**Document:** Officer Report
**Application:** 16/01271/A — Approval in principle for erection of new dwelling including remodelling of existing vehicular access
**Decision:** Permitted
**Decision Date:** 2017-04-25
**Parish:** Lezayre
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/22557-lezayre-herondale-main-road-glen-maye-dwelling-outline/documents/1024139

---

# Officer Report

**Application No.:** 16/01271/A
**Applicant:** Mrs Annette Eio
**Proposal:** Approval in principle for erection of new dwelling including remodelling of existing vehicular access
**Site Address:** Land Adjacent To Herondale Main Road Glen Maye Isle of Man Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley
**Photo Taken:** 23.11.2016
**Site Visit:** 23.11.2016
**Expected Decision Level:** Planning Committee

## Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION OWING TO THE PLANNING HISTORY ON THE SITE AND ALSO BECAUSE THE RECOMMENDATION COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is a plot of land adjacent to two detached dwellings, 'The Anchorage' and 'Herondale'. The site is accessed off a private lane that is itself accessed off the Main Road that runs through Glen Maye. The private access lane is owned by the applicant and the owners of The Anchorage. The site is currently used as garden associated with Herondale, and there are a number of trees and shrubs on the site with a particularly handsome ash tree present. A path runs through the middle of the site to provide access to the eastern side of the site. The site is approximately 1.1 acres in size. The Glen Maye River runs along the southern boundary of the site. - 1.2 The site is not zoned for any form of development. - 1.3 There is, in the form of Japanese knotweed, an invasive species present on the riverbank of the site. Section 14(b) of the Wildlife Act 1990 makes it an offence to plant Japanese knotweed or allow it to grow and, while there is no indication that it was intentionally planted by the applicant, the point is that the species is one on which very strict legal controls are placed and its removal would therefore, in principle, be welcomed. It is understood that some endeavours have been undertaken to remove the knotweed from the site in the past but that this has proved unsuccessful.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Approval in Principle is sought for the erection of a dwelling on the site. Detailed approval for the siting, means of access, and landscaping are all sought now, leaving the design of the dwelling, its external appearance and its internal layout as reserved matters for a future application should the current one be approved. - 2.2 The application also proposes a re-modelling of the access via the removal of leylandii and holly trees, which would increase visibility to the northwest from 15m to 57m and to the southeast from 21m to 70m. The access lane would also be widened to 4.1m in width for a distance of 6m back from the highway via the removal of a wall and pillars; one pillar would be added to the south. - 2.3 The application includes a comprehensive tree survey. A number are proposed to be removed from the site, some due to their being of poor quality, some in order to provide improved

visibility, and some in order to provide access to remove the Japanese knotweed - however, that is not proposed under this current application.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 Both the application site and the neighbouring land have a very relevant planning history. - 3.2 In respect of the application site itself, until 27th October 2016 Approval in Principle existed for the erection of a dwelling under PA 14/01040/A. The issued approval expired on that date. Although the architect came to the Department with a view to extending the implementation period via an application seeking to vary the time limit condition, by the time this request was received there was insufficient time to address an issue on neighbouring land, which was highly material to the assessment of any such application here, and which will be outlined below. - 3.3 It is worth noting some relevant extracts from the case officer's assessment of that application, which was approved in line with her recommendation by the Planning Committee on 27th October 2014:

"The main issues to consider in the assessment of the application are the principle of development, the impact upon the character and appearance of the site, the impact upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties, the impact upon the river, the impact upon highway safety and the impact upon flood risk.

"Whilst the site is not zoned for development on the 1982 Development Plan it is within the developed envelope of Glen Maye which is identified as a village under Spatial Policy 4. Strategic Policy 2 states that development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages.

"The settlement boundary of Glen Maye is not clearly defined on the 1982 Development Plan but it is clear that the site does not fall within this when viewed on the map. Dwellings have since been approved and erected beyond the 1982 limit. The changes on the ground since 1982 are also material considerations. Given the extent of development it is considered that the settlement boundary has changed quite significantly since the adoption of the 1982 Development Plan. Looking at the changes on the ground and being on the application site it could be argued that the application site falls within the development boundaries of Glen Maye village.

"Taking the view that the site does fall within the settlement boundary of Glen Maye the proposal would be in accordance with the aims of Strategic Policy 2 and Spatial Policy 5."

"The site is set down from the highway and therefore is not overly visible from the public thoroughfare; it is judged that a modest dwelling could be achieved without having an adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the countryside and without the significant loss of trees.

"The orientation and siting of the neighbouring properties means that a dwelling could be erected on the site without having an unduly harmful impact upon the amenities of those occupying/owning the adjacent dwellings.

"The Glen Maye River runs adjacent to the application site and therefore the impact upon the river and fisheries is an important consideration of the application. The agent has provided a completed "Development within 9m of a watercourse" form which has also been submitted to the Department of Environment Food and Agriculture. The Inland Fisheries Manager has no objection to the proposal providing that there is no adverse impact on the watercourse, but notes that the applicant needs to liaise with Fisheries once a full/detailed application is submitted.

"The existing access serves two properties but it is fairly poor in terms of the visibility achievable in both directions. In order for the access to serve another property it is considered appropriate for the access to be altered to improve visibility in both directions. By altering the access as shown on

drawing 006 the splays would be increased to provide visibility of 57m in a north west direction and 70m in a south east direction.

"Given the proximity of the site in relation to the Glen Maye River the site is within the Flood Risk area and as such a Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted with the application.

"The Flood Risk Assessment sets out the conclusions and recommended flood mitigation measures. The report recommends that the dwelling floor level is to be sited 600mm above the peak projected flood level, at a minimum of 57.9m. Due to the topography of the site they consider there to be no risk to the proposed development site from the Glen Maye River. Surface water is to discharge directly into the Glen Maye River; they are of the opinion that attenuation would not be necessary given the small flows. Foul water is to flow in to a package treatment plant; treated effluent will discharge into the Glen Maye River.

"On balance the application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval."

3.4 From the minutes of the Committee meeting at which the application was determined, other than various clarifications being noted by Members, it is worth also bearing in mind the following:

"In clarification of the key issues the Members suggested that the trees must be noted for specific consideration and protection within any reserved matters [application]."

3.5 The case officer, in her supplementary report following the application's determination, also noted that there was discussion regarding flood risk and how this should be mitigated via condition. - 3.6 On the basis of the case officer recommendation and Member discussion, the application was approved subject to the following six conditions:

- C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun either before the expiration of four years from the date of this approval or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013.

- C 2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Department before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved. Reason: To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
- C 3. Details of the siting, design, external appearance, internal layout and landscaping (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any development is commenced and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013.

- C 4. The approved access alterations as shown on drawing 006 date stamped 3rd September 2014 shall be implemented prior to the commencement of any other works. Reason: In the interests of Highway Safety.

- C 5. Any application for reserved matters shall include a tree protection plan. This approval is on the basis that only the existing hedging and leylandii identified on drawing 008 date stamped 30th September 2014 are to be removed. Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.
- C 6. The application for the reserved matters must demonstrate that the dwelling hereby approved will not be at unacceptable risk of flooding. It is recommended that the approved floor level of the dwelling is 600mm above the peak projected floor level. Reason: To protect the dwelling from flooding.

3.7 One of the submitted - and approved - drawings with PA 14/01040/A was clear that the trees shown on the proposed site plan were to be retained. - 3.8 Following the grant of this approval, the applicant found a prospective purchaser for the land. The prospective purchaser submitted their own application (PA 16/00831/B), which related to the same application site as PA 14/01040/A and also the current application. PA 16/00831/B seeks for the removal of stretches of the riverbank and their replacement with gabion baskets: this is intended to result in the eradication of the Japanese knotweed. This application proposes the removal of several trees (including some proposed to be retained on the drawing referenced in paragraph 2.2.6, above) in order to make sufficient space for the necessary equipment to enter the site and undertake the works proposed in the application. Approval to PA 16/00831/B would, then, make it impossible for any reserved matters application to have been lawfully submitted in respect of PA 14/01040/A. It would also make it impossible for an application to be submitted to vary the time limit condition alone; it is possible one could have been submitted seeking to vary conditions 1 and 5 as attached to PA 14/01040/A, but in any case that is more or less what the current application is seeking. - 3.9 It became clear that the aforementioned ash tree would need to be removed in order for the plant needed to eradicate the knotweed to be able to access the relevant part of the riverbank, and moreover that the removal of this tree would be unacceptable to the Arboricultural Officer. Unfortunately, it appears that a resolution to this matter is not possible to achieve in a way that would result in clear support from both the Arboricultural Officer and the Senior Biodiversity Officer, and so the applicant in respect of the current application has requested that it be determined now. The applicant and agent are aware that approval to the current application - which, as noted, is more or less identical to PA 14/01040/A but has been submitted with a more comprehensive tree survey - would result in little more than a 'stay of execution' with regards the presence of the knotweed and the potential developability of the application site as proposed under the current application. - 3.10 This is a slightly problematic position to be in since, on the basis of the information provided under the application seeking approval to remove the knotweed / riverbank, the ash tree would need to be removed in order to provide proper access to the site. As such, approval to the current application would not resolve these identified issues and, in some ways, would fail to demonstrate that the site can readily accommodate a dwelling: this, after all, is largely the purpose of the Approval in Principle process. However, all that being said, it is also believed to be the case that alternative methods of treating the knotweed do exist and which would not necessarily require the removal of the tree. Much of this has become understood following discussion with the relevant officers in DEFA after the submission of this application. - 3.11 Previously, there was also an application submitted seeking Approval in Principle for the erection of a dwelling on this land in 2000 (PA 00/01050/A), but this was refused on grounds that the application site was not zoned for development.

3.12 In terms of the neighbouring land, PA 14/00872/A was submitted, seeking Approval in Principle for the erection of a dwelling to the north of the current application site. That proved rather more controversial application than PA 14/01040/A, but the case officer concluded that the application was acceptable. The access would be the same as that for PA 14/01040/A and there was sufficient space on the site for a dwelling to be provided. She noted that, while land ownership itself is not a material consideration, it may yet prove fatal to any dwelling being located there even if the issuance of planning approval should remain a decision based on the public interest rather than at the discretion of third parties. She concluded her report as follows:

"As such it is considered that the site is capable of being accessed and drained and that a dwelling could be erected on the site without adverse impact on the living conditions of those in existing and approved nearby dwellings. Whilst the site is not designated for development on the 1982 (Development Plan) Order it is within the effective settlement boundary and no more contrary to that policy that is the dwelling approved under PA 14/01040/A. As such the application is recommended for approval."

3.13 The Planning Committee accepted the recommendation, and the application was approved on 22nd April 2015. In addition to the normal conditions relating to time limits and details of reserved matters, conditions requiring the access to be improved and tree protection defined were attached to the approval notice. It is worth noting the wording of the final condition:

"The application for reserved matters must include details of tree protection indicating how all trees are to be retained during the construction works. Generally this should involve the erection of protective fencing beneath the dripline of the canopies and no work undertaken nor items or vehicles stored within these areas. Where work is proposed within the protected areas, the method of work must be detailed to demonstrate that the work will not damage the root systems of any of the trees.

"Reason: to protect the amenities of the area and in accordance with the terms of the approval."

3.14 No reserved matters application has yet been forthcoming.

4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 4.1 The application site sits within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance identified on the 1982 Development Plan. Given the nature of the application, it is appropriate to consider Strategic Policy 2, Spatial Policy 4, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1, Environment Policy 2, Environment Policy 7, Environment Policy 10, Environment Policy 13 and Housing Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan. These are set out below. - 4.2 Strategic Policy 2: "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." - 4.3 Spatial Policy 4: "In the remaining villages development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities. These villages are:

- o Bride
- o Sulby
- o Ballaugh
- o Glen Mona
- o Baldrine
- o Crosby
- o Glen Vine
- o Glen Maye

- o Dalby
- o Ballafesson
- o Colby
- o Ballabeg
- o Newtown
- o Strang

"Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such settlements so as to maintain their existing character."

4.4 Spatial Policy 5: "New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3." - 4.5 General Policy 3: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

- (a) Essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
- (b) Conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
- (c) Previously developed land¹ which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
- (d) The replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
- (e) Location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
- (f) Building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
- (g) Development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
- (h) Buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."

4.6 Environment Policy 1: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative." - 4.7 Environment Policy 2: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLVs) 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."

4.8 Environment Policy 7: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:

- (a) All watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality;
- (b) Details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted;
- (c) All engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and
- (d) Development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species.

4.9 Environment Policy 10: "Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4." - 4.10 Environment Policy 13: "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted." - 4.11 Housing Policy 4: "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: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:

- (a) Essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10;
- (b) Conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and
- (c) The replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14.

5.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 The Arboricultural Officer within the Department commented on 21st November 2016 as follows: "I am confident that it would be possible to protect the retained trees during construction. However, the tree protection plan submitted in support of this application would have to be reviewed as part of a reserved matters application. I therefore recommend the following condition:

" 'In relation to every existing tree identified as being retained, the plans and particulars submitted in accordance with condition [X] shall include details of all appropriate tree protection measures required before and during the course of development in accordance with paragraph 5.5 and 6.2 of BS5837:2012.' "

- 5.1.2 In this context, the Condition 'X' referred to is a condition requiring the retention of all trees on the site, unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department. This reflects pre-application discussions, and also reflects the concern surrounding the fact that the ash tree mentioned right at the outset of this report may be under pressure for removal. There was further discussion within the Department regarding whether or not there is a public benefit from the removal of the Japanese knotweed relative to the removal of the ash tree, and what other options exist for the removal of the knotweed. The removal of the knotweed is clearly of benefit, but any proposal to remove the ash tree would receive vociferous objection from the Arboricultural Officer. Other than physical and forceful removal, knotweed can be eradicated through a programme of chemical treatment. While it is has been stated to the Department that this has been undertaken, there is insufficient evidence to understand how it has been undertaken, for how long, by whom, and what the effects of the treatment have been, and accordingly the Senior Biodiversity Officer and the Arboricultural Officer are unable to say whether or not the chemical treatment method employed has definitely been unacceptable in this location.

5.2 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure offered no objection to the application on 9th December 2016 subject to the attachment of a condition:

"The proposal is construct a new single family residential dwelling sharing an existing shared access onto the public highway. The access is to be upgraded in width and improvements made to the visibility splays. There is adequate space to provide car parking and turning to facilitate vehicles entering and leaving the site in forward gear.

"Highway Services does not oppose this application subject to the following conditions:

- "1. Prior to any construction the access shown on Horncastle Thomas drawings no 007 and 008 shall be constructed and the visibility splays shall remain unobstructed at a height of 1.05m thereafter. "Reason: In the interest of highway safety
- "2. Any application for reserved matters shall include provision for vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear. "Reason: In the interest of highway safety."

5.3 The Senior Biodiversity Officer noted on 9th December 2016 that there is Japanese knotweed on the site and that he recommended a condition be attached that linked any development to the destruction or removal of this species, which is listed under Schedule 8 of the Wildlife Act. He also noted that he believed a plan for dealing with it was provided with the previous application, but this would not appear to be the case.

- 5.4.1 The Department was copied into correspondence between the architect and the Manx Utilities Flood Risk team. Although the application included a flood risk assessment and drainage review, Manx Utilities sought on 9th January 2017 "a brief statement covering what would happen in the event of flooding (pluvial not fluvial), including there that the applicant understands that the property is located within the surface water flooding area and what they would do to manage this".
- 5.4.2 The agent's flood risk engineer contacted the MU with a view to explain how flood risk would be addressed as part of any reserved matters application that may be forthcoming. This included diverting flood waters in an appropriate direction, how this could be done, amending site levels and ensuring appropriate positions of door openings. He also noted that the catchment area that would be affected by heavy rainfall and that would result in additional overland flows during extreme weather events was small. On 5th April 2017, MU Flood Risk team confirmed these points were sufficient to alleviate their concerns and they formally offered no objection to the application.

5.5 Patrick Commissioners initially sought for the application to be deferred on 29th November 2016, and then on 14th December 2016 formally offered no objection. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The principle of residential development has previously been established, though the planning approval confirming this has since expired. In cases such as this, with such a recent approval that is a clear material consideration, it must be determined as to whether or not there has been any change in circumstances since the previous application was determined in order to warrant a different recommendation.

6.2 Although the issue of Japanese knotweed was known about previously, there was no proposal to eradicate it: this has now been submitted in the form of a separate planning application, but has itself raised a number of issues already discussed in Section 3 of this report. - 6.3 The applicant is keen to progress with the determination of their own application and while, ideally, the situation would be resolved across both applications (indeed, and again ideally, only one application would have been submitted), it is reasonable for someone to seek a determination on an application they have submitted when all the required information is present. Approval to the

- current application will not resolve the issue of the Japanese knotweed, but equally it is known that there are methods of eradication that would not require the importation of large plant or the removal of stretches of riverbank. It has also not been conclusively proven that the presence of knotweed prevents the erection of a dwelling - while there appears to be some evidence that obtaining a mortgage on a property where knotweed is present, this is a wholly separate quasi-legal / financial matter, and is independent from the physical act of building a house.
- 6.4 Accordingly, the situation today is essentially identical to that of 2014, except for the proposed removal of some of the trees on the site. The professional view of the Arboricultural Officer is that the trees proposed for removal do not warrant retention and moreover that those that are proposed for retention can be retained. Being mindful that his assessment takes account of visual amenity, it is concluded that the proposal is more acceptable on this occasion than in 2014 since clearer - and, it must be said, more realistic - information regarding trees is available and this demonstrates that the development proposed would not be harmful to the treed nature of the area. With this in mind, it also remains true that the construction of a dwelling here would not be harmful to the visual amenity of the area.
- 6.5 Concern regarding sustainable patterns of development are reasonable, especially since Glen Maye is defined in the Strategic Plan as a "smaller settlement" having little or no service provision. However, Glen Maye does benefit from a public house, bus services serving Peel running every other hour (though there are services that run to Peel at 0823 and 0844, and from Peel at 1535, 1539, 1630 and 1739, which are beneficial for commuters and schoolchildren), a church functioning as a community hall and also a post box and a phone box. This issue was evidently not a fatal concern with respect to the previous application here and, while the new dwelling could not be said to strongly contribute to sustainable patterns of development, it is nevertheless only a single dwelling and in this case could not be judged to undermine the overall thrust of the Strategic Plan. However, this remains a balanced judgement.

## - 7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 In view of the above, it is concluded that the only change since the previous application was submitted allows for a fuller assessment of the principle of the proposal than previously, and this moreover allows greater weight to be given to the conclusion that the application is acceptable. It is absolutely not forgotten that the proposal represents development in what is, in Planning terms, the countryside, and therefore any recommendation in such a scenario requires careful balance. However, for the reasons already set out, the balance in this case is judged to be more weighted towards an approval was the case when the Planning Committee previously approved the application on officer recommendation.

7.2 A number of conditions are again required. 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 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, 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 persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person: o Manx Utilities (Flood Risk team)
- 8.2.3 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and therefore should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:

- o The Arboricultural Officer, who sits within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate, and
- o The Senior Biodiversity Officer, who also sits within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 12.04.2017 Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

- C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun either before the expiration of four years from the date of this approval or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013.

- C 2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Department before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved. Reason: To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
- C 3. Details of the siting, design, external appearance, internal layout and landscaping (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any development is commenced and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013.

- C 4.The application for the reserved matters must demonstrate that the dwelling hereby approved will not be at unacceptable risk of flooding. It is recommended that the approved floor level of the dwelling is 600mm above the peak projected floor level. Reason: To protect the dwelling from flooding.
- C 5. Prior to any development commencing on the site, the proposed access and visibility splay as shown on approved Drawings 007 and 008 (date-stamped as having been received 14th November

2017) shall be constructed and the visibility splays shall remain unobstructed at a height of 1.05m thereafter.

- C 6. Any application for reserved matters shall include provision for vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
- C 7. For the avoidance of doubt, all trees shown as being retained on approved Drawings 005 and 009, both date-stamped as having been received 14th November 2016, shall be retained unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department.

Reason: In the interest of protecting the important and characterful trees on the site, which sits within an attractively treed area.

- C 8. In relation to every existing tree identified as being retained, the plans and particulars submitted as part of any forthcoming Reserved Matters application and in accordance with Condition 7 shall include details of all appropriate tree protection measures required before and during the course of development in accordance with paragraph 5.5 and 6.2 of BS5837:2012.

Reason: In the interest of protecting the important and characterful trees on the site, which sits within an attractively treed area.

The development proposed relates to Drawings 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, and 009, all date-stamped as having been received 14th November 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: 24.04.2017

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 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.

### Planning Committee Decision 24.04.2017

Application No. : 16/01271/A Applicant : Mrs Annette Eio Proposal : Approval in principle for erection of new dwelling including

remodelling of existing vehicular access

Site Address : Land Adjacent To Herondale Main Road Glen Maye Isle of Man Presenting Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Addendum to the Officer’s Report A typographical error in Condition 4 was noted and agreed to be amended. The word "floor" needs to be changed to "flood".

### Conditions of Approval

- C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun either before the expiration of four years from the date of this approval or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013.

- C 2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Department before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved. Reason: To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
- C 3. Details of the siting, design, external appearance, internal layout and landscaping (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority before any development is commenced and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved.

Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013.

- C 4. The application for the reserved matters must demonstrate that the dwelling hereby approved will not be at unacceptable risk of flooding. It is recommended that the approved floor level of the dwelling is 600mm above the peak projected flood level. Reason: To protect the dwelling from flooding.
- C 5. Prior to any development commencing on the site, the proposed access and visibility splay as shown on approved Drawings 007 and 008 (date-stamped as having been received 14th November

2017) shall be constructed and the visibility splays shall remain unobstructed at a height of 1.05m thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

- C 6. Any application for reserved matters shall include provision for vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear.

- C 7. For the avoidance of doubt, all trees shown as being retained on approved Drawings 005 and 009, both date-stamped as having been received 14th November 2016, shall be retained unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department.

Reason: In the interest of protecting the important and characterful trees on the site, which sits within an attractively treed area.

- C 8.In relation to every existing tree identified as being retained, the plans and particulars submitted as part of any forthcoming Reserved Matters application and in accordance with Condition 7 shall include details of all appropriate tree protection measures required before and during the course of development in accordance with paragraph 5.5 and 6.2 of BS5837:2012.

Reason: In the interest of protecting the important and characterful trees on the site, which sits within an attractively treed area.

The development proposed relates to Drawings 001, 002, 003, 004, 005, 006, 007, 008, and 009, all date-stamped as having been received 14th November 2016.

---

*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/22557-lezayre-herondale-main-road-glen-maye-dwelling-outline/documents/1024139*