustainable from the point of view of residential development. 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, the acceptability of the proposed density has already been considered appropriate.
7.2.5 In addition, the sites surroundings, in terms of built development (Brookfield Avenue to the south) and potential built development (SR2) - Strategic Reserve Site 2 (RS2) for potential future development as a business park subject to Development Brief SR2 (to the north-east and north-west), would ensure that the proposed scheme is a fitting addition to the area.
7.2.6 Accordingly, as previously considered the proposal would comply with the relevant planning policies and therefore it is judged that the principle of the proposed development would be acceptable. This is, however, not an automatic reason to allow development as further material planning matters as indicated previously need to be considered, to determine if
==== PAGE 17 ====
21/01567/B Page 17 of 22
the current scheme which is slightly varied comparative to that approved in 2014 would be appropriate for the site.
7.3 POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON THE CHARACTER/APPEARANCE OF THE STREET SCENE 7.3.1 In terms of the visual impacts of the new dwellings, the main public views would be from Douglas Road that abuts the site frontage as the trees on the southwest and northeast boundaries would serve to screen views to the proposed development. It is also considered that there would be limited views to the new dwellings via the site frontage which the main vantage gained through the access which would be guided by new hedge planting on both sides, although it is acknowledged that there would be views to the bungalows situated closer to the site frontage and parts of the dwellings to the rear whilst the plantings (trees and hedges) are still developing; a situation that would change considerably once the trees and hedges mature. However, even where there may be glimpses of the dwellings, these will be limited and be seen in connection with existing residential properties situated within Brookfield, with the retained thick tree cover within the site serving to retain the parkland appearance which is reflected in the existing site character.
7.3.2 As well, it is considered that the new fences proposed to be 2.4m high for the boundary of the new properties together with the new hedgerow planted in front would further serve to soften the visual impact of the scheme.
7.3.3 It is perhaps also worth considering that the design of dwellings in term of form is modern, albeit with the traditional steeply pitched roof finishes and gable ends, and would be finished in traditional construction materials, including painted render, stone wall cladding and imitation slates on roofs. It is also considered that the proposed dwellings will be of similar scale to the 1940s houses in Brookfield Avenue, with the varied design types also fitting seamlessly into the area, considering the houses in Brookfield have varied individual designs, with no overriding design type. Accordingly, the overall design, siting, layout, size, landscaping and finishes of the dwelling would all be acceptable and would create a pleasant housing development, without having a significant adverse visual impact to the amenities of the street scene, site or area.
7.3.4 The comments made by objector to the scheme which indicates that the development would erode the separation and detract from the openness between Castletown and the existing Business Park are noted. However, it would be vital to note that the Minister whilst approving the previous scheme under 14/00291/A was not persuaded that on evidence before him that the development of the application site would erode the separation and detract from the openness between Castletown and the existing Business Park. Besides, the fact that the surrounding lands have been designated as a Strategic reserve presupposes that these land s would be developed in the future with business park developments known to create building that would have greater impacts in terms of building heights and the introduction of more parking and connecting roads; a situation that would considerably alter the character of the area. This also implies that these lands should not be viewed as open countryside where there is no intention to develop.
7.3.5 Overall, in terms of the impacts on the street scene, the design, layout, finishes and scale of the development would be appropriate. Accordingly, whilst there will be an impact to the visual amenities of the area over the current situation (i.e. a single dwelling with a large landscaped plot), the impact to public views would not be significant and it is considered the proposals would be acceptable and comply with the requirements of General Policy 2 and the principles advocated by Environment Policy 42 of the IOMSP.
7.4 POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON TREES 7.4.1 Arguably one of the main concerns with the current scheme is the number of trees which would be required to be removed to enable the development to take place. As can be seen with the detailed comments from the Senior Arboricultural Officer, it is estimated that
==== PAGE 18 ====
21/01567/B Page 18 of 22
approximately 800m2 of canopy will be removed as a direct result of the proposed development, but at least this amount (probably more) will be restored; a situation that would be achieved mainly by the replanting of about 57 trees to replace the 17 trees to be removed. The Senior Arboricultural Officer is, thus, content with the application and information provided but list a number of conditions which should be attached to any approval to ensure the retained trees are protected and that the replanting scheme becomes integral to development of the site.
7.5 IMPACTS ON ECOLOGY 7.5.1 In assessing the impacts of the development on site ecology, it is considered that a potential impacts upon biodiversity of the site is directly related to tree loss, as some of the trees have potential roost features (PRFs) for bats and birds. This has been clearly as indicated on the Manx Wildlife Trust's Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report (PEAR) which has been considered to involve a suitable level of assessment by DEFA's Ecosystem Policy Team. They have, however, stated that they are satisfied with the Manx Wildlife Trust's Technical Note: Biodiversity Metric and Ecological Mitigation Plan, submitted by the applicants, which details the mitigation to deal with this issue. As such, it is considered that the requirements of Environment Policy 5 are met in this situation.
7.5.2 The submitted PEA also indicates that Schedule 8 invasive non-native plant species are present on site, with the scheme also having the potential to house protected species as the site provides suitable shelter and hibernation habitat for lizards and frogs. The Ecosystem Policy Team (DEFA), however, confirm that both the PEAR and Technical Note are in order and that the level of assessment is appropriate, with the mitigation recommended appropriate. From reviewing their comments, it is considered that they are content with the application and information provided but list a number of conditions which should be attached to any approval in order to ensure that there is no net loss for biodiversity on site.
7.5.3 Based on the foregoing, it is felt that the application has satisfied the principles of Environment Policy 4. Conditions would, however, be imposed to ensure that the required mitigation measures are implemented as required by Environment Policy 5.
7.6 HIGHWAY ISSUES 7.6.1 In assessing the highway impacts of the current scheme, it is considered that the site entrance has been repositioned to be more central on the site frontage, to comply with visibility splay requirements and will be an improvement on the current arrangement. The new access position would also be further away from the position of the access to Brookfield which would be in the interest of highway safety. Moreover, the applicants have provided a Stage One Road Safety Audit report which concludes that the development raises no overriding safety issues with the proposed access. 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 conditions for the proposal to meet submitted drawings.
7.6.2 In terms of off road parking, each dwelling would have 2 spaces provided within the site, in addition to two parking spaces provide within the garages which would be more than sufficient when compared with the requirements of Transport Policy 7 and stipulated within Appendix 7 of the IOMSP.
7.6.3 Another factor that serves as an advantage for the development is the provision of 2m wide footpaths to roads within site and the site entrance with tactile crossing points which would ensure proper segregation between pedestrians and vehicle users within the site in line with Transport Policy 6. As well, the site is within a public transport corridor with proximity to the train station (902m) and airport (575m), which increases the public transport options available to future occupants, whilst facilitating the ease of travel off the island when required
==== PAGE 19 ====
21/01567/B Page 19 of 22
without the need for use of private vehicles; conditions that align with the requirements of Transport Policy 1, 2, 4 and 6.
7.7 DRAINAGE/FLOOD ISSUES 7.7.1 With regard to drainage for the site, it is considered that the proposal includes a scheme where stormwater would be taken to soakaways as there are no local Surface Water Public Sewers (which is similar to that approved under PA 14/00291/A in 2014. Foul drainage for the development will be managed via a private pumped sewer connected to the Foul Public Sewer close to the exit at Isle of Man Airport.
7.7.2 The drainage element of the proposed scheme has been assessed by MUA Drainage who have stated that they are happy with the proposals and can confirm that the drainage will remain private and will not be adopted by Manx Utilities. The have also indicated preference for the pumped option which is the chosen option for foul drainage (as the pumped option would probably be the less contentious solution with foul flows), although they recommend that that an operation and maintenance plan is submitted for the chosen scheme. As such, a condition would be imposed to ensure that the requirement for an operation and maintenance plan is integral to approval for the development.
7.7.3 It is also important to note that DOI Highways Drainage have assessed the scheme and stated that they are satisfied with elements of the scheme shown to prevent surface water runoff from private areas draining onto the public highway.
7.7.4 The site is not within a Flood Risk zone (River or Tidal) but there were initial concerns by DOI Flood Risk Management in relation to the surface water flooding and the need to provide a flood risk Assessment for the site. The information provided by the applicants have addressed these concerns, with the scheme acceptable by all drainage/flood authorities and therefore it is considered from a drainage and flooding point of the view that the proposed application is acceptable. It is therefore considered that the scheme raises no flood risk to the new or existing properties in the area.
7.7.5 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the proposed scheme would comply with GP 2 (l), Environment Policy 10 and Environment Policy 13.
7.8 POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES 7.8.1 In terms of impacts on neighbouring amenity it is not considered that the proposed scheme would result in any impacts on the neighbouring amenity of the nearby dwellings. This is hinged on the fact that new dwellings would be positioned away from the existing dwellings on Brookfield, with the nearest dwelling to the properties on Brookfield (Plot 3) situated at a distance where there would be no impacts in terms of overlooking, overbearing impacts and loss of light (overshadowing). This property would be situated about 17.1m from the boundary with 'Tir-Nan-Og' and 'Benha', 38.7m from the rear elevation of 'Tir-Nan-Og', and 40.2m from the rear elevation of 'Benha'. Also, there are no windows on the southwest elevation of plot 3 which would create to create privacy concerns. More so, the existing trees and vegetation (mature landscaping), as well as the proposed planting on the southwest section of the site would serve to ameliorate any concerns as it would serve to provide an additional buffer between Brookfield and the proposed development.
7.8.2 The comments made by one of the objectors regarding the potential impact of foul drainage station positioned close to their property (smells, noise and vibrations) is noted. However, the separating distance between the pumping station and the boundary with the properties on Brookfield which is about 27.8m, and the distance with the nearest properties (53m to Braemar, 53.9m to Stowells, and 57.9m to No. 2 Brookfield Avenue) would serve to ameliorate any impacts. In addition, the existing trees, as well as the proposed tree planting and hedging would further serve to ameliorate any impacts. It is also important to note that the proposed foul drainage (pumping station) meets the guidance set by the statutory authorities to
==== PAGE 20 ====
21/01567/B Page 20 of 22
avoid causing noise, odour and vibration issues, and have been considered by MUA as acceptable. As such, it is considered that this element of the proposal meets the requirements of Environment Policy 22.
7.8.3 The comments related to potential impacts of recent residential developments in Castletown and Ballasalla on local schools and GP Practices in terms of increased demand are also noted. Albeit, the scale of the proposed development is not such that would significantly increase demand beyond existing and acceptable thresholds. As such, it is not considered that any demand for GP's and schools triggered by the development would be sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme.
7.9 ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONCERNS 7.9.1 As has been established in section 2.7 of this report, there is evidence of some buried archaeological remains within the site, and as such it would be vital to consider the possible impacts of the scheme on these within the site. It is, however, important to note that these could be protected and preserved via suitable conditions which would ensure that appropriate mitigation is integral to works commencing on site, as has been articulated in the Statement of potential and further work within the submitted Archaeological Statement.
7.9.2 The comments by Manx National Heritage which provide advice on such matters and who were consulted on the scheme on 1 February 2022 (and when additional or amended documents were provided by the applicant) have not raised any concerns with the archaeology of the site. Given that MNH are tasked with statutory responsibilities pertaining to the protection of the cultural and natural heritage of the Isle of Man, it is not considered that the scheme would have such detrimental impacts on archaeological the site sufficient to warrant refusal of the proposal. However, a condition regarding archaeological supervision to ensure that any archaeological features observed during the commencement of works can be recorded at the commencement of the development.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Overall, and for the for the reasons indicated within this report it is concluded the proposals for seven dwellings of a good design and layout within the site complies with the relevant planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, Residential Design Guide 2021 and the Area Plan for the South. Furthermore the proposal would not have significant adverse impacts upon public or private amenities and therefore comply with the relevant planning policies listed. Accordingly. The application is, therefore, recommended for an approval.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.
9.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
==== PAGE 21 ====
21/01567/B Page 21 of 22
o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status
9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it 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 : ...Permitted... Committee Meeting Date:...20.06.2022
Signed :... 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.
==== PAGE 22 ====
21/01567/B Page 22 of 22
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 20.06.2022
0 21/01567/B Applicant Hartford Homes Ltd Proposal Replacement of existing dwelling with the erection of 7 detached dwellings with integral garages and associated access, drainage and landscaping Site Address Netherby Douglas Road Castletown Isle Of Man IM9 1TN Planning Officer Mr Paul Visigah Presenting Officer As above - Addendum to the Officer Report
The Planning Committee considered the application at its meeting on 20 June 2022 and agreed with the recommendation to approve the application subject to the recommended conditions including amendment to Conditions 11 and 13.
Condition 11: Replacement tree planting The replacement tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the tree planting shown on drawing (06 Rev A) and the Outline Tree Protection (Drawing No. OTP-150322, 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.
Condition 13: Access, Parking & Turning Areas The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use unless the access, visibility, vehicular and pedestrian access and all parking and turning areas, have been provided and surfaced in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans (Drawing Nos. ITB16403- GA-007, and 03 Rev A). Once provided, all access, parking and turning areas shall thereafter be permanently retained as such.
Reason: To ensure the provision of a means of access, parking and turning space to an adequate standard in the interests of road safety.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal