DEC Officer Report

Applicant: Creamo Ltd Proposal Creation of new access, including footpath, wall and gates Site Address Field 312862 Main Road St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3LU Case Officer : Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 19.11.2019 Site Visit: 19.11.2019 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 27.03.2020

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. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the details (including timings) of the Tree replacement scheme for the affected trees and details (including timings) of any remedial works to trees that are to be retained on site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details of any replanting and remedial works. Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

N 1. The applicant needs to enter a section 109A Highway Agreement in order for the access to be constructed onto the abutting highway.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is considered that the planning application is in accordance with General Policy 2, Transport Policy 6 and Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and Policy OS/P/2 of the St Johns Local Plan 1999.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the following plans, documents and drawings: 022/100 - Location Plan,

022/102 - Proposed and Existing Elevations and Section, Date stamped as received on 30th October 2019; 022/101/A - General Arrangement of Proposed Junction, Date stamped as received on 28th January 2020; and; Additional Information on Access and Trees, received on 15th March, 2020. _______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None ________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THERE IS AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

PRE-AMBLE

0.1 In response to the deferral and request for additional information by the Planning Committee on 2 March 2020, the applicant has provided the following information in a letter dated 15 March 2020:

The Land has been operating as a commercial nursery for the past 20 years on behalf of Allansons Nurseries Ltd, my client has recently purchased the land and is keen submit a secondary application in line with the lands current use. However, as the only direct access on to the land is serviced by a shared access road (Shown Below), which is situated in a position where visibility is extremely poor making access and egress extremely hazardous. My client is seeking approval for the construction of a safe access & egress for this site. We believe that gaining approval for a new access road to the site will be the largest hurdle, and would likely be the cause of any refusal, therefore it was agreed to seek approval for the access prior to any other applications. The proposed new assess has been designed in accordance with Manual for Manx Roads to satisfy Highway Services. A copy of my letter to Highway Services is also attached outlining the process used in the design of the access in order to meet the "Do not Oppose" status from Highways.

The Tree line is made up of predominately small trees and shrubs, with only a few more mature trees which are all entangled within the power lines, both DEFA and the MUA were happy for these to be felled in order to create the required visibility splay.

NB: It would be worth noting that due to the damage the trees are causing to the boundary wall DEFA have stated they would probably issue a license for the removal of this tree line irrespective of the outcome of the planning application. However, this may be subject to some replanting which the client would be happy to accommodate.

THE SITE

1.1 The site is part of a field situated on the southern side of the A1 (Peel Road) just after the junction with Curragh Road (A3) as you approach St. John's from Greeba. The field which has a fairly regular shape has Kerrowdhoo as the abutting property on the western boundary, while Dreem Faaie is situated on the eastern boundary, separated only by a track which serves the abutting field on the southern boundary. The field which presently has no access has its

northern boundary formed by a continuous line of mature trees, with low stone wall which has shrubbery growing out of it on to the roadside.

THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The proposal is for the Creation of new access, including footpath, wall and gates. The proposed works would involve:

• i. Creating a new site access 5.5m wide directly opposite Parsonage Glebe a residential cul de sac situated directly opposite the field. The access will be slightly inclined, rising from the site which is about 750mm below the level of the highway to the level of the highway.
• ii. The creation of pedestrian walkways on both sides of the access that will run parallel to the site boundary by Peel Road. This would involve shifting the existing boundary by 2m from the highway. 125mm upstand Half Better kerbs will be installed along the boundary of the walkway with the highway.
• iii. Erection of Manx stone boundary wall 600mm high along the new site boundary, by the created walkway.
• iv. Installing a double gate with masonry gate post with cap. The gate will be 9.2m wide, with each side measuring 4.6m wide.

2.2 The proposed works will be preceded by the removal of some mature trees and sod hedges along the site boundary to enable the creation of the access and walkway. PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The application site is within an area recognised as "Predominantly Residential" identified on the St Johns Local Plan 1999 and the site is within a Proposed Conservation Area (St John's Proposed Conservation Area). As such, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains some policies which are considered to be specifically material in the assessment of this current planning application

3.3 General Policy 2 states:

"Development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

• b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;

• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality.

• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;

3.4 Environment Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.

3.5 Due to the zoning of the site and the proposed works the St John's Local Plan contains one policy which is relevant to this application, Policy OS/P/2 states;

• "No new development shall be permitted which would adversely affect the southerly open countryside views from Peel Road."
• 3.6 Section 11.4: Pedestrians

11.4.1 Walking is also an important means of travel in its own right or as part of most journeys. All pedestrians need safe and convenient means of crossing and passing along roads. Alternatively provision should be made for walking journeys separated from general traffic.

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.

PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning application and no previous planning application within the vicinity of the application site is considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application.

REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division has written in to refuse the application with the following comments in a letter dated 2 December 2019:

There are no details as to whether the visibility splays as shown on Drw 022/101 are commensurate with vehicle speeds on the A1 Peel Road. A speed survey is required in order to understand whether the access is safe for both drivers merging onto Peel Road but also for approaching drivers being able to see and react to the vehicle pulling out of the minor road.

Drop kerbs also required along the kerb radii within the bell mouth to accommodate pedestrians who wish to cross the proposed access.

There are no details as to what the proposed access is to serve or whether it will be adopted or not. Notwithstanding the above, the basecourse should be 100mm thick and the subbase 225mm thick. Based on the submitted information, the proposals are not considered acceptable from a highways aspect. Refusal is recommended.

• 5.1.2 Having received amended plans from the applicants, the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division has written in to state that they 'Do no oppose' with the following comments (24/01/2020):

Previous highway consultation comments were made on 2nd December 2019 which stated an objection. The isses raised were as follows:

• o The need to undertake speeds surveys to determine if the proposed visibility splays would be suitable for the actual 85%ile speeds.
• o Pedestrian dropped kerbs would be required on either side of the proposed access;
• o Confirmation on whether the proposed access was intended to be adopted; and
• o Construction details of the access.

Information has now been provided that indicate that the proposed visibility splays of 2.4m x 60m would be adequate for the 85%ile speeds that would be lower than 37mph.

The plans now indicate that dropped kerb pedestrian crossings would be provided on either side

• of the proposed access. The Access would have a carriageway width of 5.5m, with 10m radius kerbs and a 2.0m footway on either side of access. At the back of the footway there would be 600mm high walls. Gates are indicated as being set back 13m from the edge of the carriage way; this depth could accommodate most vehicles but if larger vehicles were to use the future development then the gates could be set back as part of the details of a future planning application.

The construction details have been confirmed that are acceptable. Other than the part of the proposed access that will be within the highway boundary, the applicant has confirmed that it is not their current intension to have access adopted but that it would be constructed to adopted standards in the event that there was a future intension to have it adopted. In order for the access to be constructed onto the adopted highway the applicant would need to enter a Section 109A Highway Agreement. Informative: The applicant needs to enter a section 109A Highway Agreement.

5.2 DEFA's Arboricultural Officer confirms that there is no objection to the planning application and has made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 25 November 2019:

"There are a row of trees growing out of the base of the wall (or on it in some cases). I presume these are being removed to create the required visibility splay, but we would probably issue a licence for these regardless of this application due to the damage that is being caused to the boundary wall, although it may have been conditional to some replanting. These trees include: 1x Cherry laurel*, 1x Cypress, 1x Birch, 11x Sycamore, 10x Ash, 4 x Hawthorn, 1x Holly.

*Not licensable under the Tree Preservation Act In addition to these trees, the removal of the following is required to create the actual entrance, cutting through the row of (mainly conifer) trees set a little further back in to the field: 3x Lodgepole pine, 1x Norway spruce, 1x Silver fir, 1x Larch, 1x Beech."

5.3 German Parish Commissioners have stated that they object to the application on the following grounds (12/12/2019): The existing field access is on a corner which causes difficulties with visibility particularly as the Police will not support the Commissioners to have parked cars along this road removed stating their reasons as traffic calming. There are already multiple accesses to this site from the Main Road and farmer garden centre.

There is no requirement for a footpath on this section of the road as there is no other footpath on that side, the footpath through the village is on the other side of the road.

The Commissioners object to the removal of the trees on the roadside due to the historical nature of the surrounding area and its proximity to Tynwald Hill. The Commissioners feel the loss of the trees would be detrimental to the area.

The Commissioners can see no reason for such a grand entrance to an agricultural field which has no planning permission for alternative use or development.

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The key issues in this case are the principle of the proposed development, potential visual impact of the proposed works to the street scene and area as well as the possible highway safety issues.

6.2 The principle of the development

• 6.2.1 In considering the justification for the development, it is noted that what is proposed would provide a means of access to the field as it is clear that there is currently no means of access to the field available to the owner so there is a genuine need for the access. It is also noted that the access is designed to be unobtrusive in appearance with visibility afforded through re-aligning the stone wall, in addition to the gate and walkway being recessed into the field or considerably set back 13m from the highway; to provide safe access for pedestrians and vehicles unto the highway.

6.2 potential visual impacts

• 6.2.1 The proposed access comprises both the removal of a section of the roadside vegetation and the installation of a walkway (2m wide), including the installation of a new stone wall to replicate the existing. Although these works would results in the removal of some mature trees on the site, it is noted that the removal of the trees would enable the creation of the required visibility splays from the site. Besides, DEFA's Arboricultural Officer has noted that regardless of this application, licence would have been issued for the removal of the affected trees due to the damage that is being caused to the boundary wall by these trees, and as such the loss of these trees is therefore not considered to be of such substantial harm to warrant refusal of the application. It is, however, noted that a condition requiring the replanting of the affected trees would be vital in ensuring that the affected species are restored to the site for the benefit of the overall environment.
• 6.2.2 Considering the immediate surrounding area is characterised by Manx cottages, interspaced with some modern dwellings and open fields bounded by Manx stone walls and thick tree lines with significant shrubbery, what is proposed under this scheme would ensure that the existing green screen provided by the trees for the open field are preserved. As well, the works would restore the traditional stone wall on the boundary of the site by creating a new wall mirroring the appearance and finishing of the existing wall, although recessed from the original boundary line. This would ensure that a congruent wall line is formed with the surrounding properties, preserving the character and appearance of the street scene, since the proposed works would be visible from various vantage points along the A1.
• 6.2.3 Granting the new entrance gates would be a new introduction within the street scene, its appearance would be somewhat concealed as the new access would be located on a depressed level 750mm lower than the highway. Besides, entrance gates are a present feature within the street scene as a number of the properties and fields within the vicinity of the proposal site have vehicular access gates built along the boundary with the highway; a condition which the proposed access gate is an improvement on, as it is considerably set back from the highway.
• 6.2.4 On the balance, the location for development is not considered to cause major harm to the character and appearance of the street scene and is deemed to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the locality which comprises a mix of residential properties and open fields provided with access gates. Moreover, the new access and walkway would improve the appearance of the site boundary which was previously in poor form, and facilitate maintenance works on the boundary as there would be safe distance for maintenance works to be carried out on the wall, away from the highway, thus complying with GP 2 (b), (c), (f) and

(g).

6.3 Impact on highway safety

• 6.3.1 The works to build a pedestrian walkway adjacent to the application site would improve pedestrian safety for those exiting the site and the surrounding properties on the southern section of Peel Road. This is hinged on the fact that the walkway will be paved and slightly elevated above the level of the highway, ensuring that there is sufficient segregation between

vehicles and pedestrians as there would be a convenient means of crossing and passing along the road for pedestrians; thus improving safety for pedestrians on this section of the highway and conforming to GP2 (i and h) and Transport Policy 6 of the Strategic plan (2016).

• 6.3.2 Observations during the site visit revealed that the site could be accessed via a conventional field access located on the eastern side of the field through the existing track on the eastern boundary; where there would be limited impact on the existing trees and boundary treatment. However, it is not considered that using this track would be appropriate as visibility from the track onto the highway is significantly poor and would result in serious impacts on highway safety as the required visibility splays would not be achievable from this track.

6.4 Overall, it is considered that the level of development contained within the proposal is in keeping with the character of the site and the area, with suitably limited impact on the neighbouring properties. As such the proposal does not adversely affect public or private amenity or the Proposed Conservation Area and is therefore in accordance with the aforementioned policies.

CONCLUSION

7.1 The proposal would not unacceptably harm the characteristics of the existing site or the character of its surroundings and would not result in a significant adverse impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The proposal is therefore in accordance with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 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:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) 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;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material
• (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

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:…05.05.2020

Signed :…………S BUTLER……….. 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 onlineservices/customers and archive records.

Planning Committee Decision 05.05.2020

Application No. : 19/01209/B Applicant : Creamo Ltd Proposal : Creation of new access, including footpath, wall and gates Site Address : Field 312862 Main Road St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3LU

Planning Officer : Mr Paul Visigah Presenting Officer As above (correct manually if not the case officer)

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

This application was deferred by the Planning Committee on the 2nd March 2020 to allow the applicant more time to provide additional information to justify:

• 1. The provision of the type of access to the field considering the current use is as a field.
• 2. The loss of the existing trees along the front boundary of the site.

5/5/20 The committee further considered this matter, which had been deferred from a previous meeting 2nd March 2020 to obtain additional information from the applicant. This had been obtained and included in the officer's report.

Correction was raised to the report, para 3.1, that the land zoning should be Open Space.