Officer Report

Application No.: 16/01244/REM Applicant: WDS Limited Proposal: Reserved Matters Application relating to PA 15/01041A for erection of a detached dwelling Site Address: Land Adjacent To WDS Limited New Castletown Road Douglas Isle Of Man Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 28.02.2017 Site Visit: 28.02.2017 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site forms land adjacent to WDS Limited, Millmount, Douglas which is a parcel of undevelopment land which sits to the southern side of New Castletown Road and south of Mylchreest Motors complex. The site is almost rectangular in shape with mature trees lining the eastern and southern boundary of the site. To the northwest of the site are two semi-detached three storey properties Primrose Cottage and Millmount Cottage. - 1.2 The site is accessed via an existing access which serves Mylchreest Motors, other business and a residential properties (The Laurels/The Hollies), albeit both properties are empty.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks reserved matters approval for the erection of a detached dwelling. The dwelling would be two storeys in height and be located to the southern boundary of the site, the main garden and turning area are to the north of the dwelling. A driveway is proposed along the eastern boundary of the site and provides parking for at least two cars.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY AND STATUS - 3.1 The site lies within an area of Residential use on the Douglas Local Plan of 1998. As such, the Strategic Plan is considered relevant in this case as follows: - 3.2 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:

• (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and underused land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials;
• (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and
• (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."

3.4 Strategic Policy 2 states: "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." - 3.5 The Strategic Plan identifies a hierarchy of settlements that guide what type of development is appropriate within them. Douglas is designated as the main employment and service centre for the Island.

3.6 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:

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (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;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (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;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

3.7 Housing Policy 4 states that: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans…"

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The previous planning application is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: - 4.2 Reserved Matters Application relating to PA 15/01041A for erection of a detached dwelling 16/01244/REM - APPROVED with the following conditions attached:

• 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. Approval of the details of design, siting, external appearance of the buildings, internal layout, parking layout, landscaping of the site, and tree protection measures (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Department in writing before any development is commenced.

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

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services make the following comments:

• "08.12.2016 - The proposal is to provide a single residential dwelling on a plot with a vehicular access through an industrial area. Due to the configuration of the access lane a turning facility is required on site to permit vehicles to enter and leave the property in forward gear; the turning facility should be provided within the curtilage of the dwelling. 2 car parking spaces should be provided and positioned such that neither parked vehicle obstructs access/egress for the other.

The approval in principle indicated that there would be a pedestrian access onto the public right of way that runs along the southwest boundary of the property; no details of this access have been provided. Pedestrian access through the industrial area is not appropriate and an alternative pedestrian access onto the pulic right of way is required.

Please defer this application until these matters are resolved."

• 04.03.2017 - Highway Services have confirmed in an email that they have no objection to the amended drawings.
• 5.2 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture - Forestry and Lands Directorate make the following comments:

"18.11.16 - Felling Licence 259/16 was issued in May 2016 (under the Tree Preservation Act) for the removal of 3 sycamores and 2 ash trees. This refers to the trees 1, 10, 11, 12 and 13 on the 'tree survey' drawing submitted with the application. I would not object to the removal of trees 2, 3, 4, 8 and 9 to facilitate the development. However, even with this number of trees removed I think your comments below are a good assessment of the main issue at this site - the potential for future conflict with retained trees within and adjacent to the site. There are likely to be complaints about shading, risk to the property and seasonal nuisance issues (e.g. leaf litter) if the house is built as proposed. The shading issue is a particular concern as the south facing windows of the main living spaces will be completely shaded when the trees are in leaf.

Even if trees T6 and T7, located outside of the site, are removed, there are other trees which have not been plotted on the tree survey drawing which could have an impact on the 'liveability' of this dwelling. There are several very large broadleaf trees on the south side of the adjacent access lane which would dominate the property and feel very over-bearing. From our discussion yesterday I understand you have your own concerns about the current design, relating to aspect/outlook. If you are going to suggest the applicant reviews the design in relation to these concerns I would also recommend the relationship to the surrounding trees is given some more thought. As it stands, I believe the relationship to neighbouring trees would be poor and inevitably lead to calls to fell or prune these trees. For this reason I would have to object to the proposal if the site layout was not amended.

I note that the approval in principal asks for details of tree protection measures to be submitted with a reserved matters application. There is no such information with this application. As the applicant is currently proposing to remove all the trees within the site boundary tree protection measures would only be required if construction activity was proposed within the root protection areas of trees on adjacent land. Therefore the applicant needs to either:

• a) Submit a constraints plan (in accordance with the recommendations of BS5837:2012) showing that all construction activity will be outside of the root protection areas of trees on adjacent land.

• b) Submit a tree protection plan illustrating the measures to be taken to protect trees on adjacent land.

If neither of these items are submitted in support of the application, this would be another reason to object."

Further comments received to the first amended plans:

• "09.02.2017 - I'm just looking at the amended plans that have been submitted for application 16/01244/REM (Land adjacent to WDS) and would look like to raise the following concerns:

• 1. Have the root protection areas been calculated or has the protective fencing just been placed at the edge of the spread canopy?
• 2. The site plan shows that the driveway will be constructed within the construction exclusion zone. An arboricultural method statement will be required to explain how the driveway will be constructed without having a detrimental impact on the trees.
• 3. The amendments still seem to ignore the main issue at this site - the potential for future conflict with retained trees adjacent to the site. There are likely to be complaints about shading, risk to the property and seasonal nuisance issues (e.g. leaf litter) if the house is built as proposed. The shading issue is a particular concern as the south facing windows of the main living spaces will be completely shaded when the trees are in leaf. Even if trees T6 and T7, located outside of the site, are eventually removed, there are other trees which have not been plotted on the tree survey drawing which could have an impact on the 'liveability' of this dwelling. There are several very large broadleaf trees on the south side of the adjacent access lane which would dominate the property and feel very over-bearing. These issues would lead to future pressure to remove trees. Arguments that 'the trees are protected by the Tree Preservation Act and requests to fell or prune could therefore be successfully resisted' are overly simplistic. In determining an application made under the Tree Preservation Act the Directorate will balance apprehension, inconvenience and nuisance issues and the likelihood of on-going maintenance costs against the trees amenity value. Even in the event that the Directorate finds in favour of the tree, there is an appeal process which would take the decision out of the arboricultural officer's control.
• 4. Even if neighbouring land owners resist calls for tree work to take place future residents would be able to lodge a complaint under the Trees and High Hedges Act. My concerns are sufficient enough to represent an objection to this proposal."

Following further amended drawings: "22.03.2017 - In my original comments regarding this site I raised two concerns:

• 1. Potential damage to retained trees
• 2. Likelihood of future pressure to remove trees due to concerns regarding shading and perceived risk to property

In further discussions and meetings on site we concluded that (a) the self-seeded sycamores that have established are not the main cause for concern; the relationship to the trees to the south of the access track is more important; (b) although this development is likely to cause conflict with the trees, the potential for this conflict already exists as there are already properties in close proximity to the trees; (c) the tree protection plan that was submitted on the 10th February was not viable as it showed construction activity taking place within a construction exclusion zone; (d) to mitigate for the tree loss necessary to develop the site, and to provide screening from the industrial buildings to the south, some landscape planting would be appropriate. This would involve moving the turning/parking area to the south by approximately 1m and planting an evergreen hedge and tree at the north end of the site. To provide a reasonable volume of uncompact soil I recommended that a cellular confinement system was used below the finished surface of the turning area.

The applicant has now submitted revised drawings which address points (c) and (d) above. If you are now in a position to approve this application I recommend that you consider the following conditions:

• 1. No equipment, machinery or materials shall be brought onto the site for the purposes of the development until fencing has been erected in the location shown on the approved site plan (drawing 15/2472/12 D) in accordance with the recommendations of Section 6.2.2 of British Standard 5837:2012. The fencing shall be maintained in position until the development is complete.
• 2. No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until the Department has approved in writing a landscaping plan and tree planting specification. The tree planting specification shall adhere to the recommendations of BS8545:2014 (Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape- recommendations) and include details of all trees to be planted, including a) their quantity, location (or density), species and size at date of planting; b) the approximate date when they are to be planted; and c) how they will be maintained until successfully established. The landscaping plan shall include details of the cellular confinement system to be installed under the proposed parking/turning area."

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 In determining the application it is considered the main issues are; potential impact upon nearby trees; potential impact upon neighbouring residential amenities; amenities of future occupants; and parking/turning provision. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEARBY TREES - 6.2 The Forestry Division (DEFA) has considered the application in detail (see comments) and following additional information, plans and site visits it has been determined with works being carried out as shown on the submitted plans and with an additional condition requiring more detail for landscaping it is considered the proposals is acceptable in terms of potential impact upon the trees proposed to be retained. They have no objection to the removal of 11 trees which are generally self-seeded sycamore trees. Further, the majority of the trees in the areas are outside the site and unaffected by the development. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES - 6.3 Visiting the site, it is considered the properties most likely to be affected would be Primrose Cottage and Milmount Cottage to the northwest of the site. They have a number of windows which overlook the site, albeit the ground floor windows are mainly screened by Manx stone walls - there is two rows of boundary walls between the neighbouring rear widows and the site. The ground level of the application site is also lower than that of both neighbouring properties. - 6.4 The siting of the dwelling to the southern part of the site, arguably is the most suitable position in term of the impact upon the neighbouring properties. There was concern mention at the AIP stage that a two storey dwelling may be unacceptable; however, it is considered in this case that the size & design of the dwelling, orientation in relation to the neighbouring properties and distance between the proposed dwelling, the ground levels and the boundary treatment all would ensure the proposal would not have significant adverse impact upon neighbouring amenities to warrant a refusal. - 6.5 It is also noted that the scheme includes the removal of five trees which current are sited along the boundary shred with the two neighbouring properties, three of which are in direct line of the rear windows of the two properties. Accordingly, it is considered the removal of these will greatly increase the amount of light and outlook, beneficial to occupant's amenities. AMENITIES OF FUTURE OCCUPANTS - 6.6 There was some initial concern of the closeness of the rear windows of the properties to the nearby woodland. However, it is acknowledge that the primary windows are to the front elevation (north) and these provides light and outlook to all the ground floor rooms (kitchen/dinner & Living room) which have windows to the front and rear elevations. Accordingly, while the views and

• amount of light from the rear windows would not be substantial, it is considered given the front windows it is considered acceptable. It should be noted that views to the rear would be of a wooded area which arguably can be an attractive view.
• 6.7 The occupants would have a rear garden which would be enclosed by the neighbouring stone boundary wall, and the surrounding trees which line the boundary of the site. However, it is considered the space would be acceptable. PARKING/TURNING PROVISION
• 6.8 In terms of off street parking provision the IOMSP requires each dwelling to be provided with two off road parking spaces. Accordingly, the application complies with Transport Policy 7 and the parking standards of the IOMSP as each would have two spaces and turning facility fronting the property. Again Highways have raised no objection.

- 7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 It is considered that the proposal would be comply with the relevant planning policies of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2016) and Douglas Local Plan, for the reasons set out in this report, it is recommended that the application be approved. - 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.

Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Forestry Directorate are part of the same Department as is the planning authority and as such should not be afforded interested person status under the Order.

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.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 22.03.2017 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 development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

• C 3. No equipment, machinery or materials shall be brought onto the site for the purposes of the development until fencing has been erected in the location shown on the approved site plan (drawing 15/2472/12 D) in accordance with the recommendations of Section 6.2.2 of British Standard 5837:2012. The fencing shall be maintained in position until the development is complete. Reason: To safeguard the existing trees and planting to be retained within and around the site.
• C 4. Prior to the commencement of any work on the dwelling hereby approved (excluding site clearance) a landscaping plan and tree planting specification is required to be submitted in writting and approved by the Department. The tree planting specification shall adhere to the recommendations of BS8545:2014 (Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscaperecommendations) and include details of all trees to be planted, including a) their quantity, location (or density), species and size at date of planting; b) the approximate date when they are to be planted; and c) how they will be maintained until successfully established. The landscaping plan shall include details of the cellular confinement system to be installed under the proposed parking/turning area and the species and size of the evergreen hedging. Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
• C 5. The finished floor level of the dwelling hereby approved is required to be no greater than 100.650. Reason: In the interests of neighbouring amenities.

This approval relates to drawings reference numbers 15/2472/10 C and 15/2472/12 D received on 9th March 2017 and 29th March 2017.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Senior Planning Officer in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted Date: 30.03.2017 Determining officer

Signed : S CORLETT Sarah Corlett Senior Planning Officer

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.