DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 19/01339/B Applicant: Mr Kevin & Mrs Erin Moore Proposal: Alterations and erection of extension to rear elevation Site Address: Dreeym Lang Woodlands Avenue Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 3QS Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 09.01.2020 Site Visit: 09.01.2020 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 21.04.2020 _________________________________________________________________

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. The replacement tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the details provided on the proposed site plan (drawing 218/020a). The planting shall be carried out in the first planting season following the completion of the development. Any 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 the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development. Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers 218/001, 218/020, 218/011 & 218/022 received on 27th November 2019 and 218/002a, 218/020a & 218/021a received on 27th January 2020.

_______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not 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 6(4):

Parknasilla, Woodlands Avenue, Douglas 53 Selborne Drive, Douglas

as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 SITE - 1.1 The application site represents the curtilage of an existing property Dreeym Lang, Woodlands Avenue, Douglas. The dwelling is a single storey detached dwelling, with gardens to the front and the rear of the property. The dwelling is located to the eastern side of Woodlands Avenue, at the end of a residential cul-de-sac. The property sits within an urban housing estate within Douglas. To the rear is the side boundary of 53, Selborne Drive, a semi detached house which sits to the rear of 49 and 55, Selborne Drive.

2.0 PLANNING POLICIES - 2.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being within a "predominantly residential use" under the Douglas Local Plan. The site is not within nor abuts a Conservation Area. - 2.2 General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan is considered applicable, which 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;

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

2.3 Residential Design Guide July 2019: "4.1 SINGLE STOREY REAR EXTENSION

• 4.1.1 In relation to single storey extensions to the rear of the dwelling, generally the main issues relate to potential loss of light and/or overbearing impact upon the outlook of neighbouring properties. Extensions to terraced or semi-detached properties can have the potential for the greatest concern. With either type of property the depth (i.e. rear projection) of an extension and the position (near the shared boundary) are key in ensuring any such extension does not impinge on the amenities of neighbouring properties."

- 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 There are no previous planning application which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application.

- 4.0 PROPOSAL

4.1 The application seeks approval for the alterations and erection of extensions to rear elevation. The proposal involves the removal of a number of large mature trees (pines & sycamore) and new trees planted. - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Douglas Borough Council do not object (19.12.2019).

5.2 Highway Services do not oppose (18.12.2019).

5.3 The Arboricultural Officer (DEFA) makes the following comments (17.12.2019): "I visited this property today to have a look at the potential impact of the above application.

Regarding the trees to be removed, one of these is marked as already having a licence to be removed under the Tree Preservation Act 1993. Licence 212/18 (copy attached) was issued on 08/05/19 but it relates to a sycamore tree in the eastern corner of the rear garden; not the lime tree as indicated on the existing site plan, 218/002. This lime tree is a poor specimen, however, and I would not object to the removal of this tree.

The other tree marked for removal is a pine tree at the gable end of the property, on the east side. This is also a poor quality tree and removal is not an issue.

The remaining trees are marked for retention, but based on the information submitted it doesn't look like retention of the large pine trees on the north-eastern boundary is compatible with what is proposed. These trees have stem diameters ranging from 55 to 70cm and are approximately 15m tall - they are big trees and the entire back garden is likely to be utilised by their roots. So, with the proposed increase to the footprint of the building at the rear and the extent to which this encroaches on the trees, substantial damage is likely to occur.

In terms of their form and general quality these are not excellent specimens but as stated above, these are large trees which are very visible from Woodlands Avenue. They are also visible from Eleanora Drive and Selborne Drive to the north-east. Some of my photos from today's site visit are attached.

Given the size of the trees and the species characteristics if these trees were any closer to the back of the house (as existing) I would have said they were unsuitable for retention. Even if the application had demonstrated how trees could be successfully retained (which it hasn't) I have concerns about the potential for future conflict. If this application is approved and the rear of the house moves closer to the trees, future residents are likely to have concerns about shading of the remaining garden and the rear of the house, safety, risk of damage to the property, the nuisance issues caused by seasonal debris and the general overbearingness of the retained trees.

I initially just want to bring this conflict/incompatibility to your attention. A decision needs to be made on how to proceed. I can see there are potentially 3 ways to deal with this

• a) The trees are deemed to be important enough to warrant refusal of the application (given the potential for future conflict, even if they could be protected during construction).
• b) The trees are deemed to be important enough to warrant retention and additional detail is requested from the agent demonstrating how the trees could be successfully retained. This will require specialist engineering solutions to be employed and a tree protection plan and method statement to be produced. The trees could be registered under the Tree Preservation Act to help resist future pressure to remove and regulate future pruning work.
• c) The trees are not deemed to be material constraints and removal is permitted with mitigation options considered.

You can give me a call if you want to discuss this further. It may be helpful to meet with the agent present to go through the options."

• 5.3.1 Following amended plans following discussions with the applicants and the Department the makes the following comments (25.02.2020):

"Yes, the amended plans are acceptable and I would just use the standard planting condition. E.g.

The replacement tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the details provided on the proposed site plan (drawing 218/020a). The planting shall be carried out in the first planting season following the completion of the development. Any 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."

5.4 The owners/occupiers of Parknasilla, Woodlands Avenue, Douglas have no objections to the proposed works, but have concerns of how (03.02.2020) the construction and building machinery will be undertaken/accesses as there is only a 1m gap between the property and boundary fence. - 5.5 The owner/occupiers of 53 Selborne Drive, Douglas have objections (14.04.2020 x 2) which can be summarises as: concerns of not being notified by the Department of this application and previous applications and concerns of new trees being planted given their height and proximity to their garden, resulting in maintenance issues (leaves etc); and raise concerns of ownership.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The key issues relate to the potential visual impact upon the street scene; potential impact upon neighbouring amenities; and loss of trees. Potential visual impact upon the street scene

6.2 The proposed rear extensions are all in terms of their design, proportion, siting and finishes, appropriate and in keeping with the main dwelling house and would be an acceptable form of development. None of the extension would be prominent given its location and surrounding building development/landscaping features surrounding the site. Accordingly, from these respects the proposals would comply with General Policy 2 and the Residential Design Guidance.

Potential impact upon neighbouring amenities

6.3 The neighbouring properties most likely to be affected would be The Winnats (west) and Parknasilla (east). However, given the distance from these properties and also boundary treatments (fencing and landscaping) it is not considered the rear extensions would any significant impacts upon neighbouring amenities. Accordingly, from these respects the proposals would comply with General Policy 2 and the Residential Design Guide. Loss of Trees

6.4 Arguably the main issue is whether the loss of the five significant trees to the rear of the property. Since the original comments from the Arboricultural Officer (DEFA) the applicants and the Department have visited the site together and had a number of discussions. In conclusion both the applicants and the Department has agreed the best way forward would be for the removal of these large trees (mainly Pine trees) given they are essential inappropriate for the property (irrespective of the extensions). The loss of the trees will be apparent from public locations, namely Woodlands Avenue, Eleanora Drive & Sartfell Road,

• albeit they are no prominent features and there loss would not have a significant impact to the respective street scenes to warrant a refusal. There is no reference in the Conservation Area Appraisal for Selborne Drive of the trees and any benefit they may have to this CA.
• 6.5 It should also be noted that during the joint site visits (09.01.2020) the neighbours of Parknasilla and Kantara (Nr 53 Selborne Drive) where fully supportive of the trees being removed, as discussions where had while the Planning Officer, Arboricultural Officer and Applicants Agent where on site in discussion of the trees. It should be noted that if it not for this application there is a reasonable chance that the trees proposed to be removed would not be. The applicants initially wished for the trees to be retained; however, following the concerns of the Arboricultural Officer of the impact of the extension to the trees, it was agreed for them to be cut down and replaced with three new trees (as shown on plan 218/020a). Following concerns of the owners of Kantara (Nr 53 Selbourne Drive); the question was asked whether the replacement trees where required. It was confirmed they would be. It should be noted that the trees being replanted are significantly smaller than the existing large pine trees. Further, they are proposing to plant Sorbus aucuparia 'Sheerwater Seedling' which have been carefully selected by the applicants, in discussion with the Arboricultural Officer. The type of tree is an Upright Mountain Ash tree ideal for creating plenty of interest in small spaces and beneficial to wildlife 9berries grow). Further it will reach 6 x 3 metres in 20 years, which is still significantly less than the existing pine trees. It is ideal for smaller gardens and along roads. A further option was considered and that would be piling the foundations for the extension which would not impact the tree roots and allow the existing trees to be retained. However, it was agreed that the removal of the existing and three new trees would be the best way forward both for the applicants and neighbours, given the significant size and height of the existing pines, which are not suitable on this site in a residential area.
• 6.6 It should be noted that the owner could submit a Tree Felling Licence to remove the trees (outside of the planning process) which could result in the trees being removed and new replacement trees planted also.
• 6.7 Overall, The proposal does include new replacement tree planting (three rowan x 2.5m/3m in height), but they are a type which are more suitable for the site and neighbours' properties. Other Matters
• 6.8 Matters involving ownership are not a material consideration which can be taken into account. The applicants did respond to the concern raised by the residents of Nr 53 Selborne Drive, by indicating the land is within their ownership and submitted their deeds which do clearly show this was the case. However, whatever the ownership of the land is, the application is shown by the red line on the submitted plans which demonstrate that all the proposed works and tree planting are contained within. If it where found that the applicants did not control the said land, then they would not be able to implement the planning approval.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal would comply with the relevant policies of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan therefore it is recommended that the application be approved. - 8.0 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.

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 : Permitted Date: 01.05.2020 Determining officer

Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Principal Planner

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.