Loading document...
Application No.: 19/00585/B Applicant: Mr Christo & Mrs Susie Roelofse Proposal: Erection of a detached dwelling with associated parking, access and landscaping Site Address: Plot 13 Hillberry Green Douglas Isle Of Man Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 12.06.2019 Site Visit: 12.06.2019 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 02.09.2019 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
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.
Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.
Reason: To maintain the amenities of the area by minimising the level of tree canopy cover lost due to the development
Reason: To ensure that the majority trees marked for retention are adequately protected from construction activity which may have a detrimental impact on their health and longevity
Reason: To ensure that replacement tree planting takes place to mitigate the tree removal required to facilitate the development.
This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers "Location Plan scale 1:1250", GF REV H, E2 REV H, 18-069 REV H (front and rear elevations); FF REV H, SP REV H, SEC REV H, 18-069 REV H (roof plan); 18/069/101 REV D, Sections 1, 2, 3 & 4 (tree reports) prepared by Manx Roots, TR-16419V2, MP-16419V2 and TP-16419V2 received on 21st May 2019, 18th July 2019, and 10th September 2019.
_______________________________________________________________ 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):
Long & Humphrey, The Old Court House, Athol Street (Hillberry Green Limited); The owners/occupiers of 67 Cronk Drean, Douglas; The owners/occupiers of Highbury House, Hillberry Green, 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 (either withdrew objections or support scheme) 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.
The owner/occupier of Kiltrellig House, 15 Hillberry Green, Douglas is not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy _____________________________________________________________________________
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL COULD BE REGARDED AS CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
0.0 INTRODUCTION - 0.1 Following the application being deferred from the last Planning Committee amended plans have been received which removed the two roof lights which were mistakenly added to the last amended plans; one of the site plans showed the initially distance of 7m to the northern boundary, rather than the correct 10m distance; and the issue of the plans not scaling correctly (albeit the written measurements on the plans where correct) has been resolved. These correct plans have been re-circulated and all parties who have written previously have been notified seeking any comments within 7 days (19.09.2019). - 0.2 No changes to the assessment or recommendation have been made to the earlier report. The only paragraphs that have been changes to the original report are those within the representations section of this report (paragraphs 5.5.1, 5.8.1, 5.9 & 5.10). Further, the condition requiring a bat survey being provided has been omitted.
1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises a parcel of land located within Hillberry Green in Douglas. The site is generally open grass with a number of mature trees around its perimeter. The plot measures approximately 0.5 of an acre (0.20 ha) in area. - 1.2 Access to the site is via a field gate (as well from the neighbouring dwelling Garden Cottage) along the eastern boundary of the site onto the private Hillberry Green road, which runs in a southerly direction from the site to the main access of Hillberry Green which accesses onto the Glencrutchery (A2).
2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a detached dwelling with associated parking, access and landscaping. The single dwelling proposed would have a maximum width of 16.4 metres, a maximum depth of 13.2 metres, and a maximum ridge height of 7.5 metres. The proposal would be set a minimum distance of 6 metres to the west of the Hillberry Green road. - 2.2 The proposed dwelling is traditional in form with a pitched roof and gable projecting sections with pitches roofs above, albeit its finishes (appears to be render, stone and timber cladding; albeit not specified on the plans) and amount of glazing proposed gives a more contemporary feel.
2.3 Access is via the existing filed gate, albeit the access would be formalised with hardsurfacing laid, which in turns runs to an onsite parking area for at least two vehicles and turning provision. - 2.4 A total of 7 trees would be removed within the site.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY - 3.1 The application site is within an area designated as being an area of "Low Density Housing in Parkland" (LDHP), under the Douglas Local Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. - 3.2 Due to the zoning of the site, and the nature of the proposed development, the following Planning Policy is relevant in the consideration of the application:- - 3.3 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
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(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." - 3.5 Spatial Policy 1 states: "The Douglas urban area will remain the main employment and services 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:
3.7 Housing Policy 6 states: ''Development of land which is zoned for residential development must be undertaken in accordance with the brief in the relevant area plan, or, in the absence of a brief, in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 6.2 (General Policy 2) of this Plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive''. - 3.8 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan." - 3.9 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards." - 3.10 Planning Circular 8/89 - Low Density Housing in Parkland needs to be taken into consideration when determining the application.
Areas proposed for development as Low Density Housing in Parkland may be developed in accordance with the following criteria:-
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:- - 4.2 Approval in principle for the erection of a detached dwelling and garage - 12/00848/A APPROVED - 4.3 Approval in principle for the erection of four bedroomed dwelling and garage 05/02090/A - APPROVED
4.4 Approval in principle for erection of dwelling and garage - 01/02436/B - APPROVED - 4.5 Erection of detached dwelling with double garage - 89/01990/B - APPROVED
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 It should be noted that there have been a number of sets of amended plans advertised. - 5.2 Douglas Borough Council have no objection (14.06.19 & 02.08.19). - 5.3 Highway Services do not objection making the following comments (21.06.2019): "The proposed development is served off Hillberry Green (a private road) serving a number of detached dwellings along its length.
There are no records in relation to the previous planning application back in 2012 that can referred to in terms of highways. Notwithstanding previous comments, new guidance has been launched in the form of the Manual for Manx Roads and therefore the application has been determined on latest guidance.
The development is served off a single access with sightlines of 2.4m x 25m in either direction with the forward visibility taken out to 1.0m from the road edge.
There are no details of vehicle speeds on this private road therefore it is not clear whether 25.0m as a stopping sight distance is acceptable in this location. However, Hillberry Green is a culs-de- sac with limited traffic expected to pass the site entrance.
Given the fact that the development is also located on a private road, this reduces the likelihood of public using this route.
I am therefore satisfied on this occasion that the access is safe. The site also provides adequate parking and vehicles are able to turn within the site allowing vehicles to enter and exit in a forward gear.
The traffic generation from a single dwelling is not considered to be a material concern in terms of its access onto the public highway therefore the proposals are considered on balance to be acceptable from a highway aspect.
Should you be mindful to approve this application, please attach the following condition:
Prior to development becoming occupied the adjacent hedging shall be realigned / lowered to no more than 1.0m above carriageway level in order to achieve a 25m clear line of sight in both directions measured 2.4m back from the private road edge. The visibility splays shall be maintained at all times throughout the life of the development to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority.
Reason: in the interests of highway safety. Recommendation: DNOC."
5.4 Arboricultural Officer - Forestry, Amenity and Lands Directorate (DEFA) initially made the following comments (16.06.2019): "There are two trees adjacent to the site which are not covered in the tree survey or arboricultural impact assessment. These are a mature elm to the west of the site, situated on the boundary between 65 and 67 Cronk Drean, and an early mature ash tree to the north of the site, within the grounds of Highbury House. Both trees are within 2m of the boundary and
potentially have roots located within the site of interest. I recommend you ask the applicant to get the author of the tree report to investigate the likely impact to these trees and report back with their findings.
Having visited the site it appears that the siting of the proposed dwelling has not been optimised to minimise the arboricultural impact. In a slightly different position the proposed development could have retained some of the trees now proposed for removal. Have alternative designs been considered? Why were they ruled out?
Although the design does not appear to minimise the arboricultural impact, none of the trees marked for removal are particularly good/important specimens and with the mitigation planting which is proposed, the overall impact of the development is not significant enough to warrant my objection. The proposed planting is critical however, and would need to be covered by a condition.
Prior to making these comments I was contacted by the Directors of Hillberry Green Limited, the company which own the communal spaces within the estate. They claim that the verge to the east of the site between the conifer hedge and the road belongs to Hillberry Green Limited, rather than the applicant. I am aware that ownership is not generally considered a material consideration, but with the wording of the standard conditions there is a risk that the trees on the verge will end up not being removed (because they don't belong to the applicant) but substantially damaged (because the building is within the RPA). The protection plan has been prepared on the assumption that the trees can be removed. If this turns out not to be the case, additional protection measures and specialist building methods would be required if the trees which are outside the site are to be retained without damage. In addition, the space to replant would be created by the proposed tree removal; you couldn't enforce a replanting condition if there wasn't space to plant the trees. The worst case scenario is that you will end up with tree removal within the site and damaged trees (e.g. dying back due to root damage) outside the site without it being possible to implement the proposed mitigation.
I will wait for your response to this issue before I recommend any conditions."
"Following my initial comments in the email below the arboricultural consultant undertook further investigations which address the points raised in 1st paragraph.
By retaining the trees in the roadside verge, the recent amendments to the scheme remove the complications presented by contested ownership. The amended arboricultural impact assessment acknowledges that the proposed construction could have a detrimental impact on the health of the retained trees and the applicant has told me that they would be happy to replace them at a later date if the extent of dieback expected makes retention unviable. In this scenario, permission would obviously be required under the Tree Preservation Act ('TPA', administered by Agriculture and Lands Directorate) and any application made under this legislation to remove trees damaged by construction activity is only likely to be approved with a condition to plant suitable replacement trees. Where damage is expected I would usually prefer to see pre-emptive felling and replacement and avoid dealing with development related tree removal/replanting under the Tree Preservation Act, but it in this instance, given the ownership issues and limited public amenity value, I think this would be acceptable.
Note, that whilst the public amenity value may be low, the private amenity value to individual residents living nearby may be somewhat higher. Representations regarding private amenity value, however, should come from the landowners/residents who may be affected; the Agriculture and Lands Directorate do not make representations on behalf of private residents.
The tree protection plan remains the same. A recommended condition relating to the implementation of the proposed protective measures is shown below.
The retention of T0043 & T2423 means that there is not now room to plant 3 A.campestre in the verge. The updated planting plan is acceptable and a recommended condition relating to this is shown below
If this application is approved I recommend that you consider applying the following conditions:
Reason: To maintain the amenities of the area by minimising the level of tree canopy cover lost due to the development
Reason: To ensure that the majority trees marked for retention are adequately protected from construction activity which may have a detrimental impact on their health and longevity.
Reason: To ensure that replacement tree planting takes place to mitigate the tree removal required to facilitate the development."
5.5 The Eco Systems Policy Officer (DEFA) seeks that a bat survey be undertaken prior the removal of any trees on site as the area has a record of bats (28.06.2019).
5.6 Long & Humphrey, The Old Court House, Athol Street initially wrote on behalf of their clients (Hillberry Green Limited - owners of service road, sewers and all amenity land within the Hillberry Green Estate) objecting to the application (01.07.2019). However, following amended plans being received they withdrew their client's objection (14.08.2019). A further representation was received (30.08.2019) which indicated following an email from the applicants which they asserts the 25m visibility splay can be achieved with only minimal (approx. 1 metre) removal of the hedge to the right of the entrance shown on drawing number TR16419V2, that their client is supportive of this position and considers any more
Having received assurances that new plans would be submitted to address these points the objection was removed. However, they were subsequently informed by the applicant that the latest plans were submitted in error and they would be contacting them Monday 9th September to make sure that the plans considered were the correct ones. The neighbours confirmed that for any reason the plans reflected a distance of 7 metres from the boundary the objection to the application would be reinstated.
Following these comments the above items have been addressed in the recent submitted plans (10.09.2019). The owners/occupiers of Highbury House were notified of these and no additional comments have been received.
5.9 The owner/occupier of Kiltrellig House, 15 Hillberry Green, Douglas objects to the application which can be summarised as (02.09.2019 & 09.09.2019); objects to the conclusion of the Management Company in its decision to remove its objection; highway safety concern of the new access onto Hillberry Green; drawing does not show a setback of 2.4m or the visibility splay; his own property 100m beyond the proposed entrance/exit; emergency services use this section of the Hillberry Green Estate Road during racing periods and this causes considerable traffic movement; procedural concern of the re-advertisement of previous plans which were not "identical" as indicated by the applicant and also amount of time allowed for persons to comment; application should have been re-advertised fully; even at the 10m position DEFA have expressed concern to the long term damage of trees, strictly accordance to Houses in Parkland Zoning, trees must be preserved; trees will have to be removed to provide visibility splays; and the MfMR indicates that a private street should serve no more than 5 dwellings, this application would ncrease the number to 6. - 5.10 The Director/Company Sectetary of Hillberry Green Limited (07.09.2019) writes to confirm that the ownership of the private access is in the ownership of Hillberry Green Limited; and reference to "considerable traffic movements" may be somewhat subjective and may not satisfy objective tests as to what constitutes considerable traffic movements.
6.1 Given the land-use designation and the type of development the following elements are relevant to consideration in the determination of this application; (a) principle of development;
6.2 As indicated within the 'Planning Policy' section of this report, the site is designated as " Low Density Housing in Parkland" (LDHP), under the Douglas Local Plan'; therefore it is considered that the principle of residential development is acceptable on this site. However, further material planning matters as indicated previously needs to be considered, to determine if the principle of a single dwelling on the site is appropriate. It is also noted that a number of Approval in Principle planning applications for a new dwelling on this site and on a similar footprint, have been approved previously (see planning history section) under the same land use designated of "Low Density Housing in Park Land" and in consideration of Planning Circular 8/89. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE AREA - 6.3 It needs to be acknowledged the requirements of Planning Circular 8/89 which are indicated within the Planning Policy section of this report, specifically paragraph 4 as the site is designated as "Low Density Housing in Parkland". - 6.4 As outlined in paragraph (a) any dwelling must be substantial, and designed and finished to the highest quality. Further to these essentially design brief for the sites; Housing Policy 6 indicates that sites designated for residential development; "must be undertaken in accordance with the brief in the relevant area plan" i.e. the Douglas Local Plan. Further Housing Policy 6 indicates that such briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive. - 6.5 The proposed dwelling is a substantial dwelling as required by the Circular, and is considered to be of an appropriate design, with a more traditional form, but with contemporary finishes and fenestration. Design is a very subjective matter; however, in this case it is considered the proposal would fit within the area of Hillberry Green, albeit a different design approach. - 6.6 In terms of the requirements of paragraph (b); this is one of the elements of the proposal which does not meet the Circular, given the plot size is 0.5 acres, rather than the required 1 acre. However, visiting Hillberry Green, it was noted the immediate neighbouring properties around the application site are also below this acreage, and in fact approximately 7 of the 18 dwellings within the housing area of Hillberry Green meet this standard, the remaining 11 dwellings are below this, ranging from approximately 03. Acres to 0.9 acres. The majority of the properties above the 1 acre are those along the eastern boundary of the Hillberry Green area which back onto Governor's Bridge and the start of the Mountain Road. The western side of Hillberry Green and within the centre of Hillberry Green are generally properties with plots smaller than 1 acres and the application site essentially sits in the middle of these. It is considered the proposed dwelling size on this plot of 0.5 acres would still site comfortable within it, and would also fit well within the Hillberry Green area and be in keeping. It is also worth noting, this site appears to be the last plot available to development within Hillberry Green. - 6.7 It is also noted the previously approvals which will also have had to considered this issue (Planning Circular 8/89) and were all approved. Accordingly, given the main element of the policy (adopted 1989) is unchanged since this time, it would seem unreasonable to refuse the application now, on this issue of size of plot. - 6.8 The proposal would result in a total of 7 trees on the site being removed which again the Circular seeks against. However, as outlined by the Arboricultural Officer (DEFA) their loss would not result in an adverse impact upon public amenities. The detailed Tree Survey prepared by Manx Roots, which the Arboricultural Officer raises no objection too; indicates that
7.1 Overall, it is considered that the proposal would comply with the relevant planning policies of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2016); The Douglas Local Plan; and Planning Circular 8/89 - Low Density Housing in Parkland and for the reasons set out in this report, 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:
8.2 The Planning Committee must determine:
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture - is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers (Arboricultural Officer Forestry, Amenity and Lands Directorate & Eco Systems Officer) within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot 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:…23.09.2019
Signed :………C BALMER…….. 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
Application No. : 19/00585/B Applicant : Mr Christo & Mrs Susie Roelofse Proposal : Erection of a detached dwelling with associated parking, access
and landscaping Site Address : Plot 13 Hillberry Green Douglas Isle Of Man Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer Presenting Officer As above
Addendum to the Officer’s Report PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMO = 23RD SEPTEMBER 2019 Erection of a detached dwelling with associated parking, access and landscaping - 19/00585/B
C 2. Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, the adjacent hedging shall be realigned / lowered to no more than 1.0m above carriageway and the visibility splays both as shown on Drawing No 18/069/1010 REV D dated stamped 10th September 2019 are provided and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: in the interests of highway safety.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
