Loading document...
Application No.: 20/01499/B Applicant: Forest Homes 2016 Limited Proposal: Erection of 6 detached dwellings and associated infrastructure Site Address: Land And Stone Barn Rowany Drive Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6LP Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 13.05.2021 _________________________________________________________________
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
The development must be carried out in accordance with the approved details. No alterations or variations to the approved tree protection scheme or working methods shall be made without prior written consent of the Department.
Reason: required prior to commencement to ensure that all trees to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality.
The development shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plan and any trees which, within a period of 5 years from their first planting, are removed, or, in the opinion of the Department, become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: the landscaping is integral to the success of the scheme in satisfying the Strategic Plan policies.
Reason: to ensure that the development does not have an unacceptable impact on ecology in accordance with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.
Reason: to ensure that there is adequate car parking to serve each property in accordance with the Strategic Plan.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The development is considered to accord with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan and the Area Plan for the South.
This decision relates to the planting proposal dated 15th April, 2021 prepared by Manx Roots, the water percolation test report dated 3rd June, 2020, 20/3016/PL01D and 20/3016/PL02B, received on 20.04.21 and 20/3016/PL03, 20/3016/PL04, 20/3016/PL05, 20/3016/PL06, S1, TR-081220, TSN-24920 and TSS-24920 all received on 24th December, 2020.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
Department for Infrastructure's Flood Risk Management Division and Manx Utilities Drainage Division are statutory authorities which raise material considerations and as such should be afforded Interested Person Status in this instance.
Manx Utilities Electricity is a statutory authority but does not raise material considerations and as such should not be afforded Interested Person Status in this case.
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are 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 4(2):
2, 5 and 6, Fairways Court, 2 and 4, Fairway Drive, Rowany Golf Club (9, Rowany Drive) and Rowany Cottage as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status.
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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 4(2):
1, 6 and 8, Fairway Drive, 1, Rowany Drive, 5 and 20, Fairway Close and 9, Lhag Beg as these properties are 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 DUE TO THERE BEING MORE THAN THREE OBJECTORS IN ADDITION TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY, WHO ARE RECOMMENDED TO BE AFFORDED INTERESTED PERSON STATUS AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL
1.1 The site is a parcel of land which sits at the north eastern end of Rowany Drive surrounded by Rowany Golf Course. The site currently accommodates a stone outbuilding which sits immediately alongside the road with a group of trees to the north west and mounds of earth and other trees scattered around the rest of the site. The site slopes downward from north west to south east and there is an undeveloped area to the south which is not identified as part of the site. - 1.2 The trees within the site are mostly small conifers with deciduous trees in a small group closer to Rowany Drive to the south of the existing building. - 1.3 The properties in the adjacent estate are a mixture of sizes, heights and styles with those which are immediately opposite being the gable of a two storey brick building (Fairways Court) which has five windows and a door facing the site, a traditional cottage (Rowany Cottage) which has its gable containing a window facing the site and bungalows to the south (2 and 4, Fairway Drive although these sit to the south of the site, not directly opposite it). THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the development of the site for six dwellings. Plots 2 and 3 will be served from a single access from the estate road and 1, 4, 5 and 6 will have their own access direct from the estate road. - 2.2 The house on plot 1 is a five bedroomed dwelling without any garaging but with a separate driveway which is 3m wide and 13.2m long and 8.7m high. The dwelling has a dual frontage so that on the approach to the plot from either the west or south will have a fair face which incorporates stonework as well as render finished in grey and white. The eastern elevation facing plot 2 is blank and the rear elevation facing onto the golf course is more plain with a simple rendered finish and a variety of window shapes and two triple patio doors at ground floor level. This house type has been amended to remove two windows in the western elevation which faces the existing apartments across the road. - 2.3 Plots 2 and 3 will accommodate the same house type but handed and will both have driveways which are 3m wide and 11m long with integral garaging which could not be converted to living accommodation with the replacement of the garage door to a window under Class 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 as amended in 2020, as the driveway is of insufficient width and length to comply with the conditions. These too have stonework as well as white and grey render and a dark coloured tiled roof. - 2.4 Plots 4 and 5 accommodate similar properties which are one and a half storeys high - up to 7m tall with different arrangements of stone work with the same grey and white render under natural
(2), Black Pine (2), Mountain Pine (3) and Russian Olive (1) with some existing peripheral trees retained and Western red cedar hedging (6) and hornbeam hedge (53). A Tree Impact Plan is included which illustrates that all of the trees within the site are to be removed - 44 individual trees (birch, pine, polar and alder) and three groups of trees within the plot - a total of 90 trees. The group surrounding the site are to be retained (presumably these are not within the applicant's ownership or control). The information describes the existing trees as mostly Category C. The Arboricultural Assessment included describes 38 trees and 4 groups are to be removed to facilitate the development and a further 6 are recommended to be removed in the interests of good management. The two Cat B trees they describe as notable but only just qualify for this status due to their size and both have relatively low visual amenity. They describe the tree loss as resulting in moderate short term visual impact from outside the site but as the trees to be removed as small and replanting with suitable specimen tree species throughout the development will mitigate this visual effect and offset the loss of canopy cover. They recommend the agreement of a suitable arboricultural method statement by the Department to monitor and manage risks posed to the retained trees which lie to the south of the development site. They recommend mountain pine, Austrian black pine and Butan pine as suitable replacement planting and a follow-up tree assessment is to be carried out by a suitably qualified arboriculturist immediately following completion of the development in order to identify any retained trees which require remedial works. Cyclical duty of care tree surveys commissioned by the duty holder will act to minimise and manage any foreseeable risks posed by the trees to the owner's property and any person owed the duty of care.
2.7 The application also includes an ecology and bat roost assessment prepared by Katie Watson Consulting and dated 05.11.20 which identifies potential impacts on ecology through the removal of the barn which could have potential for breeding birds and roosting bats and through inappropriate lighting of the development, the removal of trees which they recommend should be undertaken, along with the demolition of the barn, outside the bird breeding season (March to August inclusive). It recommends a single dusk emergence and dawn re-entry survey will be needed to determine whether there are bats using the building following the Bat Survey Guidelines 2016 and carried out between March and August inclusive. - 2.8 The recommend that the proposed planting plan is considered appropriate to mitigate any loss of trees and the provision of nesting boxes for house sparrows and swifts should be considered to one or more of the proposed houses and some of the trees to be removed could be cut in to logs and left in piles at the edges of the site to create an ecological feature. They recommend the tree planting to include apple, cherry plum, pear or hazel all of which provide valuable food sources for a variety of bird and invertebrate species. - 2.9 Fencing is to be erected around the periphery of the site, as shown on drawing 20/3016/PL01C which will be to the rear of plots 4, 5 and 6 and partly alongside the western boundary of plot 3. This fencing will be 10m high mesh golf ball stop fencing. This drawing also shows distances between the proposed dwellings and the existing. - 2.10 The applicant explains in an additional document with photographs, submitted on 20th February, 2021, that pedestrians using the site would have the same means of access to Port Erin as those who currently live in the area although located on the other side of Rowany Drive from them and will require to cross that road to get access to the footpath links to the village. The Area Plan designates the site as predominantly residential and planning approval was granted for two dwellings under 15/00308/B which would have resulted in the occupants of those two properties having to cross the same road to get to the footpath and was considered acceptable then. They
3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South (2013) as Predominantly Residential as a specific extension to the existing built up area of Rowany Drive, Fairway Drive, Fairway Close and Links Close. The site is not within a Conservation Area nor any area at risk of flooding on the national flood risk mapping and no tree nor building on the site is Registered. A Public Right of Way (PROW 241) runs north from a point just to the west of the site over the golf course to the A32 Bradda Road. Originally the inspector considering the Area Plan was looking at only two dwellings on this site. The report into the inquiry into the 2015 application was similarly looking at two dwellings. In the preceding stage of the Area Plan process, this site was the subject of specific comments, having been suggested for development but rejected by the Department. The Inspector comments on this as follows: "D - Rowany Drive, Port Erin - 4.135 048 asks for a site at Rowany Drive, Port Erin to be zoned for two well designed dwellings. At the Inquiry, the objector stated that new development on the land would only amount to an "architectural challenge". The Department point out that historically this land has been designated as Open Space in the Local Plan. The land was intended to be a landscaped area under the terms of the planning permission given for the adjoining housing estate; condition 7 prohibited any additional development. The green wash over the golf course land should be extended over this land; the existing building could remain as part of the open space.
4.136 When I visited the site, I noted that a building already exists on the land and that it is located near to an existing housing area; at the Inquiry it was said that the building is used for "band practice". Clearly the land has not been landscaped and at present is overgrown and unkempt; it would appear that the Department would be unable after such a long time to require compliance with any planning condition for landscaping. It seems to me that there would be little harm in designating this land for a maximum of two suitably designed low level dwellings; the limited number is due to the location of the land adjoining the open golf course and there would be a need for a Development Brief to ensure the land is finally well screened and landscaped on the perimeters with the adjoining open land. I disagree with the Department's assessment that any development would harm the visual amenities of the area and suggest that further thought is given to this land for a maximum of two low level dwellings."
3.3 Despite the specific reference in the inspector's report to two low level dwellings and the potential for harm to the visual amenities of the area, no development brief is included within the Area Plan for the South nor any specific reference to the site. - 3.4 Strategic Policy 1 encourages development which makes the best use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings and ensuring the efficient use of sites, also echoed in the Area Plan paragraph 4.13.2 which seeks to ensure that a density level on sites is reached which makes best use of the available land and seeks to optimise the number of dwellings on each site taking full account of all material considerations. As such, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant:
General Policy 2: "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:
3.5 Environment Policy 4 states "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:
Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."
3.6 The Department has since adopted the Residential Design Guidance 2020 which sets out design advice and measures by which the impact of residential development on existing properties may be assessed. In particular this advises that windows in separate properties which look directly towards each other should be no closer than 20m. PLANNING HISTORY
4.1 15/00308/B proposed the erection of two dwellings in place of the existing barn and was approved after an inquiry as, at that time the site was owned by the Department of Infrastructure in which the planning authority then sat. These houses were two storey (up to 8m high and the two storey element was 11m wide with a further single storey annex to one side of 7.6m). There were at that time objections from 2, Fairway Drive, 20, Fairway Close, 2, 6 and 8, Fairways Court and Rowany Cottage. The inspector appointed to chair the inquiry confirms that the site is designated for predominantly residential purposes despite it previously having been part of an area of open space. He notes that the properties would be about 21m from Rowany Cottage and about 25m from the facing elevation of Fairway Court and considers these distances to be acceptable in terms of privacy and outlook of the existing properties and also considers that the additional traffic would not be unacceptable. In terms of drainage he noted that the drainage authority was satisfied with the proposal. He concludes that the matter of the security of those in the houses from stray golf balls is capable of resolution between the golf course operator and the applicant agreeing on the height of the perimeter fence (suggested as 10m) and notes that there
is no uniformity of design in the existing streetscene and that the design was acceptable. In terms of the wildlife interest of the site it was considered that the timing of the development rather than the development itself was the primary concern in this respect and could be addressed by condition.
The application was approved subject to the following conditions:
Reason: To comply with Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of those living in the approved dwellings and the safe operation of the golf course.
Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to protect the amenities of adjacent residents. REPRESENTATIONS
5.1 Port Erin Commissioners were consulted on 19.01.21 and 03.03.21 and object to the application on the basis that they feel the proposal is an over-development of the site and there are traffic management issues: they would support fewer dwellings on the site (10.02.21 and 12.05.21).
5.2 Highway Services initially objected to the application on the basis that the proposal lacks the geometric data for each driveway including gradients and radii together with a lack of pedestrian facilities and inadequate driveway widths (28.01.21). They submit further comments on 11.03.21, confirming that the additional information and revisions overcome their initial concerns and they
do not object to the application subject to the development being undertaken in accordance with drawing 20/3016/PL01C and conditions to require the bicycle parking, vehicle and waste layouts and pedestrian aspects. They conclude that the visibility splays are below those for a 20 mph speed limit where 25m would be expected but given the context of the site, are considered acceptable. An agreement under the Highways Act is required for any new footway and planting must be maintained to allow the visibility splays to be available. As drawn, they conclude, the proposal does not give rise to any significant safety issues or highway network concerns and reversing movements are acceptable on low speed and relatively minor roads. Further checks via a road safety audit will be required at the stage of the Highway Agreement. They confirm that they make no further comment finally on 26.04.21
5.3 Manx Utilities (Electricity) initially objected to the application due to an existing high voltage underground cable located in the area of the application (05.02.21). They subsequently agreed a way forward with a diversion of the existing supply so removed their objection (08.02.21).
5.4 Manx Utilities (Drainage) submit a form to the Department which the applicant should complete in order to connect to the main sewage system (24.03.21). They also submit a further representation indicating that they do not oppose the application but request that conditions are attached which require that no surface water is discharged to the main foul, sewer, that agreements be entered into and fees paid in respect of connection and advise on the manner in which this must be undertaken and note that the proposed layout will remain private and will not be considered for public adoption. They comment further on 09.04.21 confirming that the receiving sewers have not recently been surveyed as this type of sewer is low on Manx Utilities' list of critical sewers across the Island, however, given the very few problems they have encountered and the proposed development they do not consider that the development will not create any issues for the existing network. They are aware of complaints of blockages which were all due to inappropriate items discharged into the system. They state that if it is identified in the future that the sewers are structurally defective Manx Utilities will add these to the annual sewer rehabilitation programme which prioritises such works on sewer criticality (C - low would apply to smaller diameter pipework and that located in rear gardens). - 5.5 DEFA's Ecosystems Policy Office confirm that the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Bat Roost Assessment are mostly in order and an adequate level of assessment has been undertaken but additional mitigation is required. They ask that a condition is attached to secure the mitigation described in paragraph 5.2 of the PEA dated November 2020 and in addition, at least one house sparrow terrace be installed on each properties on a north facing elevation in accordance with a drawing to be approved prior to any works taking place. As well, they are critical of the amount and type of planting, suggesting that additional landscaping should be introduced and a plan showing this should be submitted to the Department prior to determination and that this should omit Cherry Laurel and Griselinia littoralis (12.02.21). They provide further comments on 21.04.21 and accept that the proposed non-native planting for the site is acceptable and that the chosen species include those that offer benefits for biodiversity. They would prefer the integration of bird and bat bricks rather than boxes which have a shorter lifespan and will require upkeep. They would like to see the location of the bird and bat boxes either prior to determination or after. - 5.6 Department of Infrastructure's Flood Risk Management Team advise that there is no flood risk to this proposal (08.03.21). - 5.7 DEFA's Arboricultural Officer commented on 04.02.21 and 01.03.21, stating that " the tree removal proposed here is not a problem" they requested that a basic tree protection plan is submitted relating to the southern part of the area and a line of temporary fencing alongside plot
protection measures shall be shown on a layout plan accompanied by descriptive text which includes but is not limited to details of;
The development must be carried out in accordance with the approved details. No alterations or variations to the approved tree protection scheme or working methods shall be made without prior written consent of the Department. Reason: required prior to commencement to ensure that all trees to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period to protect and enhance the appearance and character of the site and locality.
The tree planting shall take place as agreed and any trees which, within a period of 5 years from their first planting, are removed, or, in the opinion of the Department, become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: to ensure an appropriate standard of visual amenity in the local area and that the development is appropriately landscaped to sit comfortably and acceptably in its location.
5.8 Local residents
remaining properties in the area all have single or detached garages plus driveway space for at least two cars. The road varies in width and is steep with the existing sight lines for vehicles proceeding along Rowany Drive less than satisfactory and often obstructed by parked vehicles with vehicles having to travel on the wrong side of the road which is potentially hazardous. In the previous application this contributor requested that sufficient on site parking be provided and that approval contained a condition which read:
"Prior to the commencement of development a method statement shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority giving full details of where and how construction vehicles and plant, including vehicles used by construction operatives to travel to and from the site, will be parked. The approved method statement shall be complied with at all times during the period of construction and other related works at the site". They question whether there is sufficient car parking to be provided with each dwelling and note that none of the driveways have turning heads so that vehicles will be reversed from or onto Rowany Drive with inadequate sight lines. They consider that the proposal for plot 1 is potentially hazardous and in order to maintain safe and unobstructed access along Rowany Drive they suggest that the applicant should be required to reconsider the parking layout and the provision of double yellow lines along the eastern side of Rowany Drive (23.01.21). They comment further on the amended plans, referring to drainage and they wonder whether there is sufficient space between Rowany Cottage and 2, Fairway Drive and how will access be maintained during this trench construction. They do not consider that surface water can drain uphill and wonders whether the ground is suitable. They maintain that the layout is not safe and notes that there are no dimensions on the drawings and asks that consultation with Highway Services is undertaken.
6.1 The principle of the development of this site for residential purposes was established when the Area Plan designated the site for residential purposes and whilst there was certainly discussion at that time about the site accommodating two low level properties, this was not carried over into the Written Statement and as such, this reference has little weight. If there had been a development brief, as there is with other sites within the Plan area, which stated a maximum amount of housing permissible on this site then this would be a significant material consideration and one which any decision maker should abide by unless there were reasons to justify doing something different.
6.2 At the time of the previous application the Planning function was a part of DoI and as such the DoI could not take a decision on land which it owned and the application was referred to the Council of Ministers in accordance with Section 11 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and Article 10 of the relevant Development Procedure Order at that time. At the present time, the owner of the land is not the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture which has no interest in it, so there is no requirement to refer the application to anyone other than the Department's Officers for determination under delegated or to its Planning Committee.
6.3 The issues in this case are therefore whether the development complies with General Policy 2 in respect of impact on the streetscene (GP2b, c and g), on the living conditions of those in neighbouring property (GP2 g and the Residential Design Guidance), whether there would be an adverse impact on highway safety (GP2 h and i) and whether the proposal can be adequately drained of foul and surface water (GP2j), whether its development would prejudice the use of the
land around it for its lawful purpose (GP2k) and whether there would be any unacceptable impact from the loss of trees (GP2f).
6.4 It is also important to bear in mind that both the Strategic Plan (SP1) and the Area Plan encourage development which makes best use of sites, with the latter stating that development should "optimise" the number of dwellings on a site. As such, whilst the Area Plan clearly discussed two dwellings on this site, given the absence of any policy or development brief in the Area Plan and the encouragement of the optimising of numbers of dwellings on each site, it is considered that it would not be reasonable to refuse the application because it proposed more than two dwellings, if it is considered that the development accords with the general standards of development set out in the Strategic Plan, particularly General Policy 2. Impact on the streetscene (GP2b, c and g),
6.5 The development would introduce a new form of building in an area which already has a range of dwelling types, sizes and heights with a variety of different finishes. The density of development in the area ranges from apartments to detached houses and where separation distances are as little as 2-3m. What is proposed is not considered to be dissimilar to this and whilst there is a short roadway off Rowany Drive which serves more than one property, this is not dissimilar to the access opposite which serves a number of apartments there. - 6.6 Some of the proposed properties are closer to the road than some of the dwellings abutting Rowany Drive and Fairway Drive but are not closer than is Rowany Cottage opposite the site and a planted hedge is proposed to border the site alongside Rowany Drive and Fairway Drive. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal will not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area. - 6.7 There is a suggestion that the development is over-dense. However without any demonstration as to why this is unacceptable, it is not accepted that this is the case. There would appear to be adequate space between the dwellings and sufficient amenity space and areas for car parking and access.
Impact on the living conditions of those in neighbouring property (GP2 g and the Residential Design Guidance),
6.8 The RDG is clear that where there are windows which look directly towards each other than these windows should be at least 20m apart. The properties on plots 1, 4, 5 and 6 do not have a direct line of sight across the road into the windows of existing properties there and in all but one case there is in excess of 20m between the windows, the exception being the northern most window in the western gable of the house on plot 1 which looks at an angle towards the eastern gable of the Fairways Court apartments and this is across Fairways Drive. Given the layout of the properties and their relationship with existing properties, it is not considered that there will be an adverse impact on the living conditions of those in existing properties across Fairway Drive from the proposed development. There will undoubtedly be a change in and a loss of view from the increase in built development on the site, but these are not material planning considerations which would justify refusal of the application. Whether there would be an adverse impact on highway safety (GP2 h and i) - 6.9 The development is close to a corner on an estate road which varies in width and alignment. As such, it is understandable that other users of this highway will be concerned that what is proposed will not lead to a diminution of highway safety. It is the view of the Government's Highway Services Division that what is proposed is now acceptable. The proposal provides two parking spaces which is the standard applied in the Strategic Plan and there is no requirement for the provision of spaces above that, although the provision of spaces for visitors can be helpful in reducing on-street parking, particularly where this is scarce or unsafe. Much of the parking is not dissimilar to that available to the existing properties in the vicinity in number or arrangement. It is not possible for a planning decision to require the introduction of traffic control in any form so the decision cannot require the painting of double yellow lines on the highway. This is the responsibility of Department of Infrastructure.
7.1 The development is considered to accord with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan and the Area Plan for the South. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
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 confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Signed : S CORLETT 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 online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
