Loading document...
Case Officer: Miss Laura Davy Photo Taken: Site Visit: Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT.
1.1 The application site is a Plot of Land at Kames Court, Cronkbourne, Braddan. The piece of land is situated between Hollin Lane which is the highway to the west and Kames Court which is to the east. To the north of the application site is an area of Private Woodland which is in the same ownership as North Lodge. Kames Court which is a private dwelling is within the same ownership as the application site.
2.1 The application seeks approval in principle for residential development; the site would be accessed off Hollin Lane.
3.1 The previous applications relate to the erection of the dwellings at Tromode Woods. There have not been any previous applications on this site.
4.1 The application site is within an area zoned as "Woodland" and also within a wider area of "Predominantly Residential" identified on the Braddan Local Plan 1991. Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider Strategic Policy 1, Strategic Policy 2, General Policy 2, Environment Policy 3, Environment Policy 42 Housing Policy 4 and Housing Policy 6 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007).
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 space¹ and amenity standards; and
| Application No.: | 14/00847/A |
| Applicant: | Lady Helen Chrichton-Stuart |
| Proposal: | An application for approval in principle for residential development |
| Site Address: | Plot Of Land At Kames Court |
| To East Of Hollin Lane | |
| Cronkbourne | |
| Douglas | |
| Isle Of Man |
c) Being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.
New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate in sustainable urban extensions² of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.
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.
Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value.
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.
New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions¹ 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.
Development of land which is zoned for residential development must be undertaken in accordance with the brief in the relevant area plan, or, in the absence of a brief, in accordance with the criteria in paragraph 6.2 of this Plan. Briefs will encourage good and innovative design, and will not be needlessly prescriptive.
5.1 Braddan Commissioners (received 28th August 2014) commented that the amount of daylight would be low due to the number of trees in close proximity.
5.2 Highway Services of Department of Infrastructure (received 6th August 2014) do not oppose subject to no more than a total of 50 houses served from the main access. Visibility splays of metres must be provided. Nothing must be planted, erected or allowed to remain within the splay that exceeds 1m.
5.3 Arboricultural Officer of the Department of Environment Food and Agriculture (received 5th August 2014) has indicated that there could be up to eight trees affected as a result of the development. Three Sycamores are in a poor condition and could be removed completely. The Officer thinks that a residential development could be accommodated here without affecting the trees in the wider area of woodland to the north and south.
5.4 Further clarification was sought from the Arboricultural Officer of the Department of Environment Food and Agriculture (received 17th November 2014). The officer has reiterated comments sent previously but has clarified that the impact upon the trees would be determined by the siting and size of the building, but he felt that it might be possible to erect a dwelling in this area without direct damage to trees. He goes on to say that once a dwelling has been erected there could be pressure to remove trees in the woodland on grounds of shading/lack of daylight and safety, he felt that it is conceivable that new occupants could, once in residence, use trees and high hedges legislation to have trees lopped or removed or approach DEFA for permission to remove trees for safety reasons.
5.5 Manx Utilities Authority (received 27th August 2014) recommends that the applicant contact the Authority prior to the commencement of works to discuss an electricity supply.
5.6 The owner/occupier of 21 Hollin Lane, Tromode Woods (29th July 2014) objects to the application on the basis that the area is a nature corridor. Access into Hollin Lane would impact on the number of parking spaces in the lay-by and would endanger children on bikes. They feel that if planning were to go ahead it should be a single dwelling only and the access should be through the owners own land. They also have concerns regarding precedent.
5.7 The owners/occupiers of 41A Hollin Bank (received 13th August 2014), 36 Hollin Bank (received 5th August 2014) and 35 Hollin Bank (received 4th August 2014) have concerns regarding the access onto Hollin Lane in terms of safety and also its proximity to the "nature area" which is adjacent to the application site. They also note that the access to the site could be from Kames Court. They also object to the dropped kerb which has been installed on land which is not within the applicant's ownership.
5.8 The owner/occupier of 36 Hollin Bank has concerns regarding impact upon traffic in terms of congestion. They also have concern regarding the impact upon bats which they have sited in the area.
5.9 The owners/occupiers of 11 Hollin (received 6th August 2014) Lane and 17 Hollin Lane (received 13th August 2014) feel that a single dwelling would be more appropriate; they
object to the location of the entrance and feel that it is out of character having an access off this side of Hollin Lane. They also note that a dropped kerb has been installed without the appropriate planning approval.
5.10 The owners/occupiers of 17 Hollin Lane submitted a further letter (received 22nd October 2014) and reiterate the points raised in an earlier letter with regard to land ownership and access. They also feel that the dropped kerb should be removed and the land reinstated. Knowing that the plot of land cannot be accessed from Hollin Lane they feel that the approval even in principle should not be granted.
5.11 The owner/occupier of 12 Hollin Lane (received 8th August 2014) feels that the site is not suitable for three apartments, some land which has been identified as part of the site is not within the ownership of the applicant. They also have concerns regarding an increase in traffic flows which would be a danger to residents.
5.12 The owner/occupier of 18 Hollin Lane (received 14th August 2014) are concerned over the level of construction traffic, they feel that the development would pollute the area and damage and destroy habitats. They are concerned that the noise shielding currently provided by the woodland would be ripped down and would be irreparable. Their biggest concern is the long term visual impact upon the natural woodland. Their concern also relates to the increase in traffic and query why the access cannot be achieved through Kames Court. They also note that part of the site is not within the ownership of the applicant. They feel that the proposal would not fit with the surrounding area and that the development would be too large for its surroundings.
5.13 The owner/occupier of 18 Hollin Lane has submitted a further letter (received 22nd October 2014) and reiterate their original concerns particularly in relation to the loss of trees and that the development could result in the loss of a large amount of woodland due to the proximity of the development to the woodland. They feel that drawings/plans should be submitted to demonstrate the visual impact. They also note that part of the site is not within the ownership of the applicant and believe that this should be taken into consideration by the Planning Committee. They also have concerns regarding the lack of information and feel that different Departments of Government have been given different information. They also raise the issue over the access and whether the site can be accessed from Kames Court side, the access from Hollin Lane would bring with it noise, disruption and increased traffic flow. In conclusion they feel that the application should be rejected at this time.
5.14 The owner/occupier of 15 Hollin Lane (received 15th August 2014) feels that there is not enough room to retain the well which is at the entrance as well as providing an adequate vehicular entrance, would not be suitable for a development of this type due to the lack of light, the access on to Hollin Lane would also be unsuitable. They note that the WGS survey which has been submitted is not relevant as it was carried to show the boundary lines of another property. They also feel that it is not necessary for the access to be off Hollin Lane. Part of the site is not within the ownership of the applicant and the yellow notice has not been displayed properly.
5.15 The owner/occupier of 15 Hollin Lane has submitted a further letter (received 23rd October 2014) reiterating their previous concerns. The letter also includes minutes from Braddan Commissioners meeting where land ownership was discussed. The letter also includes information regarding access to the piece of land and indicates that access to the site is not from Hollin Lane.
5.16 The owner/occupier of 40 Hollin Bank (received 6th August 2014) has concerns regarding the additional traffic in that it would cause a highway safety hazard to existing residents. They also note that a dropped kerb has been installed without the relevant approvals.
5.17 The owner/occupier of North Lodge (received 12th August 2014) feels that the rural nature of their property was destroyed when Tromode Woods was constructed, the development allowed easy access in to their property. Planning allowed a road and row of houses to all overlook their property; this also blocks light to the property. They feel that any new housing development on the southern end of the garden would block out light and result in overlooking. The site is in an area of protected woodland and there are covenants on the land.
5.18 The owner/occupier of North Lodge has submitted a further letter (received 21st October 2014) indicating that they have spoken with the applicant prior to submitting the application but discussed the possibility of mews houses rather than a block of flats. They would prefer that planning did not give permission in principle so as to try and prevent the further destruction of Cronkbourne.
5.19 The owners/occupiers of 27 Brecken Bank (received 14th August 2014) and 16 Hollin Lane (14th August 2014) has concerns with the additional traffic generated by such a development, the junction/entry point and highway are already narrow with limited passing points. They also query the land ownership.
5.20 The owners/occupiers of 29 Brecken Bank (received 14th August 2014) and 38 Hollin Bank (received 15th August 2014) feel that the proposal would be out of keeping with the area, the removal of the trees would alter the landscape and atmosphere of the area. Increased traffic would detract from the nature of the "Tromode Woods" estate and would be dangerous for existing residents.
5.21 The owner/occupier of 3 Ballagarey Close who is also the owner of 23 Brecken Bank (received 13th August 2014) and the occupier of 23 Brecken Bank (14th August 2014) have concerns regarding highway safety as a result of additional traffic, on street parking and construction traffic. Additional traffic including construction traffic would result in further damage to Hollin Lane highway. Further noise would cause unreasonable distress to the local residents. They also feel that the proposal would not be in keeping in terms of the visual impact and the loss of trees would be harmful. They also query the land ownership.
5.22 The owner/occupier of Purt Ny Shee, 14 Hollin Lane (received 15th August 2014) feels that the development would be over intensive and would have a detrimental impact upon the natural environment. The proposal would result in an unnecessary burden on traffic flow and road safety for both children and other road users. They also note that part of the site is not within the ownership of the applicant and that the dropped kerb has been installed without the necessary planning approval.
5.23 The owner/occupier of Cronkbourne House (received 18th August 2014) feels that the development would have an adverse effect on their property and is also within close proximity to important buildings such as Cronkbourne House, The Old School House, North Lodge and Cronkbourne Village a number of which are Registered. The development would have an adverse effect on trees which form a visual boundary between Tromode Woods and Cronkbourne Village. Those trees shown to be retained on the tree survey would be permanently damaged as the development would impinge on the root system. The removal of the trees would affect the food chain, the woods provide habitat for protected species. They also suggest that the site may contain protected plant species. They note that the proposed access would be unsafe and that the proposal would result in noise, disturbance and loss of privacy to all residents in the area. They also feel that the proposed building would be too dark which would result in unsatisfactory living conditions for those occupying the property. They also comment on land ownership and covenants and that a dropped kerb has been installed.
5.24 The owner/occupier of Cronkbourne House has submitted a further letter (received 24th October 2014) reiterating their concerns as raised in their previous letter of objection. In summary the letter indicates that the applicant has made false representations regarding the boundaries and land ownership. The letter also raises concerns regarding the loss of trees and the impact upon wildlife as a result. There may be a harmful impact upon bats, they recommend a full survey be carried out this can be done between May and September. They also recommend that surveys be carried out by suitable specialists regarding wildlife, trees, plants and other species. The letter goes on in respect of the land ownership and suggests that the applicant does not own or control the access land which is shown as part of the application site. Until the applicant has ascertained the ownership and control they should not have submitted the application. The letter also mentions the restrictive covenant and that they have not given permission for the development. The covenant relates to the land that is the application site. The letter also includes concerns about all the opinions of Government Departments and Authorities are not available on file. They also question whether Highway Services have been out on site at the busiest times when there is likely to be an issue. They feel that the comments in the letter by the Agent regarding Highways must be disclosed. They feel that the application is flawed in principle.
5.25 The owner/occupier of 25 Brecken Bank (15th August 2014) feels that the proposal would create a potentially hazardous junction on to Hollin Lane and would be more practical for access to be via Kames Court.
5.26 Hartford Homes (received 30th July 2013) have queried the land ownership and note that the applicant has not sought permission to cross the land owned by Hartford Homes and therefore the Land Ownership Certificate is not correct.
5.27 Hartford Homes have sent in a further letter (received 24th October 2014) regarding land ownership. They have included a letter from their advocate's stating that part of the site outlined in red is within Hartford Homes' ownership and the Department should be instructed to reinstate the curb which has been installed on Hartford Homes' land.
5.28 The owner/occupier of 15 Hollin Bank, Tromode Woods have sent a further letter (received 29th December 2014) regarding land ownership. An amended land ownership certificate has been submitted, but they note that this is still incorrect.
5.29 The owner/occupier of 35 Hollin Bank, Tromode Woods have sent an email (received 20th December 2014) regarding highways issues. They feel that the proposed entrance/exit would be dangerous and an entrance from the Kames Court area would be less problematic and would allow for safer access and reduce congestion.
6.1 The application seeks approval in principle for residential development of the site. The main issues to consider in the assessment of the application are the principle of the development, the impact upon the woodland and public amenity, the impact upon the private amenity, impact upon highway safety and parking.
6.2 The application site is within an area identified as an area of "Predominantly Residential" and "Woodland". While there is a presumption in favour of residential development in predominantly residential areas, the site is also within an area of Woodland. Environment Policy 3 indicates that development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas.
6.3 The site is fairly narrow, 16.9m at its widest part and 12m at its narrowest. The site is approximately 43m in length. There are approximately 8 mature trees on site, a mixture of
Sycamore and Ash. The Forester has attended the site and has indicated that there is a diseased Sycamore, two Ash which are in good condition, three Sycamore which are in good condition and two Sycamore in poor condition.
6.4 The Agent has suggested that three trees are to be removed the two poor Sycamores and the one diseased Sycamore. The trees which would remain on site have large canopy spreads and it may be difficult to site a structure on site without damage to the tree canopies and root systems. The development would lead to pruning of the remaining trees and the removal of lower branches. The usually accepted means of protecting trees during development and that advocated generally in BS 5837:2012 is to erect protective fencing beneath the canopy spread, thus providing an area in which no excavation, storage or parking may be undertaken and thus protecting not only the branches, but more importantly the root spread which is often commensurate with the canopy spread. In this case the canopy spread, as indicated in the survey drawing, would not enable these guidelines to be accorded with and as such there is nothing in the application which gives comfort in respect of concerns regarding the protection of the trees during development.
6.5 While the site is identified as being within a Predominantly Residential area it is also within an area of Woodland. The proposal would result in the loss of three trees but the Forester indicates that these are in poor condition and there would be some pruning carried out to the remaining trees. While the removal of the three trees which are in poor condition and the pruning of the remaining trees may not be classed as unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland it is considered that residential development would significantly alter the character and appearance of the site by introducing development into an area which is at present undeveloped and is separated from the other areas of development in close proximity to the site.
6.6 The Forester for the Department of Environment Food and Agriculture has indicated that it might be possible for a dwelling to be accommodated on site without direct damage to trees, but the occupiers of the property could approach DEFA to seek removal of the trees post-construction due to daylight or safety.
6.7 Given the position of the trees on site and the trees on the adjacent land there is concern that the development of the site could impact upon the woodland during the post-construction phase.
6.8 The site is to the eastern side of Hollin Lane which is part of the Tromode Woods residential estate. Tromode Woods is characterised as the name suggests by a large area of woodland to the east of Hollin Lane and to the rear of the properties along Brecken Bank, the woodland to the rear of Brecken Bank extends up to the boundary of Cronkbourne House.
6.9 The area of woodland is a valuable open space which provides an area of breathing space between the Tromode Woods residential development and Kames Court, Cronkbourne Place and Cronkbourne House. The development of this site would result in the loss of this private open space and would result in a visual connection between the two separate built areas.
6.10 Strategic Policy 1 and Strategic Policy 2 encourage development to make best use of resources and be located primarily within existing towns and villages or where appropriate in sustainable urban extensions.
6.11 There is an argument that the proposal would make use of unused land within an area of built development, however, this has to be weighed against the impact upon the character and appearance of the site and area in general.
6.12 On balance it is considered that the proposed development would have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the site by introducing built development in an area
which currently provides an area of green space which contributes to the character of the area in general.
6.13 The site is a sufficient distance from the neighbouring properties; it is considered that a residential property could be accommodated on site without having an adverse impact upon the amenities of neighbouring properties.
6.14 In terms of the amenity in itself it is considered that a residential property could be accommodated on site with adequate amenity space for refuse storage, clothes drying, parking and could be sited so as not to be overlooked.
6.15 The site is in an area of woodland and therefore the proximity of the trees to the property is a concern. Given the limited size of the site it is considered that any proposed residential property would be within the canopy spread of the remaining trees which would limit the level of daylight to the property and would also be within falling distance of any residential property. If the remainder of the trees were to be removed as a result of the proposed development it is judged that the proposal would have an unacceptable loss and damage to the area of woodland.
6.16 Highway Services do not oppose provided that sufficient visibility splays can be accommodated and no planting or objects are placed within the visibility splays.
6.17 While there is a case for making use of unused and under-used land, this can only where it would not be to the detriment of the visual amenity of the area and where such a proposal would not be contrary to the policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. On balance it is considered that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact upon the area of woodland and would significantly alter the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
6.18 For the above reasons the application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for refusal.
7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
7.2 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
7.3 In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
7.4 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
7.5 In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
There have been a number of objections received since writing the report from the following:
All of these parties have written in previously and have all been granted interested person status.
Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 05.01.2015 Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
R 1. Whilst not designated as such, the proposed development would result in the introduction of built development within an area of woodland. The intrusion of development would have a harmful impact upon the open character of the area which would be contrary to General Policy 2 part c), part f) and part g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
R 2. It has not been adequately demonstrated that the trees shown as being retained could be successfully protected during or after the development and as such the proposed development is likely to result in an unacceptable loss of or damage to the woodland which would be contrary to Environment Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : R.1.2014. Committee Meeting Date : 12/01/15 Signed : [Handwritten signature] 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
View as Markdown