Officer Report

Application No.: 17/00066/B Applicant: Mark And Rosina Casson Proposal: Variation of condition 3 of PA15/00114/B for the approval in principle for the erection of a new dwelling, to extend the period of permission for a further 2 years. Site Address: Fairfield House Fairfield Avenue Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 2LS Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 01.02.2017 Site Visit: 01.02.2017 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of Fairfield House, a two storey detached house sited on the southern side of Fairfield Avenue in Ramsey. - 1.2 Fairfield House is located to the south of Thie Quinney and to the west of Ramsey Grammar School playing fields. To the southwest of the application site is Ramsey Golf Course.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the variation of condition 3 of PA 15/00114/ B to extend permission to erect a dwelling for a further two years. The site defined amounts to approximately

0.2 ha. The new property would, by necessity, need to share the main access with the existing principal house for the majority of its existing length.

2.3 This application has been submitted due to personal reasons with funding circumstances. They also indicate that they were advised by an Estate Agent to leave any detailed planning application for a potential purchaser. - 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The previous planning applications are relevant in the determination of this application: - 3.2 Approval in principle for the erection of a detached dwelling 11/01777/A - APPROVED - 3.3 Variation of conditions two and three of PA 11/01777/A to extend the permission by one year - 14/00337/C - APPROVED - 3.4 Variation of condition 3 of PA 14/00337/ B to extend permission to erect a dwelling for a further two years - 15/00114/B - APPROVED

- 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential under the Ramsey Local Plan Order 1998. - 4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan contains two policies which are considered relevant to the assessment of this application:

4.3 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:

• (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."

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Ramsey Commissioners do not oppose (23.02.2017). - 5.2 Highway Services initially commented (13.02.2017): "The proposal is to vary a condition of PA 15/00114/B to extend that permission by 2 years.

The approval is for the construction of a dwelling house within the grounds of an existing dwelling sharing the same access to the highway. Access is via an approximately 130m single track drive with trees separating it from a grassed area of similar width running parallel along its length.

A shared access requires that 2 vehicles can pass and the current arrangement would not permit this. The applicant is advised to consider provision of indivisible passing places along the drive or provision of a second drive along the grassed area to prevent removal of trees.

Highway Services requests that this application is deferred to allow the applicant to consider the above."

5.3 Highway Services now make the following comments (13.03.2017): "Following discussions between the planning officer and the arboricultural officer a separate access for the new dwelling can be created with the trees being maintained between the two access drives.

Highway Services does not oppose this application subject to a condition requiring any reserved matters application containing a drawing showing this second access."

5.4 Arboricultural Officer - Forestry, Amenity and Lands Directorate - DEFA initially commented (03.02.2017):

"I would like register my objection to the approval of application 17/00066/B (Fairfield House, Ramsey) for the following reasons:

• 1. I'm aware that this application is being made to extend the period of permission of an existing approval in principle (15/00114/B). However, looking back through the planning history and previous planning officer reports it seems that, whilst forestry officers were consulted, nobody has taken the time to properly assess the potential impact of this proposal on the surrounding trees. Furthermore, back in 2011 when the proposal was originally approved, no reference would have been made to the latest version of the relevant British Standard, BS5837:2012.
• 2. The first issue that presents itself as you enter the site is the restricted access. The proposed shared driveway from Fairfield Avenue is lined with a row of mature 'category A' sycamore trees. These trees are highly visible from Fairfield Avenue and the amenity space associated with Ramsey school. The trees restrict the width of the access to 3m and height would also be restricted. This will be a significant constraint as it will restrict the plant that could access the site and the delivery of materials. Even if they could find a way around this problem the nature of the access and the existing surfacing means that the roots of all these trees are likely to growing under this driveway. For occasional access with light vehicles (normal cars) this is OK and probably won't do too much damage. However, the type access that would be required to construct the proposed dwelling, both in terms of increased loading and/or frequency of travel, is likely to cause damage to these trees unless protective measures are taken. Also, although it's not a tree issue, along the same lines, the existing gateway at the southern end also restricts access.
• 3. The new driveway leading to the proposed dwelling would run close to the several significant trees. Starting at the northern end, there is a 'Category A' Atlas Cedar (Cedrus altantica). Specimens of this quality are rare on the island (I can't think of any other), so protection of this tree should be given a high priority. Past the cedar there is a row of beech which would probably be categorised as a 'category B' group. After this there are two more category A trees; a pine and a sycamore. The proposed driveway would encroach on all the root protection areas (BS5837:2012, section 4.6) of these trees so protective measures would be required. There is also a tree shown in the middle of the parking area in front of the house which would need to be protected.
• 4. The plans show that 2 horse chestnut, 2 sycamore, 1 beech and 1 palm would need to be removed to facilitate the development. I do not object to the removal of all but one of these trees. The large horse chestnut is a mature specimen of good form. As well as having value in its own right, this tree is visible from the golf course so also provides an amenity value to the area.
• 5. In the southern corner of the site the proposed site plan shows a 'sewage tank with pump'. This would need to be installed within the root protection areas of 3 adjacent trees. That I am aware of, there is no engineering solution that would make this acceptable. I appreciate that a future reserved matters application could show this in a different location but there are so many constraints on this site (more on this below) that it is difficult to see where this could go to make it acceptable. As well as the tank itself, the plan shows that a pipe line would be installed close to other trees along the western boundary. Unless some kind of trenchless technology was used this would be hugely damaging to the trees marked for retention.
• 6. Around the area where they propose to place the dwelling there are a number of large mature specimen trees which have a very high amenity value. Most notably, a giant redwood (Sequoiadendron giganteum), a deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) and a cypress (Cupressus sp.) which are all over 1m in girth. These trees would have root protection areas of 12-15m. Along with the other early-mature or mature broadleaf trees and 2 Irish yew (Taxus baccata 'fastigiata'), which all have root protection areas of between 3-9m, this means there is likely to be very little space on the site that is not covered by a root protection area. The house would have to be built on pile foundations with a mixture of temporary and permanent ground protections measured used.
• 7. Even if you could work out a way of accessing the site and constructing a dwelling without damaging the existing trees I am very concerned that the construction of this house would lead to future pressure to remove trees on the site. This was acknowledged in the 2011 planning officers report:

'the applicant has pointed out that there are many people who are comfortable living close to trees and that such an environment could be pleasing and acceptable and need not result in a future demand for tree felling'

Based my experience of dealing with tree work applications for the last 8 years I would not agree with this statement. It is true that some people are comfortable living in close proximity to trees but the majority are not. Issues such as shade, apprehension through the perception of risk, the overbearing nature of the large mature trees and nuisance issues such as leaf litter, honeydew, and the presence of bird life 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.

• 8. Lastly, the tree issues at this site go further than the potential physical damage or the future conflict which may result post construction. The entire landscape (including the trees) is also valuable. Many of these trees were probably planted when the house was built and create a landscape befitting a house with the stature of Fairfield House. Conversely, in its current form the house also befits the trees. In my opinion the proposed dwelling would degrade the mature garden landscape and be detrimental to both the trees and Fairfield house. Mature gardens with so many specimen trees are rare and are an entity worth protecting in their own right."

5.5 However, following discussion with the applicants the Arboricultural Officer makes the following final comments (17.02.2017): "Following our meeting with the applicant on Wednesday 15th Feb I think we need at least 3 conditions to address the tree issues on this site if the application is to be approved:

• 1. The reserved matters application needs to include all the arboricultural information necessary to give the planning authority (via me) confidence in the outcome for retained trees. Suggested wording: The plans and particulars submitted in accordance with condition X shall include a tree survey, tree survey plan, constraints plan, arboricultural impact assessment, tree protection plan and arboricultural method statement, all of which shall be completed in accordance with the recommendations of BS5837:2012. (Where X is a condition requiring that a reserved matters application is submitted within a given timeframe)
• 2. The design (Siting, Massing etc.) that is proposed in the reserved matters application needs to incorporate the retention of all single trees and groups of trees assessed to be Category A or B (BS5837:2012 categorisation system) in the above-referenced tree survey. I'll leave the exact wording to you on this one.
• 3. The access issue needs to be addressed. My favoured option would be to create a new shared driveway (on a cellular confinement system) on the other side of the trees and block off the old one. Again, I'm not really sure how you would word this. I will proceed with the registration of the trees as discussed."

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The application is to vary a condition that, respectively, seeks to restrict the time limit for the implementation of the application. This would have the effect of adding an additional two years to Condition 3 of PA 15/00114/B. - 6.2 The principal issue in the assessment of this application is whether there have been any material planning matters (e.g. policy changes / land used designations / Local Plan adoption / new or altered legislation, and so forth) that have changed since the approval of the last application. - 6.3 Since the initial approval there have been no material planning changes which have arisen. The Ramsey Local Plan and the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 have not been superseded and therefore continue to comprise the Development Plan. The policies contained therein have not been the subject of appeal decisions or decisions related to planning applications that indicate a different

• approach to those policies should be taken. No new legislation has been brought into force. Furthermore, no objections have been received.
• 6.4 Since the last approval Forestry, Amenity and Lands Directorate have employed an new Arboricultural Officer who considered applications is greater level of detail in relation to development potential impacting trees. Accordingly, the level of response received now is significantly more than the previous applications. Following initial significant concerns by the Officer, discussions where had with all parties and it was agreed that a single dwelling on the site could be designed and sited in a way to avoid significant impacts upon nearby trees. It should be noted that the indicative layout of the dwelling on the site plan is not likely to be acceptable, albeit the application is not seeking the siting as a matter for consideration now.
• 6.5 A further issue was the creation of a new and/or second driveway which was sought by Highway and the Arboricultural Officer, both whom raised concerns of the existing access not be wide enough for construction traffic resulting in possible damage to the trees which run along one side of the driveway and/or allowing vehicles to pass once the new dwelling was constructed. Accordingly, a new condition is proposed to be attached which seeks a new driveway (would utilise existing accesses onto highway) to the east of the existing driveway be undertaken under any future Reserved matters application, which would overcome both Highways and Forestry's initial concerns.

- 7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

7.1 It has been previously assessed that the development proposed is acceptable without causing undue harm to local residential amenity and also without causing undue harm to the natural environment or cause undue harm on public amenity. No significant material circumstances have altered since the original approval in principle was issued. - 7.2 Accordingly, it is considered for those reasons it is appropriate to approve the variation of condition 3 and extend the approval for a further two years from the date of the decision notice, and that the other conditions previously attached to that approval be carried forward here as well as new additional conditions, should this recommendation be accepted.

8.0 PARTY 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 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, Amenity and Lands 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: 15.03.2017

Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. Details of "the reserved matters application" shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department 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 2. Plans and particulars of the reserved matters referred to in Condition 1 shall include details of:

• (a) The provision to be made for the parking of two vehicles and turning of vehicles within the site;
• (b) The surface treatment of any roadways and other parts of the site which will not be covered by buildings;
• (c) All external materials to be used in the development;
• (d) means of access into the site together with visibility splays;
• (e) Existing and proposed ground and floor levels;
• (f) A tree survey, tree survey plan, constraints plan, arboricultural impact assessment, tree protection plan and arboricultural method statement, all of which shall be completed in accordance with the recommendations of BS5837:2012, and this should also incorporate the retention of all single trees and groups of trees assessed to be Category A or B (BS5837:2012 categorisation system) in the above-referenced tree survey; and
• (g) A new shared driveway (utilising the existing access onto Fairfield Avenue) to the eastern side of the existing driveway and tree line which also demonstrates adequate passing places and adequate tree protection measures (on a cellular confinement system), this should also indicate how the existing driveway will be removed.
• (h) the siting, design and external appearance of the dwelling and
• (i) the means of draining the site of foul and surface water.

Reason: This is an approval in principle and these matters require detailed consideration by the Department.

• C 3. The application for approval of the reserved matters referred to in Condition 2 shall be made to the Planning Authority before the expiration of two 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 4. 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 5. The application for reserved matters must include all engineering works for access, services and pipework and drainage details together with sufficient information to demonstrate that these will not adversely affect either the structural stability of the stream bank or the ecology or water quality of the watercourse.

Reason: To safeguard the ecology of and water quality within the watercourse as well the stability of the stream bank.

This approval relates to drawings reference numbers 119.5.2 and 119.3 received on 23rd January 2017 and 2nd February 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: 28.03.2017 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.