Appeal Summary and Conclusion

6.0 Summary and Conclusion

6.1 The application seeks approval to remove an existing redundant outbuilding and replace it with a scheme of 12 no. apartments. The appeal site is within an area which is designated as Private Woodland in the Douglas Local Plan, which is taken to be a form of open space; the proposed development will increase building cover within the designated woodland by less than 0.1% and will compromise neither the 5% coverage limit specified by the IoMSP definition of open space nor the land use zoning of the Local Plan. The proposal seeks to re-use previously developed land in accordance with Strategic Plan objectives and the Planning Committee has raised no objection to the principle of redeveloping the site for residential purposes.

6.2 The development has been designed to strike an appropriate balance between protection of the woodland and its character and the need to use the site efficiently, thus making the best use of resources and helping to address the current demand for housing on the Island, including the need for affordable housing. The coverage of the site by buildings will increase by a marginal amount as a result of the proposals, and the building's form, layout and positioning will obviously change; its height and form (which the Planning Committee has raised no objection to) will respect the presence of the Manor House and will not result in a visually prominent structure, whilst arranging the units around a courtyard as proposed will allow the majority of units to be "unattached" on at least three sides, thus creating good levels of residential amenity. This building layout will result in the removal of a small number of trees from within the site, which in my view will harm neither public amenity nor the "conservation value" of the woodland.

6.3 The evidence of Dr O'Callaghan confirms that the trees to remain on site can be satisfactorily protected during construction. The amount of hard surfacing within the woodland will increase to allow for parking and access but its visual impact will be limited, particularly when viewed from outside the site. Responsibility for the trees and their maintenance will be shared by residents through a management committee, and in my view the occupation of the dwellings will not necessarily lead to requests to remove further trees. In any event I would suggest that DAFF is empowered with sufficient control to resist inappropriate felling requests.

6.4 The Planning Committee has indicated that traffic generated by the proposed development will increase the use of Manor Drive “to an amount over that which is recommended in Manx Roads”. This issue has been addressed on behalf of the applicant by Mr Dallas, who concludes that the proposal does not conflict with the design principles set out in Manx Roads and will not result in access difficulties or in unsatisfactory conditions on the existing local highway network serving the appeal site and that planning permission should not be withheld on these grounds.

6.5 Both the Design Statement which accompanies the application and Ms Cannell’s appeal evidence explain that the design concept is based upon a group of quarterland steading buildings, thus reflecting the former quarterland farmhouse role of the Manor House and guiding the form and scale of the proposed development. The detailing has where possible been interpreted in a contemporary manner, and whilst the building does not lack detail it is suitably restrained in order to reflect the practical, ancillary role of steading buildings and not detract from the Manor House itself. In my view the chosen design concept is entirely appropriate and, contrary to the judgement of the Planning Committee, the proposed building design successfully complements the appearance of the Manor House.

6.6 The Inspector is therefore invited to recommend to the Minister that the appeal be successful and that planning approval be granted to the application.