DEC Officer Report

Applicant: Hartford Homes Proposal Erection of 6 residential dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping Site Address Bix House And Land To Rear Farmhill Lane Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2EB Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Site Visit: Expected Decision Level Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement Date of Recommendation 29.04.2022

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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. No dwelling shall be occupied until the estate road from the junction of the adopted highway to the access of that dwelling has been constructed at least to base course level and lighting has been provided. Reason: In the interest of Highway Safety and provide access to each dwelling.
C 3. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling 2 car parking spaces associated with that dwelling as shown on approved drawing 172 REV B shall be provided and retained free from obstruction thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the car parking standards are met in the interests of highway safety.
C 4. No tree marked as being retained on drawing TR-131221 shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of occupation of the dwelling, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. In the event that retained trees become damaged or otherwise defective during the construction phase due to events outside of the applicant's control the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action approved in writing by the Department and implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that trees marked for retention are not removed, in the interests maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated.
C 5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS), adhering to the recommendations of BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - recommendations), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The AMS should address all the technical design issues discussed in Section 6 of BS5837, and especially how the project arboriculturist will carry out arboricultural site monitoring, including a schedule of specific site events requiring input or inspection. The agreed protection measures and construction methods shall adhered to in full.

Reason: to provide a level of technical detail sufficient to provide a high level of confidence in the outcome for retained trees on the site

C 6. The pruning carried out on trees T2504, T2506, T2508, T2511, T2513 and T2514 shall be done in accordance with the recommendations of BS3998:2010 (Tree Work Recommendations).

Reason: To reduce the potential for the approved pruning work to have adverse consequences on the health and longevity of the trees, for the purposes of preserving the amenity value they provide to the area.

C 7. The implementation of the tree protection measures set out in the approved Arboricultural Method Statement (required under condition 5) shall be monitored by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist, in accordance with the details contained therein.

Reason: Required to safeguard and enhance the character and amenity of the site and locality by ensuring compliance with the tree protection and arboricultural supervision details submitted under condition 5 and to ensure that professional technical advice is on hand to deal with problems that arise or modifications that become necessary.

C 8. All tree/shrub planting shall be carried out in accordance with drawing 172 REV B submitted in support of this application. The planting shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the completion or occupation of any part of the development (whichever is the sooner,) or otherwise in accordance with a programme to be agreed.

Any trees which, within a period of 5 years from their planting, die, are removed, or, in the opinion of the Department, become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced as is reasonably practicable or in the next planting season with others of similar size, species and number as originally approved, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation. Reason: to ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs.

C 9. All recommendations listed within the approved "Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report" prepared by Manx Wildlife Trust dated December 2020 (Sections 5.1 to 5.15) are to be fully adhered to. Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site.
C 10. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in drawing 172 REV B in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwelling, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

New Zealand Broadleaf (Griselinia littoralis) and other Wildlife Act 1990 Schedule 8 non-native invasive plant species are not permitted to be planted on site.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.

C 11. No development shall take place until boundary details to the rear eastern boundaries of Plots 17 to 22, the side southern boundary of Plot 17 and the new rear eastern boundary of Bix Houses have been submitted for approval and these approved details shall be fully adhered to and completed prior to the occupation of any dwelling and retained thereafter. Reason; In the interest of the visual amenities of the street scene.
C 12. No external lighting to be installed unless a detailed external low level lighting scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Department, which is in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8 Bats and Artificial Lighting (12th September 2018). Reason; In the interests of biodiversity of the site/area.
C 13. The application hereby approved shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved Drainage Strategy (dated December 2021/updated 25th Feb 2022), The Flood Risk Assessment (Issue 4.0 December 2021) and Drawings 172 REV B and 180 REV A prior to the occupation of any dwelling and maintained thereafter for the lifetime of the development in accordance with the approved maintenance scheme.

Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding by ensuring the provision of a satisfactory means of surface water disposal is incorporated into the design and the build and that the principles of sustainable drainage are incorporated into this proposal and maintained for the lifetime of the proposal.

N 1. The decision to grant planning approval, subject to a Section 13 agreement, was made by Planning Committee on the 9th May 2022. The issue of the decision notice has been triggered by the Section 13 agreement having been concluded. The 21 days for appeal (for those with Interested Person Status) runs from the date of the decision notice.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. It is concluded the proposals complies with the relevant planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, Residential Design Guide 2021 and the Area Plan for the East 2020 and therefore it is recommended the application is approved subject to conditions as listed and subject to a Section 13 Legal Agreements relating to long-term woodland management plan.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers all received;

30.12.2021 170 173 177 183

TR-131221 OTP-131221
TS-071221 Planning Statement

BS 5837:2012 Arboricultural Impact Assessment - Manx Roots Bix House PEAR revision technical note - Dated December 2020 - Manx Wildlife Trust Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report Dated - December 2020 - Manx Wildlife Trust i-Transport - Technical Note - Dated 17th December 2021

31.03.2022 172 REV B Drainage Strategy December 2021 (updated 25th Feb 2022) Flood Risk Assessment - Issue 4.0 December 2021 Reasons for Refusal

R : Reasons for Refusal

O : Notes attached to reasons

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

Department of Infrastructure - Public Estates and Housing Division Department of Infrastructure - Flood Risk Management Team Manx Utilities

It is recommended that the following persons 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):

o 38 Farmhill Park, Douglas
o 39 Farmhill Park, Douglas
o 40 Farmhill Park, Douglas

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 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 4(2):

o Isle of Man Friends of the Earth, 7 Snaefell Crescent, Onchan

As they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy; 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; 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 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. ________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPROVAL WILL BE SUBJECT TO A SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENT AND THE LEVEL OF WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS CONTRARY TO THE RECOMMENDATION

1.0 SITE - 1.1 The site defined in red is a parcel of land, 2.76 acres (1.1 hectares) which is made up of the dwelling Bix House and its rear garden and a woodland area beyond the rear garden. A strip of land is also shown to the north eastern corner of the site which runs from the main body of the site to the public highway Iheannag Park. - 1.2 The site is located to the north eastern side of Farmhill Lane and west of Farmhill Park. The site (within red line) can be split into two sections (shown as Zones C, D & E on submitted plans / Planning Statement). Zone C is the parcel of land which currently forms part of the residential garden of Bix House. It is characterised as having a gently slope (flat in places) running downwards from Bix House towards Zone D and is in large parts lawned but with a central section of woodland which was planted by the owners of Bix House a few decades ago (1980's). To the northwest boundary; which is shared mainly with Nr 38 Farmhill Park, but to a lesser extent Nr 39 Farmhill Park, there is significant leylandii hedgerow of a significant height (5m+ in height). To the northeast boundary of Zone C is the beginnings of the woodland area of Zone D, there is currently no physical barrier (fence/wall) at this point. To the southeast boundary is a sod bank with mature trees. This boundary adjoins the neighbouring site which is currently being developed for housing. The south-western boundary is currently open as it forms part of Bix House curtilage; but also back onto the rear boundaries with Farm Hill Cottage and Nr 40 Farmhill Park. - 1.3 Zone D character is a wooded area, which ground level is below that of Zone C. This area is a typically wooded area with many trees of various sizes and types bit also watercourse and dubs in places. This area is currently not open to member so the public, being part of the ownership of Bix House. - 1.4 The site to the south east, south, south west and westerly directions the areas are characterised as housing sites which have been developed gradually over the last few decades. To the north and northeast of the site are characterised as wooded areas/Ballaughton Park/Ballaughton Nurseries. - 1.5 Zone E comprises the main dwelling Bix houses which is a substantial two storey dwelling. This is proposed to be retained albeit given the proposal will loss a significant section of existing sustainable rear garden. Other than a change to its garden size and new landscaping being planted for the creation of a new rear boundary, no physical changes will be made to the dwelling.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of 6 residential dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping. The proposal includes a total of one house types all two storeys and detached. The proposals are all four bedroom dwellings. All have at least two off road parking spaces and also have an integral garage. The housing is all located within Zone C. No housing development is proposed to Zone D (i.e. woodland area) or E (Bix House). - 2.2 Access form the site will be from the neighbouring housing development (16 dwellings approved under 19/01408/B) which is currently under construction (over 50% complete), utilising the approved main estate access onto Annacur Lane. - 2.3 The proposal includes the provision of a new public footpath to run along the southeast boundary of woodland (Zone D), connecting the application site to a new footpath within the

Iheannag Park (residential estate) which has links to a further public footpath to Ballaughton Park.

3.0 KEY DOCUMENTS / POLICY - 3.1 Material Considerations

3.1.1 Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act states: "In dealing with an application for planning approval… the Department shall have regard to -

(a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application,
(b) Any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3;
(c) Such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and
(d) All other material considerations."

3.2 Area Plan for the East 2020

3.2.1 The main body of the application site (Zone C), including the woodland area (Zone D) is within an area recognised as being an area of "Predominantly Residential" under the Area Plan for the East as is the existing Bix House (Zone E). The site is not within a Conservation Area.

3.3 Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016

3.3.1 The Strategic Plan takes its lead from the Government aims which include the pursuit of manageable and sustainable growth based on a diversified economy which is intended to raise the standard of living of the people of the Island and to provide the resources to sustain and develop public services. It also includes the protection and improvement of the quality of the environment such that it continues to be an asset for future generations.

3.3.2 The Strategic Aim is: "To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage."

3.2.3 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:
3.2.4 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 under-used 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(1) and amenity standards; and
(c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."

3.2.5 Spatial Policy 1 states: "The Douglas urban area will remain the main employment and services centre for the Island."
3.2.6 Environment Policy 42 states: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."
3.2.7 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."

3.2.8 Environment Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and seminatural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value."
3.2.9 Environment Policy 4 states: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:

(a) species and habitats of international importance:

(i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or
(ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites.

(b) species and habitats of national importance:

(i) protected species of national importance or their habitats;
(ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or
(iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or
(iv) National Trust Land.

(c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats. 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."

3.2.10 Housing Policy 4 states: "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: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:

(a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10;
(b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and

(c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."

3.2.11 Transport Policy 1 states: "New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes."
3.2.12 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."
3.2.13 Transport Policy 6 states: "In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users."
3.2.14 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. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7."
3.2.15 Recreation Policy 3 states: "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan."

3.3 Residential Design Guide - July 2021 - 3.4 Climate Change Bill 2020 "Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 20191 amended After paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, insert «2A All applications except those for approval for change of use, reserved matters, replacement windows and doors in conservation areas and minor changes

(1) This paragraph applies to applications for planning approval except those referred to in subparagraph (2).
(2) This paragraph does not apply to —

(a) an application for change of use only;
(b) an application for approval of reserved matters;
(c) an application to replace a window or a door of a building in a conservation area; and
(d) a minor changes application.

(3) Every application to which this paragraph applies must —

(a) demonstrate that the application has been made having regard to the following climate change policies —

(i) the maximisation of carbon sequestration;
(ii) the minimising of greenhouse gas emissions;
(iii) the maintenance and restoration of ecosystems;
(iv) biodiversity net gain;
(v) the need for sustainable drainage systems; and
(vi) the provision of active travel infrastructure; or

(b) explain why consideration of one or more of those polices is not practicable in relation to the proposed development."

3.5 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture - Agriculture and Lands Directorate Forestry, Amenity and Lands - TREE PROTECTION POLICY - Department Policy Relating to the Protection of Trees - Version 2.0, December 2021 "25. The Directorate will normally object to planning applications if any of the following is true:

(a) The proposed development includes the removal of any tree(s) worthy of a category A or

category B classification, as defined by BS5837:2012.

(b) The proposed development includes the removal of more than 50% of existing tree canopy cover from the site.
(c) The proposed development includes the removal of any tree(s) worthy of a category C classification, as defined by BS5837:2012, without sufficient mitigation.
(d) The application includes insufficient information to properly judge the arboricultural impact of the proposed development
(e) The application does not show how the proposed development could be implemented without having a detrimental impact on the health and longevity of adjacent retained trees, and does not show how this impact will be mitigated.
(f) The proposed development is likely to lead to significant future pressure to remove or prune trees, either by an application made under the Tree Preservation Act 1993 and/or by complaints made under the Trees and High Hedges Act 2005*.
(g) The proposed development includes the removal of a tree, group of trees or woodland which is registered under Section 2 of the Tree Preservation Act 1993." And "29. The Directorate recognises that in terms of the relevant planning policies available at the time the application is determined, a proposed development may be acceptable despite its potential impact on existing trees and woodlands of merit. If the Directorate submits an objection to a planning application, it will consider the possibility that the application may be approved and make recommendations to the PBCD on how the impact to existing trees and woodland of merit can be minimised (e.g. by the use of conditions)."

3.6 UNESCO Biosphere Isle of Man

3.6.1 UNESCO Biosphere Isle of Man is all about keeping the Isle of Man a special place to live, work and visit. The Isle of Man is the first entire Island Nation in the world to receive this designation.
3.6.2 The UNESCO Biosphere Isle of Man project does not seek to prevent any specific actions, but to promote enjoying and celebrating the Isle of Man to the full, making it an even better place to be and promoting engagement.
3.6.3 The scope of the UNESCO Biosphere Isle of Man Pledge is deliberately broad and inclusive but the context of the Pledge principles are set out below.

"Protecting our natural resources - this could relate to anything you're trying to do better that will impact positively on our natural resources, from managing water use to planting trees.

o Developing our economy in a sustainable way - doing business responsibly, balancing the need for growth with respect for our natural, social and cultural environment. Responsible businesses tend to be more resilient, contributing to a diverse economy which is more sustainable than a 'monoculture' economy.
o Supporting and promoting our cultural heritage - for example, staff involvement in, or corporate sponsorship of, cultural events and groups.
o Making our environmental impact positive wherever possible - closely related to the first principle of protecting our natural resources, this could include anything from energy saving and waste management measures to support of local environmental projects.
o Engaging with the local community - through environmental, social or community groups, whichever fit best with your business. You'll find a wide range of groups listed under 'Who is involved?' on the Environmental/Cultural, Community and Educational pages.
o Promoting our outstanding living landscapes through active involvement with Biosphere Isle of Man - being an ambassador for the project and advertising the fact that you support it, thereby encouraging others to get involved."

3.6.4 The Biosphere Reserves are about achieving a good working balance between people and nature' and the Accreditation reflects how the Isle of Man manages its environment,

community and economy, acknowledging that all three components are necessary to achieve a sustainable situation.
3.6.5 The Biosphere related guidance, as summarised below, is not formal planning policy but the designation is capable of being a material consideration.

- 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The previous planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:

4.2 Approval in principle for three building plots, land at the end of Oak Close, off Farmhill Lane, Douglas - 96/01864/A - REFUSED on the following grounds: "R 1. The proposed development would be contrary to the terms of the planning approval for the overall layout and use of this land (PA 87/0912), whereby the site formed part of an area of Private Open Space adjoining the stream course; approval would establish a precedent for further similar development of other parts of this area.

R 2. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the occupants of adjacent dwellings as a consequence of disturbance and loss of privacy".

4.3 Approval in principle to the layout of plots and roads, Land adjacent to Farmhill Manor, Ballaquark Estate, Douglas (Amended Resubmission) - 86/01382/A - APPROVED - 4.4 RECONSIDERED - Layout of new streets and sewers for residential development, Field 2043, Farmhill Lane, Douglas - APPROVED - 87/00912/B - 4.5 Erection of eleven residential properties with associated infrastructure and landscaping 20/00824/B - WITHDRAWN - 4.6 Erection of 12 residential dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping (20/01531/B) - APPROVED by the Planning Committee with the decision dated 19.11.2021; however, an APPEAL is in process (is on hold pending the outcome of this current application under consideration now) and therefore there is not a final decision in relation to this previous application 20/01531/B. - 4.7 Proposed installation of maintenance access gate - 22/00319/B - Pending Consideration Adjacent site - 4.8 Erection of 16 dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping works (revised scheme to approved PA 18/00862/B) - 19/01408/B - APPROVED - 4.9 Erection of 16 dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping - 18/00862/B APPROVED

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS All comments received can be viewed in full on the Planning Departments website.

5.1 Douglas Borough Council made the following comments: 20.01.2022 "Following consideration of the planning application listed above at a meeting of the Council's Environmental Services Committee held on the 17/01/22, I can advise that the Committee resolved to support the application. The Council gave consideration to the proposed new development and believes that this new application is a further improvement on the previous approved application (PA 20/01531/B) for the development of twelve dwellings and associated infrastructure. Based upon the information provided by the applicant and the measures taken to

reduce the number of trees required to be felled as well as a reduction in the number of properties to be built on the site the Council supports the proposed development."

5.2 Highway Services have no objection to the application (05.01.2022) making the following comments: "The proposal reduces the number of units and modifies the site layout to the consented scheme, PA 20/01531/B. It retains and enhances landscaping and, from the highway viewpoint, reflects updated guidance contained within the Manual for Manx Roads. Accessibility: The site is considered to be accessible to sustainable forms of travel and meets the accessibility criteria set out in the MfMR as contained in Appendix C of the submitted Transport Statement. The proposal enhances walking for recreational purposes and connectivity to Lheannag Park on agreement by including a 2m link footpath with localised widening to 4m. Details of the termination and connections will be necessary and a S4 Highway Agreement should the path be intended as highway maintainable at public expense after the grant of any planning consent. Vehicular Access and layout: A modification to the junction with Farmhill Lane is approved under the earlier application and would remain suitable to cater for the additional six units proposed under this application; although adjustments will be necessary to better accommodate buses. The proposal provides a north westerly extension of a shared surface internal street from that approved under 19/01408/B. it is intended to serve a layby, turning point, driveways for four plots before terminating in a private drive serving two plots. It is to be mainly 5.5m in width other than the southern section where there to be a narrowing to retain a tree of 3.7m over a distance of 6.5m before widening to 5.5m. The width reduction is acceptable over short distances and would remain adequately sized for emergency and larger vehicle use as shown by a swept path analysis using a waste collection vehicle within the submitted Transport Statement. This demonstrates that the turning head opposite plots 17 and 18 would function satisfactorily too. Additionally, suitable manoeuvres are shown for a large car. The proposed layby for visitor parking, south west of Plot 17, is suitably dimensioned at 6 x 2m.

A separate s4 Highway Agreement would apply to this section as well as those sections adoptable under 19/01408/B or for those under 19/01408/B to be amended by a Deed of Variation.

Plot driveways are to be dimensioned suitably for shared use between vehicles and pedestrians having side by side car parking at 6.0 x 6.0m. This would comprise a 3.4m width for the driveway space located between the shared surface street and the front door with an adjacent space of 2.6m width.

The proposal shows each plot with integral garages. These are below recommended internal size of 6 x 3m to count as parking and are to be 5.0 x 2.5m. These would allow parking for small vehicles or serve as storage for bicycles and other items.

Electric vehicle charging points should be considered for each plot. There is space for waste bin storage with collection pull distances met. The Applicant / Developer is to install drainage and comments on this matter will be provided by the DOI's Flood Risk Management and Highway Services Drainage team. Parking: The proposal identifies a total of 12 on plot car parking spaces with each plot to have two 'open' car parking spaces per unit with the garages discounted. This would be compliant with Strategic Plan standards. One other is to be formed by the layby for visitor use. Acceptable storage for bicycle parking is to be provided by way of garages, meeting the minimum MfMR provision of a one cycle parking space per bedroom.

Transport Assessment: The submitted Transport Statement provides an assessment of the proposal in terms of accessibility, layout, safety and expected traffic impact of the proposal. It is acceptable.

Traffic Impact: The proposal is predicted to add a small amount of traffic equivalent to four or five vehicles to the 10 two-way peak hour vehicular traffic movements proposed under 19/01408/B. This would be within the limits of materiality not to cause undue highway functionality issues on the approved upgrading of the Farmhill Lane junction.

Road Safety: The proposal does not give rise to significant road safety issues. The submitted Stage 1 Road Safety Audit raised few issues. Of these, one would arise from the risks of collisions involving parked vehicles within the turning head restricting space for manoeuvres and another from trip hazards caused by too high kerbs. There is to be adequate on-site parking, but additional measures may be necessary to deter parking within the turning space. Provision of dropped kerbs would be necessary to deliver lower kerbs. As suggested by the Designer's Response, these matters can be resolved at the detailed design stage and do not impact on the proposed layout. There is further safeguarding on review under a Stage 2 RSA. The latter would be undertaken as part of the street highway adoption process under a s4 Highway Agreement.

Conclusion: As drawn, the proposal is satisfactory in highway terms for Highways Development Control to raise no opposition subject to conditions to cover the extension of the street, layby, turning head, driveway access, driveways, hardstanding for car parking to accord with Drawing No. 172 Rev A; garages to drawing no: 183; and link footpath to Drawing No 178 with details required of terminating and connecting points. The Applicant is advised of the need for a s4 Highway Agreement adoption of streets and paths and adjustment to the junction arrangements at Farmhill Lane to better cater for buses.

Recommendation: DNOC"

05.04.2022 "Highways Development Control notes the amendments uploaded on 31 March 2022 and

makes no further comment to those made in response dated 5 January 2022. Highway Drainage may provide a separate response."

5.3 The Ecosystems Policy Officer (DEFA) comments (21.01.2021); "The DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team confirm that the Manx Wildlife Trust's Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) and Bix House PEAR revision technical note are both in order and an appropriate level of assessment has been undertaken.

This application presents a reduction in tree removal and an increase in native tree planting from what was previously proposed and therefore from an ecological perspective is better than the previous applications for this site.

If this application is approved, we request conditions are included to secure the following:

o The development is undertaken in accordance with the mitigation measures detailed in section 5.1 to 5.15 of the Manx Wildlife Trust's Preliminary Ecological Appraisal dated December

Though sections 5.11- 5.15 are listed in the report as 'Enhancements' we believe that the detailed measures are required as part of the ecological mitigation. These measures include the integration of bat and bird bricks into the new properties and therefore we also request that a specific condition is secured for plans to be submitted to Planning for written approval containing details of integrated bat and bird bricks to be installed in the new properties.

o Bricks should be installed at least 3m above the ground but not directly above or next to windows, doors or balconies. Bird birds should be installed on north east to north westerly elevations. Bat bricks should be installed on a variety of elevations to provide bats with different

roosting opportunities depending on their seasonal requirements. All boxes must be positioned away from artificial lighting.
o A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) detailing roles, responsibilities and suitable procedures to ensure the environment is protected during the development phase and all environmental legislation and policy is adhered to, to be submitted to planning for written approval prior to further development (including construction, further site clearance and enabling works).
o No external lighting to be installed unless a detailed external low level lighting scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Department, which is in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8 Bats and Artificial Lighting (12th September 2018).
o The landscaping should be undertaken as is shown on the Site Plan (drawing no. 172 A), any revision to what is shown must be submitted to Planning for written approval. Though this site plan contains the details of tree and hedge planting across the site with specific tree species, there are no species listed for the proposed low level hedging and ornamental hedging. We therefore request that a condition is secured to ensure that New Zealand Broadleaf (Griselinia littoralis) and other Wildlife Act 1990 Schedule 8 non-native invasive plant species are not planted on site.

We recommend that a woodland management plan is enacted on site to achieve biodiversity net gain. However, as an enhancement for wildlife cannot request this as a condition."

5.4 The Senior Forestry and Arboricultural Officer (DEFA) makes the following comments (26.01.2021): "I would like to make the following comments in relation to application 21/01540/B (Bix House) on behalf of the Agriculture and Lands Directorate (the Directorate) of DEFA. These comments are being provided in accordance with Part 3 of the Directorate's Tree Protection Policy (v2.0, Dec 2021), a copy of which is available online.

Before discussing the merits of this application it may be useful to review the Directorate's responses to previous development proposals on this land. The first development proposal that I reviewed for this site was submitted under application 20/00824/B. An objection was raised against this application on the basis that:

1. The proposal does not provide adequate trade-off between the loss of tree canopy cover and the gain of public amenity through increased public access to adjacent woodland, as discussed in pre-application consultation.
2. The incursion in to the RPA of T25 is likely to result in a reduction in the safe useful life expectancy of this Category A tree.
3. The proximity of plots 22-25 to trees to the North-East is likely to lead to future pressure to remove trees marked for retention; the design will fail to achieve a harmonious relationship between trees and structures that can be sustained in the long term.
4. The woodchip providing a link between the proposed development and the existing Lester's Yard is likely to need replacing in the future, which will put retained trees at risk. This application was subsequently withdrawn.

A revised scheme was submitted under 20/01531/B in which all of the above issues were addressed and the Directorate did not, therefore, object to this application. 20/01531/B was approved but an appeal is in progress, meaning that there is no fall-back position based on an extant permission. Despite the change in context provided by the Directorate's adoption of the version 2 of the Tree Protection Policy in December 2021, had this application been approved without an appeal, or had the appeal had been concluded and the decision upheld, my review of this application would have been restricted to assessing change in impact from what had

already been approved. As it is, however, with no previous planning approval to rely upon, this latest application will be viewed afresh, through the lens of the Directorate's Tree Protection Policy which has been adopted since the previous application was submitted.

The AIA confirms the need to remove 1 individual category B (BS5837) tree, 8 individual

category C trees, 1 category C group, 1 category B group and partially remove a further category B group. The tree canopy cover (TCC) loss is estimated to be 1365.5m2 which is claimed to be 3.6% of 'local canopy cover'. The 'local area' selected, however, is rather arbitrary. It would be more valid to create a sample area around the site and measure the existing TCC within this sample area. For example, a circle with a radius of 100m (area just over 3Ha) centred on the site. Figures of existing TCC loss within the site are not provided but based on a rough assessment using 2018 aerial imagery I estimate this to be approximately 18%. The site plan shows there is an opportunity for approximately 650m2 of TCC to be reinstated so the net TCC change as a result of this development (assuming that planting occurs as shown and that the trees successfully establish) will be approximately -10%. Given the poor quality of the individual tree which make up this existing tree cover, however, I don't view this overall loss of canopy cover as significant. The removal of individually rated category

B trees, however, remains an issue, as it is my Directorate's view that these trees should be viewed as a material constraint to development.

The AIA (paragraphs 4.3 & 4.4) describe several risks to retained trees, but I am fairly confident that all of these issues can be managed through tree protection conditions. In the process of the reviewing this application and the information submitted I identified 3 additional concerns which weren't addressed in the report. These were discussed with the agent and project arboriculturist prior to submitting these comments. The issues raised (blue text) and responses provided (red text) are detailed below. Some of the responses reference drawings/sketches, not all of which have been formally submitted to the planning office to support the application. This should be addressed prior to determination of the application.

1. In the Outline Tree Protection Plan (OTP-131221) the proposed SW drainage route appears to conflict with the proposed CEZ. The drainage work referred to in this area is currently being reassessed with the MUA preferring that the diversion is follows the new road to the north boundary and discharge into the newly formed drainage ditch. Therefore the concerns for the area pointed out should no longer be an issue. This alteration is indicated on the drawing "Hart 037 - 179 rev A" which we are currently discussing with MUA.
2. In the Outline Tree Protection Plan (OTP-131221) what do the orange dashes to the west of G4 represent? What's the likely profile of this and what impact might it have on G4? The lines referred to represent ground contouring as indicated on "Sketch 01" attached. It is intended that this work will take place outside the RPA of G4.
3. More details are required on the drainage ditch that runs through G2 The drainage ditch that runs through G2 is detailed on the attached flood Plan drawing "Hart 037 - 180".

This area has been assessed on the previous application and the route shown on the plan is deemed to be the route that would have the least impact. 2 No affected trees were highlighted for removal (2545 & 2548) and works within this area work will be carried out under arboricultural supervision. Trees 2545 & 2548 have been marked on the tree removal plan and Tree protection fencing indicated in this area has been shown on the tree protection plan.

The annotated photo shows the trees to be removed and route of the ditch. Fencing will be used to provide a corridor for a small/medium excavator. Through the responses provided I am satisfied that these additional concerns can also be addressed through tree protection conditions. It is important to emphasise that even with a tree protection plan in place there will

be a number of residual risks which will need to managed throughout the construction process. A positive outcome for retained trees will only guaranteed, therefore, if there is ongoing involvement of a suitably qualified and experienced tree specialist throughout the construction process. In the event that this application is approved I strongly recommend that a condition is applied requiring the submission of an Arboricultural Method Statement. This should include details of, amongst other things, how arboricultural site monitoring will take place and a schedule of specific events requiring arboricultural input/supervision.

In summary, based on the Directorate's current policy there appears to be grounds for objection on one issue: The proposed development includes the removal of trees worthy of a category B classification, as defined by BS5837:2012.

In the event that this application is approved I recommend that the following condition is applied:

1. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS), adhering to the recommendations of BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - recommendations), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The AMS should address all the technical design issues discussed in Section 6 of BS5837, and especially how the project arboriculturist will carry out arboricultural site monitoring, including a schedule of specific site events requiring input or inspection. The agreed protection measures and construction methods shall adhered to in full. Reason: to provide a level of technical detail sufficient to provide a high level of confidence in the outcome for retained trees on the site
2. The pruning carried out on trees T2504, T2506, T2508, T2511, T2513 and T2514 shall be done in accordance with the recommendations of BS3998:2010 (Tree Work Recommendations). Reason: To reduce the potential for the approved pruning work to have adverse consequences on the health and longevity of the trees, for the purposes of preserving the amenity value they provide to the area. If you have any queries in respect of these comments please do not hesitate to contact me

5.6 Inland Fisheries (DEFA) comments (19.01.2022); "Fisheries Officers have conducted a site visit with the applicant. I can confirm that DEFA, fisheries have no objections to this development from a fisheries perspective, provided that there is no adverse effect or disturbance on the adjacent watercourse. This is due to the nature of both the watercourse and the proposed works. Precautions will be needed to reduce the possibility of harmful materials such as concrete or washings entering the river."

5.7 Manx Utilities (Drainage) initially sought additional information (07.01.2022) from the applicants. Following additional information being provided Manx Utilities comments (31.03.2022) "Further to the above application Manx Utilities are happy with the amended proposals as detailed in the Drainage Strategy Rev A document. The developer is encouraged to enter into a Section 8 adoption agreement with Manx Utilities for parts of the foul sewerage system, the surface water sewers and attenuation tank. Construction drawings will be required prior to any works commencing on site. The individual plot pump stations will remain private and not be considered for adoption as part of the public sewerage system." - 5.8 Department of Infrastructure Flood Risk Management Team (DOI) initially objected to the application due to additional information/calculations for attenuation of surface waters being requited. However, these have now been provided and FMD confirms they have no objection (31.03.2022).

5.9 Highway Services Drainage Division initially sought additional information with regard to the system draining runoff from the estate road (03.02.2022), but again following additional information being provided they have no objection (26.04.2022). - 5.10 A number of private representations have been received from the following addresses:

o 38 Farmhill Park, Douglas (24.01.2022, 31.03.2022 & 27.04.2022);
o 39 Farmhill Park, Douglas (20.01.2022 & 31.03.2022);
o 40 Farmhill Park, Douglas (19.01.2022 & 31.03.2022);
o Isle of Man Friends of the Earth, 7 Snaefell Crescent, Onchan (20.01.2022);

5.11 Full details of the comments can be viewed on the Planning Departments Website. Below are a summary of the comments received;

o represents an ill-judged proposal to create new houses in an area where long-lasting disruption to wildlife, the wanton destruction of trees, the loss of amenity for local residents, and a danger to motorists, cyclists and pedestrians would be the unavoidable consequences;
o Inadequate consideration of the impact that this additional development will have to the motorists and pedestrians of Douglas who use Farmhill Lane and its junction with Cushag Road and Annacur Lane; and the residents of Lheannag Park in particular;
o fail to adequately address the need for Manx Utilities to provide sufficient capacity within the water system to support the increased need for more fire hydrants within the area;
o As we have stated on previous occasions, a principal concern for us is the increased security risk arising from any new development on this site. Having been burgled in 2018 (whilst asleep in our beds), the police determined that access was likely gained through access to our garden, and we are therefore very concerned that the link footpath will be used as a means of accessing our property;
o Finally, we ask that the Planning Committee does not follow the (flawed) argument which says that it must be okay to approve 6 houses if planning for 12 houses was previously approved - and it instead considers this new Planning Application on its own merits - and against the backdrop of a Manx public who now have a more enlightened understanding of the ecological impacts arising from the unnecessary removal of trees;
o The Climate Change Act has now received royal assent and every relevant application needs to demonstrate that the application has been made having regard to the following climate change policies — (i) the maximisation of carbon sequestration; (ii) the minimising of greenhouse gas emissions; (iii) the maintenance and restoration of ecosystems; (iv) biodiversity net gain;
o This schedule has yet to be enacted but planning policy should be forward looking not backward, especially in an Unesco Biosphere;
o Using the UK standard of Biodiversity metric 3.0 spread sheet, we cannot get no net loss let alone a positive gain result;
o D.E.F.A. Tree Protection Policy 2021 now applies and the proposal would fail Section 25 and we assume the directorate will object to this application;
o Reference to restrict to covenant requiring the area to be maintained in its present natural state;
o The Copse of trees, now adjoins the long line of wood/ stream/ green belt creating a 'green gap' nature corridor between Farmhill/Douglas and Saddlestone/Braddan where wildlife can safely traverse;
o We notice from ours the following using the site Bats, Butterflies, Toads, Newts, Finches, Thrushes, Wrens, Kestrels, Herons, Gold Crests, etc. We hope the Woodpeckers will return too;
o Fails Environment Policy 3 & 4;
o Fails Area Plan for the East (3.6 Desired Outcomes, 5.3. Area Plan Objectives, 5.4 Area Plan Desired Outcomes & 5.11.4 Potential future Wildlife Sites in Douglas, Onchan and Braddan);
o Before purchasing our property we researched the history, seeing the restrict covenant and previous planning history which was refused at appeal for (96/1864) 3 houses in 1997;

o The Inspector attached much weight to the expectations of householders to the designating by condition of the area including the appeal site as open space;
o Fails General Policy 2 as it would affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
o The proposed layout fails General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 and Areas Plan for the East;
o The Areas Plan for the East 1st December 2020, identifies sufficient & excess sites to meet the foreseeable housing needs of the Eastern Area. They do not include this site along with the elimination of nearly 100 mature urban trees being 60% of the urban canopy;
o The original planning concept of 40 good sized individual houses on large, well-spaced plots, incorporating wide strip of open space has been carefully preserved to date;
o Development would impact on the visual amenity value and outlook from our house;
o The site is zoned as "predominately residential" for the simple reason that it is the back garden of an existing house; and it is insufficient reason now to view it as a development site;
o The Area Plan for the East identifies sufficient sites to meet the foreseeable housing needs of the Eastern Area;
o There is sufficient brownfield sites within the area;
o Application for 3 houses was refused in 1997 when the Inspector commented; ""I would attach much weight to the expectations of householders to the designating by condition of the area including the appeal site as open space. To my mind, nothing in the definition of open space in the 1982 Order predicates the approval of buildings in such areas as suggested. For this reason, the appeal should fail".
o Nothing material has changed in the area in the intervening years and the inspector's comments are as relevant now as they were then. The major difference is that the current application is for 6 houses, as opposed to the 3 which were refused in the previous application;
o The Aerial Photo Montage which forms part of the application clearly demonstrates how close together even the proposed 6 houses would be and how entirely out of keeping they would be with both our property and the wider area of Farmhill Park, which is comprised entirely of larger, detached houses on individual plots;
o These copses are said to incorporate 138 trees, creating some 3,396 sq.m of canopy cover. The application proposes the removal of the majority of these mature copses with the
obvious adverse effect on the environment and wildlife, Manx Roots report comments that 34 weak tree should be removed for good management and there is no denying that this action would be the correct way forward but felling scores of healthy trees purely to facilitate the development would be entirely wrong;
o Whilst it is fully accepted that not all of the trees in these copses have individual value, together they form an attractive urban canopy, providing nesting, foraging and roosting
opportunities for a variety of birds and small animals. The potential loss of most of this canopy would have a significant impact on this wildlife;
o The decimation of this woodland would result in significant Ecosystem and biodiversity loss;
o To the East of the proposed site is an area of private woodland and is a natural habitat, as described by Manx Wildlife Trust. Whilst the apparent intention is to retain the majority of this woodland, there can be no denying that the proposed development immediately adjacent to it would have a major detrimental effect on the wildlife there, effectively destroying their habitat;
o Concerns of loss of light due to the intention to plant 1100 new trees, the proposed siting of them gives us considerable cause for concern along out boundary;
o To support this application would leave the way open for the continuation of this unwelcome backland development into the remaining areas of open space along the bottom of Farmhill Park, thereby creating even more disruption to the private woodland and the amenity
of existing residents;
o The intrinsic value of trees as vital carbon sinks is not adequately addressed;
o There are no metrics provided for the amount of carbon sequestration anticipated from the migratory planting;

o Loss of habitat for birds bats and small mammals in terms of loss of canopy, foraging and shelter and the timescales to get back to status quo before getting anywhere near net biodiversity gain;
o Covid and other factors have delayed the progress of the Act so it has only recently received Royal Assent. The Council of Ministers has not had sufficient time to address the necessary amendments contained in the Schedule. However it would surely be perverse for any planning decision not to take account of the clear statutory intentions outlined above. The application is lacking in these areas;
o Concerns the site would not comply with Building Regulations 2010 Fire Safety Approved Document B as a fire tender would have to reverse (were it to service the property nearest to
our boundary) would be more than the permitted 20m;
o No mechanism in place to ensure that the turning facilities remain clear of obstruction that would permit them to be used to reverse a fire tender;
o There is nothing noted on the plans that indicates that the development complies with the requirement for all properties to be no more than 90m from a fire hydrant;
o The letter from Hartford Homes appears to imply that this proposal would have no impact on the neighbouring properties and that they have been developed with input and agreement from us. This is not the case and we are not of the view that the development of 6 houses on the Site is appropriate for all of the reasons that we have previously stated.

5.12 Sarah Maltby MHK for Douglas South writes on behalf of her constituency and objects to the application for the following summaries reasons (12.01.2022): Development is not in keeping with environmental ambitions I have for the area or the Government policy in relation to retention of trees; concerned for residents who feel their quality of life will be effected by the proposal. The resulting loss of habitat for the wildlife and the impact in general wellbeing having an area of 'green' space; the area is known to provide habitat for bats, birds; the Area Plan for the East provides sufficient sites to meet the foreseeable housing needs; development of brownfield sites should be a priority; while the new scheme is significantly more empathetic to the area (retains 40% of the woodland area) I am still concerns that the destruction of a number of mature trees that goes against the needs of our islands younger and older residents.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

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; (b) the potential impact upon the visual amenities of the area; (c) potential impact upon neighbouring amenities; (d) potential impact upon highway safety; (e) potential impacts upon trees/biodiversity.

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

6.2 The first issues relates to this application is the principle of residential development on this site. As outlined within the planning policy section of this report, the site is proposed for residential use and therefore the proposal for additional residential development is acceptable.

6.2.1 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 has been undertaken and adopted, which identified that a total of 2440 new dwellings are required to be provided between the years of 2011 to 2026 in the east of the Island alone. A total of 5,100 dwellings are required over this same period throughout the Island. Given Douglas is regarded as the "Main Employment and Service Centre" on the Island, it is reasonable to consider the majority of these dwellings are likely to be provided in within and around Douglas.

6.2.2 The Planning Inspector for the Area Plan for the East has revisited these housing numbers and now the amount of dwellings in the East has initially been reduced to 1500, albeit including the Strategic Reserves sites this gives a total of 2440 new dwellings as initially suggested by the IOMSP. The site in questions was not specially allocated in the housing number (not all sites are). However, the fact remains the land is designated as "predominately residential" use. The adjacent site (approval for 26 dwellings) was considered by the Inspector

during the Area Plan process. A "Notional Number of Dwellings" of 10 was given on this site; however, this did not necessary mean that only 10 can be approved. 16 had already been approved on the site and the very meaning of the word "Notional" is not an absolute. Further, the whole purposes of undertaking this assessment are to ensure that there is sufficient land designated to meet the housing needs throughout the East of the Island. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible; to give precise housing number on each site; as generally only once a detail application has been submitted and considered all the issues can a judgement be made. Furthermore, during the Area Plan Process not all sites are precisely allocated, rather are 'washed over', in this case the site was washed over in pink colour on the maps to identify residential designation. This designation is a continuation of the Douglas Local Plan 1998 land use designation which also designated it as "predominately residential".
6.2.3 In terms of the Area Plan process and the Inspector report, it is importantly to note, the Inspector also commented that; "I consider the priority should be given to development of land allocated for residential development within existing settlements. That would provide about 560 dwellings as shown in table 1 below….". While the current application site was not included within this table, it is within an area allocated as residential and within an existing settlement.
6.2.4 In terms of the density of the application site and that of the surrounding housing developments it is important to note the guidance within the Residential Design Guide 2021. This indicates that: "Land is a finite resource and it is important to strike a balance between the need to make best use of land (i.e. by maximising densities, so that as many dwellings as possible can be provided on the least amount of land thus reducing the need to develop new areas) and the need to make sure that new developments are attractive and fit-for-purpose. The Site Assessment Framework for the Area Plan for the East contained broad assumptions about typical densities for different locations and types of developments, and these can provide a helpful starting point. However, these should not be taken as targets. In reality, the development that takes place may be of a higher or lower density and, as determined by the context of the site and/or the location."
6.2.5 The Residential Design Guide (RDG) indicates that:

o Very high density about 100-450 dwellings/hectare Promenade or very centre of town development (typically apartments);
o High Density about 40-100 dwellings/hectare (Town centre typically apartments or terraced housing;
o Medium Density 15-30 dwellings/hectare (large sites close to the settlement centre, typically estates incorporating different dwelling types including some apartments and terraced housing;
o Low 5-10 dwellings/hectare (larger sites towards the edge of settlements, consisting mainly of houses and bungalow with relatively few apartments or terraces;
o Very low 2 dwellings/hectare (houses set in parkland by substantial grounds.

6.2.6 In this case the application site (with the woodland being excluded) and the new position of the rear garden of Bix House, the development site equates to 0.34 hectares which would represent 17.45 dwellings/hectare. The proposal would therefore be considered on the lower side of a "Medium Density" development. The adjacent housing development (Farmhill Grange Development) which is current under construction and would link into this proposed development represents 26.47 dwellings/hectare.
6.2.7 For reference the previous application which was approved by the Planning Committee but is pending and final decision (appeal stage) equated to 24.61 dwellings/hectare (with the woodland being excluded) and including the woodland (it was proposed to be public open space) the site is 12.8 dwellings/hectare.

6.2.8 Regarding neighbouring developments in the area:

o Lheannag Park 36.76 dwellings/hectare;
o Woodland View & Appledene Court 47.03 dwellings/hectare;
o Ballaquark Estate 30.94 dwellings/hectare;
o Farmhill Grange Development 26.47 dwellings/hectare; and
o Farmhill Park 6.24 dwellings/hectare;

6.2.9 An argument in favour of the proposed development is that considering the density of the site against these other housing sites, the density in the main would appear to fit well with the existing housing densities in the area, and namely with the Farmhill Grange Development which this development essential forms part of and would be seen against the most.
6.2.10 A counter argument is that Farmhill Park to the west/northwest of the site less dense development (6.24 dwellings/hectare) and refusal for three dwellings was refused in 1997 on the grounds that; "The proposed development would be contrary to the terms of the planning approval for the overall layout and use of this land (PA 87/0912), whereby the site formed part of an area of Private Open Space adjoining the stream course…".
6.2.11 However, since this refusal 25 years ago, there has been the Douglas Local Plan being adopted (1998) and more recently the Area Plan for the East 2020 which both designated the land as residential. Furthermore, the IOM Strategic Plan has been adopted in 2007 and updated in 2016 (Housing numbers only). The IOMSP and the Area Plan for the East main aims is to provide more sustainable development and in terms of new housing development which is required this is by located new housing in existing settlements.
6.2.12 Strategic Policy 1 from the IOMSP indicates we should optimise the use of previously developed land and ensure efficient use of sites (taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity) and that development should be located to make best use of planned and existing infrastructure, facilities and services. As Douglas is a "Main Employment and Service Centre", again it is considered the majority of dwellings would be located in and around this area, in line with sustainable objectives of the overall IOMSP, i.e. people living close to existing services/employment and have less reliance of cars. This site would fit well with that brief. It is close to good bus routes, near to local shops/pubs, surrounded by existing development to the South, West & Northwest, existing parks and playgrounds (Ballaughton Manor Park & Anagh Coar) are within a short walking distance to the east and south of the site.
6.2.13 In terms of the previous application; while this was approved by the Planning Committee, this decision is pending, following the appeal being put on hold until the outcome of this current application is determined (applicants are willing to forfeit the previous decision). However, given this previous application "decision" has not been finalised; little planning weight can be attached and as with all applications, each application is judge on its "own merits". Since the previous application was approved by the Planning Committee, there have been updates to the Residential Design Guide 2021, specifically relating to "Sustainable Construction" which includes a section of Climate Change matters and the Tree Protection Policy (DEFA) Department Policy Relating to the Protection of Trees has all been approved by the Minister of the Department (DEFA). These matters need consideration now as "other consideration" as outline in the Planning Act. The planning elements of the Climate Change Act are not yet in force (No Appointed Day Order) and therefore has only limited material planning weight. However, it does give a clear direction of travel. All these matter will be considered in the relevant sections later in this report.
6.2.14 Accordingly, while the previous refusal is of material planning weight; it is a matter of balance whether this outweighs more recent planning policy which would appear to support the principle of residential development on this site. In this case, once again it is considered the passage of time of the previous decision and more up to date planning policy which would

support the development of land designated for development and therefore it is consider the principle of developing the site for residential development is acceptable. This is not an automatic reason to allow the planning application, as further material planning matters as indicated previously need to be considered, to determine if the 6 dwellings on the site are appropriate.

THE POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE AREA

6.3.1 General Policy 2 paragraph (b) states that the design should respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them.
6.3.2 The site from public views would be well screened given existing properties surrounding the site namely those within Farmhill Park and the amount of existing and proposed landscaping which would be in place between any public views. The street scene where the new properties would be most apparent, are from the new estate road within Farmhill Grange Development to the south of the site. However, this view would be limited given the recently constructed dwellings within that estate and existing landscaping. However, even where there may be glimpses of the dwellings, these will be limited and be seen in connection with existing residential properties which is the character of the area generally.
6.3.3 The surroundings area's character is mainly of residential development and this proposal would just be a continuation of this existing character in a suburban location. While there is an amount of trees proposed to be removed, the trees in question from a visual perspective do not contribute significant to public amenity, as similar to the proposed dwellings, they are screened by existing built development in the area and existing and proposed landscaping within the area/site. The issue of the potential ecology issues by the tree removal will be consider later in this report.
6.3.4 The site will become more apparent once it is completed, especially as the new public footpaths (if it is considered acceptable) through the site and into the wooded area will provide new public vantage points. However, the boundary treatments of the dwellings, especially those backing onto the wooded/public footpaths are proposed to be hedgerows and post and wire fencing (this will need conditioning). It is considered, especially in the longer term that this arrangement would appear as a soft barrier between the two areas i.e. garden and woodland areas. The fence to the side boundary of Plot 17 is proposed to be a 1.8m high timber fence, but with a hedgerow planted in front to soften the visual impact. Overall, in terms of the street scene, the design, layout, finishes and scale of the development would be appropriate. Details of the new rear boundary (eastern) of Bix house which fronts onto the new estate road should also be conditioned. The applicants have indicate perhaps a metal railing fence with hooped tops with hedging in front could be installed, which is likely to be acceptable compared to a timber 1.8+m fence which would be inappropriate.
6.3.5 It is perhaps also worth considering the density of the development as discussed earlier in this report and whether the density of this development is in keeping with the area. While density figures can be helpful in considering whether a site is appropriate level, it is perhaps more importantly to consider how a site actually fits in its context, especially when viewed in the public realm. Clearly the site density (17.45 dwellings/hectare) is greater than the adjacent Farmhill Park (6.24 dwellings/hectare); however, if built, the two areas from public views are not going to be read as one. As mentioned from Farmhill Park, public views of the site would be limited by the dwellings within Farmhill Park and landscaping between each dwelling. The application site is more likely to be read in context with the Farmhill Grange Development (26.47 dwellings/hectare) which essential these 6 dwellings would form a continuation of. Following this process through, the Farmhill Grange Development is publically viewed in context with Lheannag Park (36.76 dwellings/hectare) to the east and Woodland View & Appledene Court (47.03 dwellings/hectare) to the west. Accordingly, from the main public views of the application site, it is not considered that the proposed development would be out of keeping

with the majority of hosing in the immediate area, being significantly lower than all but Farmhill Park which this new development will not form part of either visually or connectively.
6.3.6 Accordingly, whilst there will be an impact to the visual amenities of the area over the current situation (i.e. a garden), the impact to public views would not be significant and it is considered the proposals would be acceptable and comply with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES

6.4 The third issue relates to the potential impact of the development upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties. Given the size of the site and number of dwellings, all properties adjacent to the site will be impacted by the development. Any development would have an impact; the issue to consider is whether the proposed development would significantly impacts upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties. Generally the main issue relate to overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy, overbearing impact upon outlooks and/or loss of light.

6.4.1 In terms of overlooking, the Residential Design Guide advises that a 20 metre gap between direct facing first floor windows of habitable rooms should be retained. In this case all the proposed dwellings with direct facing windows towards neighbouring windows are greater than 20 metres. Nr 40 Farmhill Park is approximately 58+m away from the closest dwelling

Plot 21 and Nr 39 Farmhill Park is approximately 53+m away both from the closest dwelling on
Plot 22. Further, the finished floor level of Nr 40 is set above the finished floor level of the dwelling on Plots 21 and 22 by approximately a storey in height (see Site Section Plan Nr 177). Between the boundaries of the two above sites is existing landscaping varying in height, some of which would screen views of the site. However, there are sections where views from Nr 40 especially, but also Nr 39 would look towards the proposed new dwellings. The neighbouring property to the northwest is Nr 38 Farmhill Park which is located approximately 52+m away both from the closest dwelling on Plot 22. The property also has a substantial rear garden which runs along the majority of the northern boundary of the site and is comprised of a mature leylandii hedgerow and fence line below.

6.4.2 Nr 40 Farmhill Park is a two storey detached property which has a total of six windows to its rear elevation that face towards the application site. All windows at ground floor (two of the three are French Doors) level serve primary habitable rooms (living rooms). The three upper widows serve bedrooms and a bathroom. A rear/side garden also faces towards the site. Around the garden boundaries is mature landscaping which varies in site, some block outlooks into the application site, where as others places there are open views over the site.

4.4.3 Nr 39 Farmhill Park is a part single/part two storey dwelling which is located to the northwest of the site. The finished floor level is set above the application site. To the rear, due to the ground level of this site the finished floor level of Nr 39 is set approximately a storey above the majority of the rear garden associated with this property. Accordingly, there is a rear raised terrace which has outlooks over the application site; albeit, the majority of views are screened by existing mature landscaping within the site, but also in large parts by the significant leylandii hedgerow which runs along the northern boundary of the application site, which is proposed to be retained.

4.4.4 The dwelling Nr 38 Farmhill Park is located to the north west of the site, albeit has its rear garden immediately to the north of the site. The significant leylandii hedgerow previously mentioned is proposed to be retained. With this being retained the majority if not all the proposed dwellings would be screened from views, especially from the windows within the dwelling of Nr 38.

6.4.5 Visiting all these neighbouring properties when the previous application/s were made; there was an initial concern with planning application 20/00824/B that there would be an overbearing impact upon the neighbours outlooks, given there was a dwelling immediately to the rear of Nr 40. Due to this concern the applicants withdrew the application (20/00824/B)

and submitted application 20/01531/B, which overcame the Departments concern. This new application under consideration now, reduces the potential impacts upon neighbouring properties even more. While it is accepted that the views and outlook especially from Nrs 40 and 39 will change, it is considered with the retention of the a large amount of the central section of woodland within the existing rear garden of Bix House, with the significant amount of additional landscaping proposed also (between Nrs 40 & 39 and new dwellings), the change will not be significant or adverse. There of course will be some views of the new dwellings namely on Plots 21 and 22, but over time these will be reduced given the proposed tree planting. It should be noted that these outlooks are over the rear garden of Bix House, rather than the open countryside and therefore it would have been in the owners of Bix Houses want to plant landscaping etc to prevent such views, to increase their own privacy if they wished.
6.5.6 As mentioned the current proposal does include the planting of landscaping & trees in the area of the new rear garden of Box House, which also includes between the gap of the retained central woodland area and the leylandii hedgerow (all within new rear boundary of Bix House) which does run adjacent/near to the neighbouring boundaries of Nr 39, but especially with Nr 40. Concerns have raised by neighbouring residents that the tree planting may result in loss of light which is a very relevant concern. The Department has sought comments from the applicants in relation to what are the maximum heights of the tree/landscaping proposed to be planted in the vicinity of the neighbouring boundaries. The applicants have commented that the landscaping has been considered by Manx Roots and that: "The largest trees in the micro woodland mix on the boundary with No40, are Silver Birch and Downey Birch which are classed as medium trees and will likely reach a height of around 1012m at maturity in this location. It's worth noting, however, that Birch are characterised by their open crown which lets a lot of light through and should not feel imposing at all. The remaining trees in that mix are small and will achieve heights around 5m. So, heights of the biggest trees at various life stages will be approximately:

o 5yrs = 2-5m depending on planting size,
o 10yrs = 5-10m,
o 20yrs 8-12m.

Its worth noting that there is a Hornbeam hedge planting in between the existing boundary planting and the micro woodland planting, so there will be a grading up of heights."

6.5.7 The concerns of the neighbours are understood and understandable, their outlook will change as described previously and with the retention of the existing wooded area closest to these neighbouring properties, the leylandii hedgerow and with new landscaping/trees their

outlook will likely have less open views over Bix House garden and the woodland beyond. However, it is not considered the impact would be unattractive and would still retain the character of a woodland setting from these properties. The types of trees proposed and their location would seem appropriate and ensure the loss of light to neighbouring properties would not be significant.

6.5.8 Overall, given the siting of the proposed dwellings in relation to existing properties; the design, scale and size of the proposed dwellings; the ground level differences between the neighbouring properties and the site; existing/proposed landscaping & tree planting; and the suns orientation (east to west); it is not considered the proposed dwellings would give result in a significant adverse impact upon the residential amenities of any neighbouring properties in the area, to warrant a refusal and therefore comply with General Policy 2 and the Residential Design Guide 2021. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON HIGHWAY SAFETY

6.6 The site would be linked into the existing estate road of Farmhill Grange Development and also utilise the same entrance onto Farmhill Lane which was approved previously for the Farmhill Grange Development. This access has viability splays of 2.4m x 25m metres in both directions, as requested by Highway Services (as approved previously). Furthermore, no

objections have been made from Highway Services in terms of traffic generated by the development.

6.6.1 In terms of off street parking provision the IOMSP requires each dwelling to be provided with two off road parking spaces. All the properties would have at least two off road parking spaces.

6.6.2 The submitted plans do include a new public footpath which runs from the new estate road through the woodland area to the Lheannag Park estate would be constructed to an adoptable standard and DOI have previously indicated they would adopt them as well as the estate road itself. However, given presentation made regarding potential security as new path may give more access to the woodland area and into neighbouring properties, the applicants have advised they would be happy to omit the path. Planning Committee will recall the previous application included a woodland loop path which created a path through the woodland which connected to the new public footpath. This is not included as part of this application. Accordingly, the new public footpath would only provide an access from the new estate to Lheannag Park. The applicants comment in detail why they believe the new path should be omitted (email dated 03.03.2022): "Whilst the application as submitted includes a footpath link into and through the woodland to the north east of the proposed houses, as did the previous application which was approved (20/01531/B) - a footpath which provides a pedestrian link for the occupants of the proposed 6no. houses to Lheannag Park, we have reconsidered the value and impact of this footpath and now would prefer for it to be omitted from the scheme." And "In conclusion, we believe that the proposed woodland footpath route would result in a potentially adverse environmental impact which is not justified as we believe it will not be used, would be less desirable, less safe and longer than the existing footpath route through Lheannag Park which would better integrate the proposed housing into the existing housing and would enable those in the new houses to walk conveniently and safely to their desired designations. It would also go further to removing concerns previously raised by number 38 Farmhill Park, who believed public access through the woodland may provide access to potential burglars, to their property."
6.6.3 In terms of whether the new public footpath should or shouldn't be omitted, the applicants provides reasonable reasons why it is perhaps not required now. Previously the new path would have provided access to the woodland loop path; however, with this now not being required (open space provision is not required as part of this application being under 10 dwellings) and as the new path alone would not seem to provide a benefit to residents in the area as a whole, it is considered the omittance of the new footpath is acceptable.
6.6.4 Representation received regarding concerns of parked vehicles at or near to the junction of Farmhill Lane and Annacur Lane/Cushag Road are noted; however the photographs submitted and comments made appear to relate to construction traffic relating to the adjacent housing development. While the construction traffic can cause issues with general traffic in an area (generally occurs with most development sites and even single residential properties); this will generally stop once the adjacent development has been completed. It is one reason why impacts during the construction period are not material planning matters which can be considered. Should construction traffic etc not be abiding the rules of the road (illegal parking etc) then this is a matter for the relevant authorities, who have the powers to deal with such matters. As mentioned above the application site provides sufficient parking requirements for future residents and therefore it is not considered the new development would cause issues of parking on Farmhill Lane or adjacent roads.
6.6.5 A concern has been raised on fire appliances accessing the site. The concerns raised have been put to Highway Services and they made the following comments;

"The dwellings more than 20m from the turning point could be fitted with sprinklers or other such facility to conform. Plots 21 and 22 are indicated to come off a private drive so would require alternative provision regardless. We do not insist on turning facilities to be protected by double yellow lines. A Traffic Regulation Order would be needed of which there is an uncertain outcome. Notwithstanding, the proposal is compliant with parking standards to reduce the risk of obstruction."
6.6.6 Accordingly, given no objection from Highway Services and for the reasons indicated within this report the application complies with Transport Policies 1, 4 & 7 and the parking standards of the IOMSP. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON TREES/BIODIVERSITY
6.7 An Arboricultural Impact Assessment has identified the requirement to remove 1no category B tree, 8no category C trees, the complete removal of 1no category B (16 trees) and 1no category C tree groups (7 trees), and the partial removal (62% of group) of 1no category B tree group (62 trees) in order to facilitate construction of 6no dwellings. A Further 6no category U trees have been recommended for removal, irrespective of the development, due to their poor form and location. The total number of trees to be removed equates to 100 trees. The main bulky of tree lost are those trees within groups G3 & G4 which are central within the site, which form a visual point of view has least visual impact given the treed boundaries of the site would remain.

6.7.1 For information the previous application resulted in the removal of 155 trees within the rear garden of Bix House and four small trees were proposed to be lost within the mature woodland area.

6.7.2 It is noted the objection received from the Agriculture and Lands Directorate; albeit the previous application they did not object. As can be seen from the Agriculture and Lands Directorate representations within this report; since the previous application the Directorate has approved its Tree Protection Policy (December 2021) and therefore the current application has been considered on this basis and an objection has been made; not necessary given the loss of the tree canopy coverage or the amount of trees, rather on one issue; "The proposed development includes the removal of trees worthy of a category B classification, as defined by BS5837:2012". Accordingly, due to this an objection has been made. It is now the Department/Planning Committee to balance this objection against all matters.

6.7.3 It is noted the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment indicates that; "The majority of the proposed loss of canopy cover comprises tree groups G1, G3 and G4 and totals an estimated 1,365.5m2 . This figure equates to approximately 3.6% of tree cover in the wider landscape. Refer to table 5 of section 5 and drawing TR-131221 of appendix 4"

6.7.4 It is noted that the "tree cover in the wider landscape" includes the trees within the application site, but also the woodland which continues from the site to the north and south of the site (see Fig 2 page 8 within assessment), outside the applicants control. Overall the assessment equates this total area to have a tree canopy of 36,941 m2 and therefore the 3.6% figure indicated above is the reduction of this area as a whole, rather than just the trees within the application site. Helpfully the Agriculture and Lands Directorate have noted this and consider that appropriately 18% of the trees solely within the application site would be removed. The Directorate also indicates that the site plan shows there is an opportunity for approximately 650m2 of Tree Canopy Coverage (TCC) to be reinstated so the net TCC change as a result of this development (assuming that planting occurs as shown and that the trees successfully establish) will be approximately -10%. They also comment that; "Given the poor quality of the individual tree which make up this existing tree cover, however, I don't view this overall loss of canopy cover as significant."

6.7.5 The Arboricultural Impact Assessment indicates;

"The loss of arboricultural value associated with this development will be moderate. The majority of trees being suggested for removal to facilitate the development are, with some exceptions, of low individual quality. It is strongly recommended that a robust replanting proposal be implemented to mitigate any trees that have to be removed as part of the development. We are aware that Hartford Homes Limited and the Manx Wildlife Trust have collaborated to produce a comprehensive replanting proposal which will offset and mitigate tree loss."

6.7.6 As indicated above the applicants are proposing a significantly level of tree planting, with up to 1,535 new trees proposed to be planted within the application site (red line). These are made up of 6 individual trees to the front of each dwelling, 150 to create the Hornbeam hedge to north-western boundary, 279 around the woodland edge planting (to rear gardens of plots/edge of existing woodland) and 1100 trees to form the Micro forest planting (northern western boundary and between gaps of central woodland area).
6.7.7 It should be noted the applicants are also in discussions with Douglas Borough Council to plant additional trees within the public realm near to the site; however, they have indicated these discussions are unlikely to be concluded before the application is determined and will be part of the applicants generally UNESCO Biosphere Pledge.
6.7.8 Perhaps at this stage is it worth turning to the potential impacts upon biodiversity of the site as this has a direct impact through tree loss. The application includes a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) and Bix House PEAR revision technical note prepared by Manx Wildlife Trust and that the Ecosystem Policy Team (DEFA) confirms that both are in order and the level of assessment is appropriate.
6.7.9 The submitted PEA indicates the most significant changes over the previous application is the retention of one third of the existing plantation broad leave woodland (central wooded area within rear garden of Bix House) and locating new planting of native trees and shrubs in the immediate surrounds. The report indicates that native planting has been proposed to create species and structural diversity to support a range of fauna i.e. woodland edge invertebrates, woodland and suburban birds and commuting and foraging bats.
6.7.10 The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal does utilises DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - UK) Biodiversity metric which gives a figure on the site habitant value. This can be an accounting tool for measuring the biodiversity losses and gains that result from development projects. In this case the woodland area has a value of 3.71 biodiversity units, the trees with the centre of the rear garden of Bix House have a 1.48 biodiversity units, the garden/lawn 0.65 biodiversity units, and the southern/eastern boundary hedgerow has 0.39 biodiversity units. Therefore the woodland area has the greatest biodiversity value than all the other areas combined. The appraisal indicates that these calculations are useful (in UK) to determine how much offsite habitat would be required to offset biodiversity units lost; however within such a confined site the necessary area required for standard offsetting is not available. Due to this the appraisal indicates that the most practical solution for 'no net loss' and potential 'net gain' would be ecologically minded design and implementation to retain the best ecological features and enhance them, whilst providing new habitats of value to biodiversity.
6.7.11 The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal goes into detail of what animals (bats, birds, common frog & common lizard albeit the latter is unlikely to be found on the site), tree & plants etc. where found on the site and also outlines a number of recommendations to improve the biodiversity of the application site and wooded area. Some are the recommendations including installation of bird and bat boxes within the area and within eves of the dwellings, protection of trees, production of a Site Environmental Management Plan to demonstrate how the development will ensure adequate measures will be put in place to protect the existing woodland; new tree planting and landscaping as suggested by Manx Roots being undertaken for nest birds, sheltering, foraging etc. are some examples. These recommendations listed

within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal are appropriate and a condition should be attached to any approval which requires the recommendations be fully adhered to.
6.7.12 Clearly, the removal of the trees and therefore habitats will have an impact on biodiversity and this does weigh against the development. While limited weight can be given to the previously approved application; it needs to be acknowledged this current proposal appears to have less impact to the existing biodiversity to the site (less tree removal etc) and proposes to plant substantial more native trees/shrubs throughout the site. However, given no objections being received from the Ecosystems Policy Officer who agrees with the conclusions and recommendation of the Manx Wildlife Trust, it is considered the impact upon wildlife and ecology can be adequately mitigated.
6.7.13 In relation to the loss of trees, namely the visual amenity of the area. For similar reasons to why the proposed dwellings are not significantly apparent from public views (existing built development and larger mature wooded areas to the north/east of the site) the eastern section of the central copse of trees within the centre of the rear garden of Bix Houses do not result in significant public amenity value, i.e. they are not seen from public views to a significant extent. Accordingly, from a visual impact there are no concerns. Manx Roots detailed reports indicated that the proposal would equate to a loss of 3% of canopy cover in the wider landscape (DEFA consider approximately 18% of canopy lost within site) and while this arguably significant, the trees in question have a lower individual amenity value and if left unmanaged many of the trees are likely to see physiological decline in the coming years due to suppressions cause by over congestion and/or structural failure due to weakness resulting from over congestion.
6.7.14 Manx Roots have also produce tree protections plan and tree planting plans which the Agriculture and Lands Directorate raises not objections subject to recommended conditions.
6.7.15 As outlined earlier in this report since the previous application being approved the Climate Change Bill has received Royal assent, albeit it is not yet in force and therefore has little planning weight; although it does give a clear direction of travel. If this had been in force the application would need to undertake the following; "(a) demonstrate that the application has been made having regard to the following climate change policies —

(i) the maximisation of carbon sequestration;
(ii) the minimising of greenhouse gas emissions;
(iii) the maintenance and restoration of ecosystems;
(iv) biodiversity net gain;
(v) the need for sustainable drainage systems; and
(vi) the provision of active travel infrastructure; or (b) explain why consideration of one or more of those polices is not practicable in relation to the proposed development."

6.7.16 As mentioned, as it is not yet in force the application is not required to. However, while the application is perhaps silent on the "carbon sequestration" the submission does appear to cover the other points raised by the Bill. Further, the recently approved Residential Design Guide 2021 does include "Sustainable Construction" section which does include a number of aspects including, construction materials, building design and climate change resilience. It also included the following; "2.5.4 As well as complying with relevant Legislation (Wildlife Act 1990) proposals should aim to:

o protect and enhance the existing biodiversity on site through the retention and protection of existing wildlife features (as a priority);
o compensating against their loss where retention is not possible (as a last resort); and
o by providing enhancement measures.

2.5.5 The outcome should be to achieve an overall net gain in biodiversity. Consideration should be given to the following points.
o Retention and protection of important habitats for wildlife such as mature trees, hedges, sod banks, ponds & semi-natural habitats.
o Protection of features from the impacts of artificial lighting.
o Retention and protection of bat roosts or bird nest sites within buildings (e.g. designing roof space to retain bat roosts or swift nest sites).
o Where reasonable and proportionate, providing alternative wildlife features as compensation, should retention of existing features not be possible (e.g. creation of a new sod bank or the erection of integrated bat and bird bricks).
o Providing additional opportunities for wildlife on site via the creation of natural or artificial features (e.g. creation of ponds, provision of bat or bird boxes, choosing landscaping plants that are good for insects)."

6.7.17 In terms of Environment Policy 4 the site is not designated of Ecological Importance or Interest. There are no records of "Red List" species of high conservation on the site accordingly to the Manx Wildlife Trust Ecological Appraisal. Nine records of five species of bats (Manx Bat Group records) have been found within 0.5km of the site; however, none within the red line of the site. Ten species of birds were found on the site, although all are regarded as Green (least concern) on the Conservation status. Non common frogs where found on the site and the Common lizard isn't considered likely due to the dominant unfavourable habitable types. No legally protected plants were found on the site.
6.7.18 When any un-developed site is proposed for development, there will almost always be a potential impact upon biodiversity. This site is no exception, as will have been the neighbouring existing housing sites in the area for example Lheannag Park, Ballaquark Estate, Farmhill Grange Development & Farmhill Park. The Manx Wildlife Trust Preliminary Ecological Appraisal concludes that; "In summary, if the mitigation proposed is deployed and maintained correctly the project should achieve no net loss of biodiversity and with a woodland management plan in place could enable biodiversity net gain."
6.7.19 The removal of the number of trees proposed is a negative aspect of the proposal and does weigh against the submission. However, with the recommendations of the Manx Wildlife Trust for mitigations methods and the significantly level of new tree planting/landscaping as proposed, all in agreement with the Ecosystem Policy Team (DEFA).
6.7.20 In relations to sustainable construction/climate change measures the applicant have indicated the following which again address some of the points raised by the Bill and the RDG; "The following points are relevant to this application;

o The site is in an area identified for predominantly residential use and is close to local services, which will encourage walking and cycling, and reduce car use, compliant with Active Travel ethos.
o The design makes the most efficient use of the land while balancing ecological considerations.
o The woodland area will be retained, and improvement works outlined in the Preliminary Ecological Assessment (PEA) produced by Manx Wildlife Trust, will be implemented. The loss of 60% of the central tree plantation will be mitigated and offset by substantial new native tree and hedge planting, together with other ecological provisions, including the installation of bat and bird boxes.
o Access to public transport, cycle ways and footpaths, are close by
o The use of modern construction methods will achieve good thermal insulation levels, reducing energy use
o Low energy LED lights will be used throughout the development
o Provisions will be made for electric vehicle charging points to be fitted if required.
o Efficient heating systems and controls, will be used
o Natural daylight into habitable rooms will be maximised

o Water efficient sanitary appliances will be utilised throughout.
o Construction materials and labour will be sourced locally where possible, to reduce the carbon footprint of the development."

6.7.21 The applicants have also confirmed that air source heat pumps will be available to the occupants of the new dwellings as standard, instead of a gas boiler.
6.7.22 Within the representation section of this report comment has been made that the IOM UNESCO Biosphere Status. Under the Biosphere the IOM as a whole is split into three zones, Core, Care and a Sustainable Development Zones. The application site is within a "Sustainable Development Zone". This is described as; "within a Towns, Villages, Man-made surfaces including Buildings, Rail and Roads". Further the "Sustainable Development Zone" covers our urban areas and all remaining areas outside of Core and Care Zones, with a focus on developing our communities and economy in a responsible way.
6.7.23 It should be noted that the purposes of the Biosphere Status is not intended to raise new restrictions additional to the usual considerations for wildlife and the countryside, though it is clear that it does bring special emphasis and an international focus on the protection of sites on the Isle of Man and sustainable forms of development in appropriate places. Further the "The Zonation Guide for Appropriate Uses" suggests that development in such "Sustainable Development Zone" are both "allowable and encouraged". The emphasis of the Biosphere status is on promoting innovative approaches to sustainable development, so the question is essentially, is the development sustainable, in terms of its positive or negative effects on the environment, society and economy, taking account of the specific proposals and the site and position.
6.7.24 It is worth noting that there are no specifically planning policies which restrict development because of the UNESCO Biosphere status. However, It would appear from existing planning policies seeking to protect the environment/ecology etc (and other legislation within DEFA) are still in place to ensure the impacts to the most sensitive areas like the "Care & Core Zones" are still protected from development which causes harm, as well as sites within a "Sustainable Development Zone".

DRAINAGE/FLOODING.

6.8 The proposal includes a diversion of the existing surface water pipe which currently runs along the southern gable end wall of Bix House and runs across the application site to the woodland to the rear. The proposal is to divert this via an open drainage ditch which runs along the eastern and north boundaries of the site into the existing drainage ditches within the wooded area (where current surface water runs to) to the north of the site. Surface water is proposed to be accommodated with a new attenuation tank beneath the estate road which will have a control on the flow of collected surface water (hydro brake). Foul drainage will be connected into the existing Farmhill Grange development.

6.8.1 The site is not within High Flood Risk zone (River or Tidal) but there were initial comments from the Flood Management Division (DOI) in relation to the surface water flooding (1 in 100 year event). As mention above the sustainable drainage ditches are proposed. The scheme raises no flood risk to the new or existing properties.

6.8.2 Following initial concerns by the relevant drainage authorities the applicants provided additional information/plans, following discussions with the relevant parties (Manx Utilities, Flood Management Division (DOI), Highway Services Drainage (DOI). The altered drainage scheme has been acceptable by all drainage authorities and therefore it is considered from a drainage and flooding point of the view, the proposed application is acceptable.

- 7.0 SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENTS

7.1.1 The S13 agreement should provide details of a scheme for a long-term woodland management plan within the existing woodland area (TN1) as identified in the Manx Wildlife Trusts Preliminary Ecological Appraisal which is required for the site to achieve biodiversity net gain. An agreement will also be required to essentially forfeit the previous planning application (20/01531/B). The applicants have agreed the "heads of terms" of the two S13 agreements.
8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1.1 The proposed application requires a balanced decision, against the scheme is the amount of tree loss/biodiversity impacts, while the proposed application does provide mitigation, it is just that, mitigation. Further, objection from the Agriculture and Lands Directorate due to the removal of the individually rated category B trees is noted, following the approval of the Directorates new Tree Protection Policy. These factors go against the application.

8.1.2 However a balance needs to be taken and whether the positives of developing the site sufficient outweigh these concerns or not. In favour the site is designated for residential development, which is within Douglas which is the main settlement for housing, services, education, shops, employment & public transport and the most sustainable town on the IOM. The aims of the IOM Strategic Plan and the Area Plan for the East both promote sustainable developments which can utilise existing services and have good transport links. Clearly, therefore the principle of developing the site for residential development weight in favour of the application. There will be an impact upon neighbouring amenities compared to the current situation; and while the concerns of the neighbours are understandable, it is not consider the impacts of this proposal are so significant to warrant a refusal for the reason outlined within this report.

8.1.3 In conclusion; on balance, for the reasons indicated with this report it is concluded the proposals complies with the relevant planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, Residential Design Guide 2021 and the Area Plan for the East 2020 and therefore it is recommended the application is approved subject to conditions as listed and subject to a Section 13 Legal Agreements relating to long-term woodland management plan within the existing woodland area.

8.1.4 This recommendation is on basis that no public footpath is provided.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

(a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
(b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
(c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
(d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
(e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
(f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
(g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

9.2 The decision maker must determine:

o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status

9.3 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 can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it 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.

Decision Made : ………….... Committee Meeting Date:…09.05.2022

Signed :…………………………………….. 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.

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 09.05.2022

Application No

21/01540/B

Applicant Hartford Homes Proposal Erection of 6 residential dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping Site Address Bix House And Land To Rear Farmhill Lane Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2EB Principal Planner Presenting Officer Mr Chris Balmer

As above

Addendum to the Officer Report

The Planning Committee accepted the recommendation to approve the application subject to the additional condition:

C14. For the avoidance of doubt the woodland path as shown on drawings 178 & 172 REV B is not required to be undertaken. Reason: It has been judged the need for the path is not required in this instance.

DEC Officer Report

Source & Provenance