Loading document...
Application No.: 18/00476/B Applicant: Mr John & Mrs Gillian Gray Proposal: Alterations, creation of additional vehicular access and associated landscaping works Site Address: Thie-My-Chree Tynwald Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1JN Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 25.07.2018 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The application has failed to provide sufficient evidence or justification of need for an additional access at Thie-My-Chree, the proposal does not facilitate any kind of development and would result in the unnecessary and consequential loss of a considerable number of trees particularly along the road side that positively contribute to the visual break in development along a main route heading into Peel. The proposal would negatively impact the character and appearance of the streetscene and adversely affect the visual amenity of the locality contrary to GP (b), (c), (f) and (g).
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises the residential curtilage of Thie My Chree, Douglas Road, Peel an existing semi-detached dwelling sitting on the south-west side of the road. The dwelling has an existing 3.4m wide vehicular access nearest the house, this access is formed by an existing 1.2m stone wall and pillars. Adjacent to the south side of the house is a large garden approx. 0.4acres. This garden is bound on all sides by a large number of trees, particularly along the boundary joining with the main road. This roadside boundary comprises a mix of stone walling and sod banking between 1.2m and 1.4m high above which sit a considerable number of existing trees. Within the garden are also a number of individual sporadic trees.
1.3 The red line for the site also stretches south along the front boundary and compasses the front banking boundary of neighbouring property Thie Ain. - 2.0 THE PROPOSAL
2.1 The application seeks approval for the creation of a second vehicular access into the dwelling. The proposed new access is to be located south of the existing vehicular access and formed in the existing roadside boundary. The gated access is to be 9m wide and is to be set back 6m from the edge of the main road. The access if to be formed with 1.05m high stone walls and gated pillars. - 2.2 The proposal includes the removal of 24 roadside trees and their replacement with five new trees, and the alteration to the existing roadside boundary banking and walling, including part of Thie Ain's front boundary, to a height no more than 1.05m high. The application also includes the removal of a number of trees inside the garden and along the boundaries. - 2.3 The existing access is to be retained and walls reduced in height to 1.05m high maximum.
3.1 There have been three previous planning applications submitted for the site;
4.1 Area Plans and Land-use Designation: Peel Local Plan 1989- 'Predominantly Residential'
4.2 The following policies are particularly relevant to this proposal- Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016: General Policy 2 (GP2) - Development in accordance to land-use zone - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. Local Commissioners:
6.1 There are three elements to consider in the assessment of the application:
PRINCIPLE
6.2 The application proposes the creation of a second access into the grounds of the existing dwelling. The application does not provide any evidence or justification of need for a second access or any reason as to why the existing access is no longer fit for purpose. Given that the existing vehicular access and driveway is to be retained it is not considered that there is neither a need nor a principle in favour for another access being created here. VISUAL IMPACT - 6.3 The proposal for a second access will require the removal of almost all the mature trees along the road side boundary. These trees provide a positive visual break in development along Douglas Road and contribute to the visual amenity of the area. Given that the proposed access does not facility any kind of development and that the existing access and driveway is to be retained in full, it is not considered necessary that the trees be removed. - 6.4 In addition to not providing justification of the need, the application has also failed to demonstrate whether or not the access and visibility splay could be achieved without the need for the removal of all the trees and whether modification to the bank and wall alone could achieve sufficient visibility for the access. - 6.5 While it is accepted that the DEFA Arboricultural Officer has no objection to the removal and replacement of the road side trees, concern has been expressed with regards to a number of other elements including the unnecessary removal of a number of trees inside the site (albeit agreed to be poor specimens), the specification standards of new trees, the need for a post construction ground assessment, and consideration to the timing of removal and replacing of trees to help limit visual impact (which will likely to occur if all the trees were removed in one go). While the DEFA Arboricultural Officer is of the view that the replacement of the road side trees will likely be more viable in the long term, it is considered that these mature trees offer a significant and positive visual amenity to the area now, and their loss in one fell swoop would negatively impact the street scene and to achieve the same positive amenity with the new trees could take many years. HIGHWAY SAFETY - 6.6 The application was originally submitted with plans detailing a visibility splay that was substandard of highway requirements as advised in their comments submitted 07/06/2018. Highway Services also highlighted that the application would need a legal agreement being signed in to as part of the visibility splay was over land not owned by the applicant and would need to be protected from obstruction in the future. - 6.7 While the agent has sought to submit revised visibility splay drawings, the principle of the proposal is still not considered acceptable and therefore no further comments have been requested from Highway Services.
7.1 The application has failed to provide sufficient evidence or justification of need for an additional access at Thie-My-Chree, the proposal does not facilitate any kind of development and would result in the unnecessary and consequential loss of a considerable number of road side trees which positively contribute to the streetscene and local amenity by offer a visual break in development along a main route heading into Peel. - 7.2 The principle for a new access is not accepted here. Minded of the specific details of the proposal, the access is also considered to be substantially large for a single dwelling access and does not respect the general residential access character of individual dwellings in this area contrary to GP (b) and (c). The large size of the proposed access requires the removal of a large number of trees which would have a cumulative adverse impact the visual amenity and character of the street scene contrary to GP (c), (f) and (g). While highway visibility is indicated to be achievable and not likely to cause any adverse impact on highway safety in compliance with GP (h) and (i), for the aforementioned reasons the application is considered to be unacceptable and recommended for refusal.
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 05.08.2018 Determining officer
Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Principal Planner
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
