Bibaloe Moar Farm Whitebridge Hill Onchan Isle Of Man IM4 5AE
Case Officer:
Mr Ian Brooks
Photo Taken:
Site Visit:
Expected Decision Level:
Planning Committee
Officer's Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL MANAGER
Site
The application site comprises the farm holding of Bibaloe Moar Farm, which is access off Whitebridge Hill. Under the Onchan Local Plan Order 2000 the application site is within an area of land designated as open space.
Proposed Development
This application is seeking permission to alter an existing vehicular access onto Whitebridge Hill.
The development will involve removing a section of banking and constructing new banking approximately 5m back from the carriageway of Whitebridge Hill to the north and south of the access, which will taper back towards the edge of the carriageway. The development will see the removal of nine trees, which will be replaced with 20 new trees along the top of the bank to the north of the access alterations. A grass verge will be created between the banking and the main carriageway.
Planning Status And Relevant Policies
Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application: General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and 2, Transport 4
Environment Policy 1 states that "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."
Planning Circular 1/2000, which constitutes the written statement to be read in association with the local plan, contains a policy that is considered material to the assessment of the planning application:
Policy O/NC/P/5 states:
"With the exception of the felling of trees planted for commercial purposes, there will be a general presumption against the removal of trees within the study area where this is proposed in order to facilitate development."
Planning History
There has been a previous application on the site, which is considered relevant in the determination of the application. This is as follows:
06/01824/A – Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling and two garages – refused at appeal on 21.03.2007
Representations
Onchan District Commissioners have recommended that the application be approved.
Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure do not oppose the application
The occupier of Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold has made the following comments:
"This is obviously a lethal access at the moment and one feels concerned about it every time we pass it driving into Douglas!
It clearly needs attention but it is a pity that so many tree need to be felled.
We are at a loss to think how it can be avoided, short of, perhaps re-siting the access at some totally different part of the farm and closing this one to all but pedestrians?"
Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority have advised that "The proposed tree planting on the land at Whitebridge is not a problem in relation to the water main. As part of the Onchan to Laxey mains laying scheme we have already diverted the water main in the area of the entrance in order to facilitate the entrance improvement and visibility splay."
The Forestry, Amenity & Lands Directorate of the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) have indicated that:
"1. The roadside trees are mature and hold amenity value
We understand that the corner is blind and this is a potentially very dangerous stretch of road. We therefore have some sympathy with the reason for the planning application.
Mr Penn was reluctant to follow our advice to replant at the ratio of 10:1 (approximately 100 trees) preferring to plant many of the replacement trees around the house about a quarter of a mile away. We do not agree with this. His wish to plant away from the site of tree loss is, presumably, because he doesn't want to impinge on the field which is used by the farmer.
We feel that all replanting (approx 100 trees – whip size 30-45cm at 2m x 2m spacing in the form of a small woods scheme) should be located as near the site of tree loss as possible (i.e. not 20 at the site and the rest far away around the house but all 100 trees up near the main road)."
However, In light of further discussion with the applicant and the Water and Sewerage Authority, they have now stated the following:
"Unfortunately, given the location of the second easement and the 6 metre exclusion zone required it will not be possible to plant a small copse trees in the vicinity of tree loss as I had originally hoped.
If the Planning Committee approve Mrs Penn's application I would therefore suggest:
Following the reinstated hedge line, plant at equal spacing 20 standard trees of the following species: oak (7) beech (6) and lime (7).
The trees should be container grown, size approx 6-8ft. Pit planting is recommended with staking at 2ft above ground level and the attachment of a flexible spiral rabbit guard to each tree.
Aftercare. In order to ensure successful establishment the vegetation round the base of each tree should be treated with herbicide (glyphosate/Round-Up) in Apri each year for the first 5 years. Ties attaching the stakes to the trees should be gradually loosened as the trees grow with a view to eventually removing the support. Any losses should be replaced.
This replacement planting would be in the ration of 2:1 (i.e. 10 mature trees are likely to be lost to the scheme) rather than 10:1 as originally envisaged. However, the reduction in numbers is offset by the increased size of the trees at planting."
ASSESSMENT
There are only two key issues which need to be considered when assessing this application. These are 1) the impact on highway safety and 2) the impact on the visual amenities of the locality.
In respect of highway safety, the existing access is onto Whitebridge Hill. This section of Whitebridge Hill is within a 40mph speed limit. The visibility from the existing access is very poor. The proposed works will considerably improve the visibility of the access onto Whitebridge Hill. It is considered the proposed works would improve highway safety.
However, the proposed works come at a considerable environmental cost, i.e. the loss of mature trees and a significant section of sod banking. The general character of Whitebridge Hill is a tree lined section of road with vertical edged sod banks. This proposal will result in the removal a substantial section of vertical edge sod banking and create a 45 degree angle bank with grass verge between grassed bank and the main carriageway. The proposed works could look out of character with the locality and could be a semi-urban feature. If this was a new access, the highways authority would have required a 2m by 120m visibility splay. The proposed visibility splay to the north will be in excess of 74m, when measured over the proposed grass verge. The proposed visibility splay to the south will be 33m, when measured over the proposed grass verge.
The proposal will result in the significant lost of mature trees, which is also contrary to Policy O/NC/P/5 of the Onchan Local Plan. On the 6th February 2012, the Planning Committee saw a tree planting scheme, which included 20 new trees to the north of the access alterations and 50 additional trees to create a coppice to the south of the access alterations. However, due to further discussions between the applicant's, DEFA, and the Water & Sewerage Authority, the tree planting scheme has been revised to exclude the 50 tree coppice.
It is now the opinion of officer's that the application cannot be regarded to be proposing a substantial landscaping scheme to mitigate the loss of the mature trees, as previously reported to Members. However, it should be noted the proposed tree planting scheme is now based on a 2:1 ratio. It is considered the application is now very finely balanced. However, subject to a condition requiring the landscaping works be carried out, it is considered the proposed works in the longer term will not have a detrimental effect on the visual amenities of the locality and that this change is in part offset by the significant
improvement in road safety brought about by the increase in visibility for and of those using the access.
Recommendation
It is recommended that planning permission be granted subject to conditions.
Party Status
The local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.
The Highways Division is part of the Department of Infrastructure of which the planning authority is part of. As such, the Highways Division cannot be afforded party status in this instance.
The occupiers of Glebe Cottage, Kirk Maughold are a significant distance away from the application site and do not have sufficient interest in the application site, as such they should not be afforded party status in this instance.
The Forestry, Amenity & Lands Directorate of the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (DEFA) and the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority have commented on planning matters and therefore should be afforded party status.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted
Date of Recommendation: 27.03.2012
Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
: Notes attached to refusals
C 1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
C 2. This permission relates to alterations to existing vehicular access as shown in drawing numbers P-2_1 Rev A date stamped 16th January 2012 and P-2 Rev B date stamped 12th March 2012.
C 3. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the Town and Country (Development Procedure) 2005
Decision Made : ... Committee Meeting Date : ...
Signed : ... Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate YES/NO
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
