**Document:** Officer Report **Application:** 16/00498/B — Alterations to vehicular access **Decision:** Permitted **Decision Date:** 2016-08-23 **Parish:** Marown **Document Type:** report / officer_report **Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/21339-union-mills-ballerghy-lhergy-cripperty/documents/1012114 --- # Officer Report **Application No.:** 16/00498/B **Applicant:** Mr Illiam Christian **Proposal:** Alterations to vehicular access **Site Address:** Ballerghy Lhergy Cripperty Union Mills Isle Of Man IM4 2AH Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley **Photo Taken:** 15.06.2016 **Site Visit:** 15.06.2016 **Expected Decision Level:** Planning Committee ## Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATON IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE OWING TO THE NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED. 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The site is the land associated with Ballerghy Farmhouse along with the single vehicle width lane access onto the Lhergy Cripperty, albeit that the access widens out considerably in its final few metres before the junction with the highway. The access and access lane is defined in red and the remaining land being defined in blue. With the site is a small group of buildings - the farmhouse and a large barn to the rear and other, smaller stone outbuildings, but the focus of this application is on the highway access to the site, located roughly 700m east of the farm buildings, and where a number of trees are located. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the widening of the existing access. The access at its absolutely widest point is 40m in width; this would not change under the proposal. However, what would change is that the wall running along the Lhergy Cripperty in a southwestern direction would be brought back roughly 2m from the highway relative to its current position, and then for roughly 50m of length would be re-built at an ever-decreasing distance from the highway before reaching its current position. - 2.2 The wall would, in elevation form, be formed of Manx stone and to a height of 1.9m at its highest to 1.2m at its lowest along the highway, albeit there is significant variation between these heights in that 50m stretch as the highway itself undulates fairly significantly. Much of the existing wall is either incomplete or covered in partial banking. - 2.3 Also proposed is the slight relocation of the existing bank in the northeastern direction from - 1.8m in height to between 1.2m and 1.4m, given the undulation along the highway. - 2.4 Manx stone pillars would also be installed at the southwestern and southeastern sides of the altered access, 2.2m and 2.9m in height respectively, but more than 20m into the site and therefore not in any way impacting on the visibility at the access. 2.4 As part of the proposal, two elm trees and one ash tree would need to be removed in order to make way for the re-positioned wall. The applicant proposes five new ash trees, again at the corner of the junction, in replacement. #### 3.0 Planning History 3.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous applications, and although none of these is considered especially material to the assessment of this application it is worth noting them because a number are recent: - o PA 93/00059/B for the erection of a replacement guest cottage (approved); - o PA 15/00390/B for the reinstatement of a chimney stack, installation of two dormers and window and door alterations (approved); - o PA 15/00727/B - installation of additional windows and alterations to a window (approved), and - o PA 16/00552/B - Erection of a shower unit and alterations and installation of a roof to existing outbuilding (approved). ## - 4.0 PLANNING POLICY AND STATUS #### 4.1 The site lies within an area designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (DevelopmentPlan) Order 1982 as being of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance, while the buildings arewithin a small area of zoned Woodland. As such, there is a presumption against development hereas set out in Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan. Consideration of the applicationagainst the following extracts of General Policy 2, however, is appropriate in this instance as theyreflect important general considerations that require an important balance in this case: "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; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; - (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." 4.2 It is perhaps worth noting the wording of Environment Policy 2: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: - (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or - (b) the location for the development is essential." ## - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS #### 5.1 The Forester within the Department of Environment, Food & Agriculture commented that theremoval of the ash tree could only be justified if there was going to be a significant improvement inroad safety and replacement trees were planted. He identified the ash as being of 'moderate'quality, and the elms as low quality. These comments were received 21.06.2016. 5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services sought a deferral of the application because the applicant had not defined what the newly widened highway would be laid with. These comments, received 16.05.2016, indicated that the applicant had been contacted to that end but no clarification on this point has been received from the applicant. A telephone conversation with Highway Services following this identified that they viewed the proposal as being likely to result in a highway improvement, confirming as follows in a pair of emails, both received 29.06.2016: "I have reviewed the proposed remedial works in light of Andrew's comments. Given the carriageway width and location the minor road distance of 2.4m is appropriate. The 85th percentile speed for this section of road are between 34-36mph. The required major road visibility to the right and left should be 90m to minimise risk to highway users. As an existing access, an improvement to 54m would provide the desirable shortest stopping distance for vehicles travelling up to 40mph, As the proposed 70m major road visibility splays falls within between 54m and 90m distances this will result in a reduced risk to highway users and takes into account the ownership and landscape constraints. Given the horizontal and vertical road geometry, the walls either side of the access need to be either reduced to 1m in height or re-aligned. This will unfortunately require the trees be removed." "An improvement in visibility splay to 70m would reduce the probability of a collision happening and reduce the likely severity of the collision should one occur, the risk category of the access would change from medium to low. The Department supports the application as the applicant is trying to actively manage his and other road user risk at this junction." 5.3 Marown Parish Commissioners indicate that they have no objection (20.05.2016). - 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 As can often be the case in circumstances such as this, a balance has to be struck between the visual impact of the proposal and the defined highway benefit that would result. General Policy - 2 sets the framework for this assessment. While there remains a general principle that presumes against development in this location, the assessment below outlines that the balance described is best struck having regard to EPs 1 & 2. 6.2 Proposals to improve highway safety will generally be supported. Proposals to remove trees that positively contribute to the streetscene or countryside will generally be resisted. In this case, then, the balance has to be made between the quality of the trees to be lost and the impact their loss would have on the streetscene, against the defined highway safety improvements that might be said to result. 6.3 The Forester is of the view that a case can be made for the removal of the ash tree. The highway engineer is of the view that there would be a notable improvement in highway safety terms arising from the proposal. 6.4 There is no dispute that the existing access is poor, with visibility to the southwest in particular especially so. The highway can be subject to cars travelling at high speed irrespective of the speed limit and narrowness of the road, and this must make exiting onto the highway troublesome for residents. However, it is to be noted that much of the visibility issue arises from the undulation of the highway and its bend, and there is an argument that simply moving the wall / bank back a couple of metres would not provide a great deal of extra visibility simply because the topography of the area would not allow this. However, Highway Services are of the view that the proposal would result in demonstrable benefit from a safety point of view even having regard to this. - 6.5 The loss of the trees is unfortunate. The Forester raises concern with the proposal but in terms of the trees themselves (or, rather, one specific tree) rather than the benefit those trees offer to the wider streetscene. The Lhergy Cripperty highway is characterised by sporadic pockets of - semi-mature trees and the undulation that takes its users from one moment being surrounded by banks to the next having long, unfettered views across the landscape both north and south. As such, the loss of part of this small copse would be unfortunate as it would leave this particular stretch of highway without the differentiation that characterises it. It is noted that replacement trees are proposed albeit it must be remembered that these will likely take decades to establish given the openness of the area. - 6.6 Having regard to the expert opinions offered, though, and also the lack of objection from the Commissioners, it is considered that it would be difficult to sustain an objection at an appeal. The proposal will have some improvement with regards highway safety, while the loss of the trees appears to be acceptable if a (significant) highway safety improvement can be demonstrated. This does not appear to be the case, but equally it is not considered that the loss of the trees is to be especially lamented since others are proposed in replacement and, while they are characterful, only one has been defined as having any particular value by the Forester. Some trees would also be retained such that there would not be a complete loss of the trees around the access, which is welcome. - 6.7 In addition to the above, the re-laying of the stone wall is to be welcomed as, in places, it is in a somewhat sad state at present. ## - 7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 7.1 The proposal represents a difficult balance. In coming to a view on that balance, regard has been had to the professional views of those most keenly involved with such proposals, and while the conclusions pull in different directions to some degree, it is concluded that it would probably be difficult to sustain an objection in an appeal situation. The highway safety improvement would not be 'significant' as requested by the Forester, but equally that improvement is a quantifiable one. The main issue arises from the fact that the scheme would result in the loss of an isolated group of trees. However, the retention of some of the trees is such that the character of the streetscene would be eroded rather than lost and, accordingly, it is considered that a recommendation to approve is the most logical in the circumstances. Such a recommendation finds support in the relevant parts of General Policy 2, while there is nothing in Environment Policy 1 or 2 (particularly part (b) of the latter) that would require a materially different conclusion to be reached. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons: - o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; - o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; - o Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (in this case Department of Infrastructure Highway Services), and - o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. - 8.2.1 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application. - 8.2.2 In this instance, it is considered that the following does not have sufficient interest and therefore should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person: - The Forester, who sits within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate. With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order. ## - 9.0 POST-PLANNING COMMITTEE UPDATE 9.1 Members noted that the plan referred to in the recommended Condition 2 carried a date in the future, and requested this be corrected. Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 10.08.2016 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. - C 2. The visibility splay identified on the untitled drawing showing the visibility splay carrying the date 16/10/2015 and a scale of 1:1000, date-stamped as having been received 3rd May 2016, shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1000mm in height above adjoining carriageway level. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. - C 3. The approved replacement trees shall be planted in accordance with the approved details and in the first planting season following the date of this approval. Any retained tree that within five years of the approved development being completed dies, is / are removed, or become(s) 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. The development hereby approved relates to Drawings 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006 and 007, and also the untitled drawing showing the visibility splay carrying the date 16/10/2016 and a scale of 1:1000, all date-stamped as having been received 3rd May 2016. I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority. Decision Made : …Permitted.. Committee Meeting Date:…22.08.2016 Signed :………E RILEY………….. 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 only to correct the plan date reference in condition 2 as recommended ## 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. --- *Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).* *Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/21339-union-mills-ballerghy-lhergy-cripperty/documents/1012114*