department of environment food and agriculture€¦ · care & homestay business (retrospective)...

1

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 TOWN AND COUNTRY (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) (No2) ORDER 2013 and the

TOWN AND COUNTRY (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2019

Agenda for a meeting of the Planning Committee, 2nd March 2020, 10.00am, in the Ground Floor Meeting Room of Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas

1. Introduction by the Chairman

2. Apologies for absence

3. MinutesTo give consideration to the minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 17th

February 2020.

4. Any matters arising

5. To consider and determine Planning ApplicationsSchedule attached as Appendix One.

6. Site VisitsTo agree dates for site visits if necessary.

7. Any other business

8. Next meeting of the Planning CommitteeSet for 16th March 2020.

2

Appendix One PLANNING COMMITTEE Meeting, 2nd March 2020

Schedule of planning applications

Item 5.1 Berwyn South Cape Laxey IM4 7JA PA18/00979/B Recommendation : Permitted

Erection of a replacement detached dwelling with integral garage

Item 5.2 Field 434021 And 434031 Corner Of Douglas Road And Victoria Road Castletown PA18/00524/B Recommendation : Approve subject to Legal Agreement

Erection of 96 dwellings with associated roads, car parking and landscaping

Item 5.3 Field 432808 Land Adjacent To Malew Church Great Meadow Malew Road Castletown PA19/00143/B Recommendation : Permitted

Creation of an extension to existing cemetery with associated accesses

Item 5.4 Garage And Adjoining Land Between Former Wool Control Centre & 41 Peel Road Peel Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 4LX PA19/01222/B Recommendation : Permitted

Erection of two apartment blocks to provide 66 residential apartments with associated car parking, landscaping and drainage infrastructure

Item 5.5 Athol Park Guest House Athol Park Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6EX PA19/01284/C Recommendation : Permitted

Additional use of guest house as a restaurant

Item 5.6 4 Park Close Glen Vine Isle Of Man IM4 4HB PA19/01416/B Recommendation : Permitted

Alterations, erection of a first floor extension, erection of a two storey extension, relocation of existing conservatory and extension of decking

Item 5.7 Hillingford Jurby Road Ramsey IM8 3PL PA19/01428/B Recommendation : Permitted

Erection of summerhouse (retrospective)

Item 5.8 Ballacain Cottage Lhagg Road Dalby IM5 3BU PA19/01441/B Recommendation : Permitted

Erection of replacement dwelling

3

Item 5.9 Rockville Main Road Crosby Isle Of Man IM4 2DW PA19/01194/B Recommendation : Permitted

External and internal alterations to barn, additional use of dwelling as a dog day care & homestay business (retrospective) and alterations to existing vehicular access to improve visibility

Item 5.10 Field 312862 Main Road St Johns IM4 3LU PA19/01209/B Recommendation : Permitted

Creation of new access, including footpath, wall and gates

Item 5.11 Barrule Cottage Bride Road Ramsey IM7 4AB PA19/01229/B Recommendation : Permitted

Erection of a proposed replacement dwelling with attached car port / workshop and garden store

Item 5.12 Tethers End 12 River Walk Braddan Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 4TJ PA19/01320/C Recommendation : Permitted

Additional use of one room within property as office (class 2)

Item 5.13 Bank Station Road Ballasalla IM9 2DD PA19/01328/C Recommendation : Permitted

Change of use of former bank to Children's Soft and Sensory Play Centre

Item 5.14 Rhenny Mooar Farm Rhenny Mooar Lane Greeba Isle Of Man IM4 2DT PA19/01336/B Recommendation : Permitted

Removal of condition 11 of PA 38876, Conversion of barn to farm dwelling, regarding agricultural workers occupancy

Item 5.15 Corlett Sons And Cowley Yard Main Road Union Mills Isle Of Man IM4 4AD PA19/01333/B Recommendation : Permitted

Erection of a detached agricultural / industrial storage building

Item 5.16 Kennaa Farm Kennaa Road St Johns IM4 3LW PA19/01338/C Recommendation : Permitted

Additional use of warehouse as a gym

4

Item 5.17 Hillside Cottage Ballaoates Road Castleward Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 5EJ PA19/01383/B Recommendation : Permitted

Erection of a replacement dwelling with associated curtilage and vehicular access

Item 5.18 Field 314107 Land At Ballanayre Ramsey Road Peel Isle Of Man PA19/01384/B Recommendation : Permitted

Removal of two shipping containers (retrospective) and erection of a detached maintenance building to store equipment, materials and animal food stuffs

Item 5.19 Trollaby Farm Trollaby Lane Union Mills Isle Of Man IM4 4AW PA19/01443/B Recommendation : Permitted

Erection of an agricultural barn

Item 5.20 3 Myrtle Street Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 1ED PA20/00027/C Recommendation : Permitted

Change of use from office to residential dwelling

Item 5.21 Dreemlang Staarvey Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 2AJ PA20/00028/B Recommendation : Permitted

Erection of replacement dwelling, detached triple garage and extension to existing tholtan

Item 5.22 Lower Skerrisdale Farm Peel Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 1HP PA20/00055/B Recommendation : Permitted

Siting of a caravan / motorhome to be used as living accommodation for a period of 18 months whilst converting a barn to a residential dwelling (PA 19/00773/B)

5

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 2nd March 2020

Item 5.1 Proposal : Erection of a replacement detached dwelling with integral

garage Site Address : Berwyn

South Cape Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7JA

Applicant : Mr & Mrs Colin Rushmere Application No. : Principal Planner :

18/00979/B- click to view Mr Chris Balmer

RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application

______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling the garage, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety. C 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area. C 4. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. C 5. No development shall commence until a bat survey has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The bat survey shall identify impacts on bat species together with mitigation, where appropriate, including a timetable for its implementation. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the bats.

https://www.gov.im/planningapplication/services/planning/planningapplicationdetails.iom?ApplicationReferenceNumber=18/00979/B

6

C 6. No development shall commence until written details/plan/s are submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority which outline how the existing hedgerows are to be protected during the construction period and retained thereafter. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development and provide usable habitat for the Dark Bush Crickets which are Crickets which are a Schedule 5 species, protected under the Wildlife Act 1990. N 1. The applicants are highly recommended to have continual dialogue with IOM Railways (Department of Infrastructure - IOM Transport) to ensure the development can be undertaken while not impacting the structural stability of the railway embankment and from a health and safety prospective. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) It is considered the proposal would comply with the relevant polices of the IOMSP and the Laxey & Lonan Local Plan and therefore the application is recommended for an approval. The site already has a single dwelling on the site and this proposal is to replace it with a new single dwelling (rather than multi dwellings) and the application site is located within an area designated for residential use under the Laxey and Lonan Plan. Whilst the new dwelling would increase the level of development on the site over the current situation it would introduce a new form of development, and would result in a new dwelling more apparent from public views. It is not considered the proposal would have a significant adverse impact to the visual amenities of the area to warrant a refusal and would comply with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 36. It is not considered the proposal would have any more of an impact than the existing dwelling in terms of highway impacts, and given the improvements enlarging the driveway and increasing the potential for turning provision the proposal would be an improvement over the current situation. Whilst the proposal would increase the level of development and have a greater level of potential/perception of overlooking than the existing, it is not considered the impacts would be so significant to warrant a refusal.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons 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 6(4): Owners/occupiers of Corley Rock Cottage, South Cape, Laxey Owners/occupiers of Spyrryd-Ny-Marrey, Old Laxey Hill, Laxey Owners/occupiers of Seacliffe, South Cape, Laxey Owner/occupier of Thornycroft, South Cape, Laxey As they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). 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 Transport Services Division

7

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 6(4): Manx National Heritage 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. Owners/occupiers of Palma, Old Laxey Hill, Laxey Owner/occupier of Uplands, South Cape, Laxey Owners/occupiers of Cape Cottage, Old School Hill, Laxey 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.

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS INCLUDING THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND HIGHWAYS SERVICES AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 0.0 PREAMBLE 0.1 Further to the Planning Committee meeting on the 17th February 2020, the Planning Committee sough additional views from Manx Utilities as well as undertaking a site visit. In terms of comments from Manx Utilities these have been added to the report within paragraph 5.13. Further, additional comments where received by the owners/occupiers of Spyrryd Ny Marrey and these have been added within paragraph 5.7 of this report. No other changes have been made to the Planning Committee Report. 1.0 APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Berwyn, South Cape Laxey. The property is accessed off the Laxey New Road via a laneway called Old School Hill. 1.2 The dwellinghouse sits much lower than the New Road and is a single storey dwellinghouse, located between Old School Hill to the northwest and the MER railway track to the east. From New Road only the ridge line and the chimney stack are visible when passing the site, albeit when immediately adjacent to the north-western roadside boundary of the site, the full extent of the bungalow is apparent when looking downwards. Within the curtilage is a large glasshouse and a flat roofed detached garage both of which are located to the north east of the main dwelling. 1.3 The MER railway tracks to the east of the site are the boundary edge of the Laxey Conservation area and for clarity the tracks are within the Conservation Area. From the application site it is the rear of the properties along Old Laxey Hill that are visible, namely properties "Pendart" and "Palma" being 20m-30m away from the application site and at a lower level from the application site. To the north/northwest of the site, the nearest property is "Corley Rock Cottage" and "Seacliff", approx. 10m away. To the southwest of the site is the property "Greystones" which shares a mature evergreen hedge on the boundary

8

approximately 1.2m high. To the northeast of the site is the Halt Junction of the railway line and to the west across the New Road is "Thornycroft" which due to the topography of the area (i.e. hillside) its floor level of this dwelling is set above the road level and that of the existing roof ridge of Berwyn. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the existing dwellinghouse and detached garage/greenhouse and the erection of a single detached dwelling including the retention of the existing access. The new dwellinghouse is characterised by its being mainly three storeys in height (approx. two thirds) whilst the remainder being two storeys (remainder third) the east elevation being made up of large amounts of glazing with a single terrace with glass balustrades at first floor level. The new dwelling is to be finished with a render and painted white and pillar sections of Manx stonework all under a shallow curved roof finished with a standing seam roof system in dark grey colour. 2.3 The dwelling would have an overall width of 21m, a depth of between 7.5m and 10.2m and a height between 10m and 7.5m (north east elevation). The new dwelling would accommodate four bedrooms (two at lower ground floor and two at first floor) each with their own en-suites/dressing rooms. The main living spaces (lounge/dining and family/kitchen rooms) would be located at ground floor level which have access onto the terrace to the east elevation (rear). At lower ground floor level there is also a integral double garage which access onto the new enlarged driveway (formerly where greenhouse and detached garage were located) which connects to existing access. A new pedestrian gate would be created along the northern boundary of the site, while the existing pedestrian gate nearby would be blocked up. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The application site has been the subject of the following previous planning application which is considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: 3.2 Replacement of existing dwelling with two detached dwellings including adjustment of existing access - 16/01312/B - This application was refused contrary to Officer recommendation by the Planning Committee who refused the application on the following grounds: "1. It is considered that the proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 (b) and (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan as the height of the proposal, and the net increase in the number dwellings on the site, are considered to be an overdevelopment of the site which would be harmful to the character of the locality. 2. It is considered the proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 (g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan as the height of the proposal, proposed inclusion of balconies and the proximity to nearby properties would result in both perceived and actual overlooking. 3. It is considered that the proposal is contrary to Strategic Policy 10 (d) and General Policy 2 (h) & (i) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan as the proposed pedestrian access would be onto Old School Hill the gradient and narrowness of which would discourage future occupants from walking, and the existing pedestrian usage of Old School Hill would be adversely affected due to the increase in the number of vehicles using the road and the partial loss of an existing handrail. 4. It is considered that the proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 (h) & (i) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan due to the proposed use of an access/egress from Old School Hill and also due to the resulting increase in the number of vehicles accessing Laxey New Road from Old School Hill."

9

4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES 4.1 In terms of land use designation the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as predominantly residential use under the Laxey and Lonan Plan and the Draft Area Plan for the East. The site is not specifically mentioned in the Laxey Area Plan written statement 2005. 4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains a number of policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. 4.3 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 underused 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." 4.4 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions (2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." 4.5 Spatial Policy 3 states: "The following villages are identified as Service Villages: o Laxey o Jurby o Andreas o Kirk Michael o St Johns o Foxdale o Port St Mary o Ballasalla o Union Mills Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such villages so as to maintain and where appropriate increase employment opportunities. Housing should be provided to meet local needs and in appropriate cases to broaden the choice of location of housing." 4.6 Strategic Policy 10 states: New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement 4.7 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;

10

(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." 4.8 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." 4.9 Transport Policy 3 states: "New development on or around existing and former rail routes should not compromise their attraction as a tourism and leisure facility or their potential as public transport routes, or cycle / leisure footpath routes." 4.10 Environment Policy 36 states; "Where development is proposed outside of, but close to, the boundary of a Conservation Area, this will only be permitted where it will not detrimentally effect important views into and out of the Conservation Area". 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Firstly it should be noted that the application has been amended since the original application was made. Accordingly, there have been multiply comments made by a number of parties. It should be noted that allow comments received after the 23th August 2019 relate to the amended scheme which is under consideration now. It should also be noted the full extracts on all representations received can be viewed online via the Planning Web site. 5.2 Garff Parish Commissioners have objected on the following grounds: (10/10/18) "Several Members expressed very strong concerns about these proposals, particularly the size and scope of the building and the increased impact of the dwelling on this area of the village. One Member indicated appreciation of the design, but acknowledged that this was a subjective matter. It was noted that the architect had referred to the design as being 'urban' in character and it was generally felt that such a radical design would be more appropriately sited in a developed urban environment rather than a village environment such as at South Cape; where it would be very much out of character. Several members noted that the design was contrary to the intention of General Policy 2 which seeks to protect such areas from inappropriate development; it was felt that the impact of this urban design on the character of the locality would be much too significant to warrant the setting aside of the relevant criteria in this policy." (19/10/18) "Members wish to make further comments to those submitted previously on this application (Previous submission dated 10th of October 2018).

11

At a meeting of the Commissioners held on the 17th of October 2018 the Board undertook further consideration of the proposals. Members wish to reiterate the comments made in the submission dated 10th of October 2018, but wish to add the following additional concerns: o The potential increase in traffic movements resulting from the likely increase in occupation of the much larger proposed dwelling. o They feel that the parking arrangements are inadequate. o The difficulties of access to the property onto Old School Hill, and the difficulties of access from Old School Hill onto both New Road and Old Laxey Hill. These concerns are additional to the concerns regarding the appropriateness of the design in this village setting and the consequent negative impact on the character of the area. As a consequence a vote was taken, the outcome of which was a significant majority in favour of the resolution that a firm statement of objection be lodged to the proposals contained in this application. The Commissioners object to the proposals in this application." (10/09/2019 - Amended Plans) "Members agreed that the amendments were very minor, and do not the setting aside of the two sets of comments they submitted towards this application dated the 10th of October 2019 & the 19th of October 2019 (copies of both documents are online on the Planning Portal and also submitted as attachments with this submission). The Commissioners object to the proposals on the grounds of the unsuitability of Old School Hill as a means of access, the difficulty of entering the property from Old School Hill into the proposed parking areas, the likelihood that the enlarged dwelling would generate additional traffic on an unsatisfactory highway, the additional traffic movements at the junction of Old School Hill with the arterial A18 (New Road), the efficacy of on-site parking provision, and the visual impact of the proposed building which is appropriately suited to a city/town/urban setting, but is out of character with Laxey Village. It would also dominate views from across the Conservation Area in contradiction of the relevant Planning Policy outlined in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan." 5.2 Highways Services make the following comment: (24/01/20 - Amended plans) "A previous highway response was made on 11th October 2018 whereby it was recommended to defer the application pending the requirement for further information in relation to driveway levels and confirmation of details of vehicular access improvements. Revised plans have been provided which indicate the changes to driveway levels and confirmation that the existing access junction with the highway would be maintained but not improved. The existing driveway between the junction with the highway and the existing garage is 1 in 5.7 but the proposals now indicate that the lengthened driveway would have an overall gradient of 1 in 16.8 which would be acceptable. The revised proposals are now acceptable and there is no highway objection to the proposals. Recommendation: DNO" 5.3 Department of Infrastructure Transport Services Division has commented:

12

(21/09/18) "For the applicant to agree construction methods with public transport prior to works commencing to ensure access and safety issues in connection with the Railway line are resolved." (10/09/19) Seek the original note (above) be included in the amended application. 5.4 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Officer makes the following comments: (24/09/19) "We have multiple records of Dark Bush Crickets across the site. Dark Bush Crickets are a protected species listed under Schedule 5 of the Wildlife Act 1990. It is an offence to intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild animal listed in Schedule 5, or damage or destroy any structure or place which they use for shelter or protection. Dark Bush Crickets are associated with scrub and hedges and females lay their eggs in late summer within rotting wood, dead branches or bark crevices. There is potential for disturbance of this species during the proposed works as the new property has a larger footprint then the existing property and looks to be built over an area of scrubby vegetation within the garden. I request the following planning condition; "Any vegetation removal needed to facilitate the development be limited to that which is required to place the property and all other scrub and hedge on site, including the entirety of the hedges along the east and southern edges of the property, be protected during the work. Any vegetation and dead or rotting wood to be cut or moved should be retained on site and placed alongside a hedge, as it could contain the eggs for the next generation. Reason: To protect Dark Bush Crickets which are a Schedule 5 species, protected under the Wildlife Act 1990" 5.5 Manx National Heritage makes the following comments: (12/09/19) "We would like to highlight the potential for the presence of bats at the site, which are likely to require consideration, and if found to be present, liaison and possible licencing from DEFA. Records from the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) Atlas Isle of Man show that several species of bat have been recorded in the local area, including common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), brown long-eared (Plecotus auritus), Daubentons (Myotis daubentoni) and Leisler's (Nyctalus leisleri) bats. It should be noted that bats are generally under-recorded so lack of records for some species does not equate to absence. The site may provide suitable roosting niches for bat species. As such, we recommend that an assessment of the site for its potential use by bats is undertaken by a suitably licensed and experienced ecologist. A suitably qualified and experienced ecologist should assess the potential of the buildings and trees to support bats and advise on any further survey requirements, as well as providing practical advice on avoidance measures, and where required, mitigation in consultation with DEFA. We trust that the above remarks will be useful to the Department." 5.6 Owners/occupiers of Seacliffe, South Cape, Laxey have objected to the application which can be summarised as: (23/09/18) - the build constitutes a grossly over intensive development of the site; contrary to GP2b as it does not respect the scale, form or design of the surrounding spaces or dwellings; twice the size of existing building in height and footprint; adversely affects the character of the surrounding landscape (contrary to GPc) as it out of character and will overshadow and dominate the other properties on Old School Hill; Impact upon traffic due to

13

narrowness and very steep; The dwelling will totally dominate the outlook from Seacliffe as due to size and height this will totally obliterate the current sea outlook over the existing property; and consider the proposal should be refused on the same grounds as last application as it is very similar in terms of footprint and height to the original proposal for two dwellings. (28/08/2019 & 29/08/19) - Continue to object to application (amended) for same reasons indicated previously. 5.7 Owners/occupiers of Spyrryd-Ny-Marrey, Old Laxey Hill, Laxey have objected to the application which can be summarised as: (26/09/18) - Our properties are only separated by a thin strip of land forming the MER lines; proposal would be harmful to the character of the neighbourhood in which we live; dominate the skyline and surrounding houses, and create overlooking into nearby homes; proposed 3 storey building replacing a single storey building adjacent to a Conservation Area will block public views of the sea and views into and out of the Conservation Area; Fails PPS 1/01 CA/2 as it does not respond sensitively to local context; Dwellings along Old School Hill are mainly of traditional design and smaller in size; loss of light during evenings; loss of privacy from balcony and floor to ceiling windows would result in a massive intrusion into the privacy of garden; and even with the reduction of dwellings there appears no reasons for departure from the original decision (previous application) as the site is still being maximised with one large building instead of two and therefore is still overdevelopment, height of proposal, character of locality and overlooking all against GP2 of the IOMSP. (16/09/19) - Changes are only minor and do not address our previous objections (above). (19/09/19 & 24/09/19 - amended plans) - Comment that the sightline drawing 18/2684/08A is not an accurate representation of the topography of our garden. (12/02/20) - The report does not mention overlooking from the outside terrace of the proposed development; and report acknowledges overlooking from the upper floor but says ths level serves bedrooms only, it is not possible to regulate how the rooms will be used and not possible what they will look at. 5.8 Owner/occupier of Uplands, South Cape, Laxey have objected to the application which can be summarised as: (07/10/18) - out of character for the surrounding area which consist of traditional Manx Cottages; our living room is upstairs with a direct view down School Hill and provides a spectacular sea view, part of beach, harbour & lighthouses which will be obstructed by proposal; and Construction concerns due to noise and large machinery using Old School Hill. 5.9 Owners/occupiers of Palma, Old Laxey Hill, Laxey have objected to the application which can be summarised as: (07/10/18) - the proposed development looks gigantic compared to the surrounding buildings; not in keeping; ruin the quaint atmosphere of this side of Laxey; gross over development and completely unsympathetic to the rest of the neighbourhood. (24/09/19 - amended plans) - the updates plans have little evidence of any significant improvement to impacts that the planned dwelling would have to the neighbourhood; we continue to object. 5.10 Owners/occupiers of Cape Cottage, Old School Hill, Laxey have objected to the application which can be summarised as: (11/10/19) - the reduction in footprint over previous scheme is only marginal and for the locale, the build size and height remains excessive; proposal is not sympathetic to the area or the abounding Conservation Area; the area is made up or single and two storey buildings and

14

this proposal is disproportionate to all the other buildings in the immediate area and indeed to the Conservation Area just below it; The terms of reference for the height is based on the properties along New Road rather than Old School Hill properties; overlooking over surrounding properties; design and materials are hostile to the character and landscape and the building resemblance is more to that of an industrial or commercial structure; and overall it is an over intensive development of the site and contrary to strategic policies and would set a unacceptable precedent for the future rebuilds in this unique area. (17/09/19 - amended plans) - The amendments are marginal and show no significant change; previous comments remain seek Interested Person Status. 5.11 Owner/occupier of Thornycroft, South Cape, Laxey have objected to the application which can be summarised as: (12/10/18) - same concerns as with previous application; proposal would overlook into our property; dangers associate with the construction of the proposal and impact on traffic flows/parking issues; and the design is completely out of keeping with surrounding properties and will change our view and natural light considerably. 5.12 Owners/occupiers of Corley Rock Cottage, South Cape, Laxey have objected to the application which can be summarised as: (18/10/18) - Seek Interested Person Status as previously; comments our objections in the main previously remain with new proposal; the size, scale and mass remain almost the same, with a very marginal reduction in total and the reasons for refusal remain (exception being railing refusal reason) similarly valid; the claim the proposal could be considered in similar terms to "The Mariners" approved application is totally without foundation given its different locations/proposition; and Site boarders a Conservation Area and therefore subject to similar restrictions to the properties therein, the proposed dwelling should be in keeping with the surrounding area which is a village not an urban area to which the architects own submission states is the nature of the proposal. (12/09/19 - amended plans) - The amended plans only show a very slight reduction in the overall magnitude of the dwelling and therefore is in fact essentially the same; comments made previously remain. 5.13 Manx Utilities made the following comments (19.02.2019): "This planning application has been reviewed by MU after investigations were carried out to identify the full extent of the public sewer. It was found that the public sewer commences at MH 9505 (see below plan) as the drainage from two properties join together at this point. It has been considered that the drainage from these dwellings can be suitably diverted and/or protected to ensure the performance is not compromised. Any diversion or alterations to the private drain from "Greystones" (highlighted below) will require permission from the relevant owner and also be subject to building control approval. The applicant is requested to make contact with Manx Utilities prior to commencing to discuss the proposals." 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; (i) the principal of developing the site for residential purposes; (ii) the visual impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area and street scene, including that of the neighbouring Conservation Area. (iii) potential impact upon highways access and parking; (iv) potential impact on the neighbouring properties' living conditions in terms of overlooking, loss of light and over bearing impact. (v) potential impact upon wildlife on the site; (vi) potential impact upon the MER line.

15

PRINCIPAL OF DEVELOPING THE SITE FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES 6.2 As outlined within the policy section of this report the application site is located within an area designated for residential use under the Laxey and Lonan Plan and the Draft Area Plan for the East. Further the underlying themes of spatial policy 2 & 3 and Housing Policy 4 are to ensure new development is within existing designated villages and not in the open countryside. In turn, development of the site would meet the aims of Strategic Policy 1 making use of previously developed land. 6.3 Accordingly, given the site already has a single dwelling on the site and this proposal is to replace it with a new single dwelling (rather than multi dwellings) and given the mentioned policies above and redevelopment of the site for residential use is deemed acceptable in terms of the principle. It should also be noted that there is a presumption in favour of development in such areas. However, these are not automatic reasons to approve the application as the other identified matters still need to be considered acceptable. THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE SURROUNDING AREA AND STREET SCENE, INCLUDING THAT OF THE NEIGHBOURING CONSERVATION AREA 6.4 In terms of the character and appearance of the area; the streetscene along the Laxey New Road in the immediate area of the application site are characterised by detached properties one and two storeys (when viewed form front elevations) in height, some located directly adjacent to the highway while others have driveways/gardens between the dwelling and highway. While there are more traditional properties in the form of Manx farmhouse styled dwellings, there are a number of more modern properties of various styles which have evolved of a number of decades. A general common theme of the majority of properties (traditional or more modern) are their seaward elevations having larger expanses of glazing (via large windows and/or conservatory/extensions), which to the properties on the eastern side of New Road are to the rear of their dwellings, while the properties to the western side of New Road are to their front elevation. 6.5 Many of the properties in the immediate area of the site to the east of Laxey New Road sit at a much lower level with only the roofs and gable ends being visible. An example is Greystone & Ardnne to the south of the site which appear as single storey properties when viewed from the New Road,; however to their rear elevations they are two and two/half storeys in height which givens a good indication of the hillside topography of the area. 6.6 In relation to the character and appearance of properties along Old School Road, which essentially begins at the junction of Laxey New Road and Old School Hill the property heights tend to follow the contours of the ground going down the hill. For example the floor levels of the dwellings to the north of the site (Seacliffe, Corley Rock Cottage and Cape Cottage) are approximately one storey below each other as they run down the hillside. The above mentioned properties are also more traditional in appearance, two storeys in height, albeit each has benefited from conservatory/extensions and alterations which have reduced their original "fully" traditional appearance. However, in the main they still retain a traditional appearance. Other than these properties, including the application site the immediate area is made up with more modern properties (Spyrryd-Ny-Marrey, Palma, Reayrt Aalin, Algh Vie, Wayside & Harcroft) being single and two storey properties. Further north of the site and beyond the above mention properties, there are more traditional properties (Manx farmhouse styled and a Victorian Terrace (rear elevations)). 6.7 However, in the immediate area of the site there is a clear variety of housing styles which have developed over the years and even the more traditional style properties have been extended altered.

16

6.8 In considering the context of the area, it also has to be noted applications in the vicinity that have previously been approved, where a radical approach was taken to their design. This approaches utilised vast amounts of glazing on their east elevations and a more contemporary approach to the scheme. For example application 15/00993/B at the 'Mariners' site (south of site), which saw redevelopment of the site from one dwellinghouse to three new dwellings each appearing single storey from New Road but three storeys to their rear (facing onto MER lines). Further application 11/01733/B at 'Montana', to the southwest of the site, which saw a redevelopment to produce a much larger dwellinghouse and integral garage within its curtilage. It also has to be acknowledged neither of the approved schemes above has been built (at the time of the site visit) but each application is assessed on its own merits and what may be acceptable on one site may not be acceptable on another. However, these examples do demonstrate that at least more contemporary style properties in close proximity to the site/area have been approved. The 'Mariners' application was approved by the Minister following positive recommendations by both the Planning Committee and the Independent Appeals Inspector who acknowledged the differing designs/styles in the area but considered a more contemporary approach to be acceptable to the area. 6.9 Visiting the site and surrounding areas, the two public vantage point of the site are from New Road and Old School Hill. 6.10 With regards to the impact of the development when viewed from New Road; the applicants have provided sectional drawings and street elevations of the proposal which demonstrate how the dwelling would sit within the various street scenes and compared with neighbouring properties. For example the roof ridge of Greystones (south of site) is set approximately 1m above the highest point of the new dwelling roof which then gradually to decrease being approximately 4m below the roof ridge of Greystones. A second example is in relation to the neighbouring property immediately to the north which is Seacliffe. The roof ridge of this property would be approximately 1.5m above that of the tallest part of the roof of the new dwelling and 4m taller than the lowest section of roof of the new dwelling. From the New Road elevation, the full extent of the dwelling would not be apparent, mainly given the topography of the area and as the proposed dwelling, which has a slight curve, curves away from New Road and gradually reduces in height to follow the contours of the land. However, it should be acknowledged that the proposal will be more apparent compared to the existing bungalow, which currently is not very apparent, with its ridge height being level with the road level. This new proposal which is taller and greater in overall mass, will result in the building appear in the main, as a one/one half storey dwelling from this view. Whilst this increases the amount of building development on the site from New Road views, it is not considered a reason to refuse the application. The appearance of the dwelling as a one/one half storey dwelling along New Road is a common form of development in the area, and given the curve of the building turning away from New Road; the setback position from New Road (dwelling at closest point is 9m from New Road); the hillside topography of the land in the area; and comparative heights with neighbouring properties, the proposal would not result in an form of development which would have an adverse visual impact upon this street scene and would be a size, scale and form of development which would be in keeping with the New Road street scene and would only add to the character and appearance of the area. 6.11 From this view the adjacent Conservation Ares is not significantly affected. Views from New Road looking into the Conservation Area are in the main are of the rear elevations of properties within the Conservation Area, which are not of a particular quality to protect. Generally, the rear elevations of properties in a Conservation Area are not the most important aspects, nor the reason why the particular properties are within a Conservation Area, as generally the front elevations have the important features which collectively add to the character and quality of a Conservation Area. Accordingly, in this case it is not considered the development would detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area. There is from some limited aspects where the Laxey harbour wall is partially viewable; albeit to obtain such a public view of the harbour wall you must look above the roof ridges of

17

properties in-between, which in turn reduces the quality of the view in question. Accordingly, it is not considered a reason to refusal the application. 6.12 With regards to the view from Old School Road, arguable this is the public view which the development has the greatest potential impact, and this has two main vantage points. The first is as you immediately past the site and the second from the crossing of Old School Road and the MER lines when you would look upwards towards the site. 6.13 In terms of public views when immediately passing the site from the Old School Road, it is important to note that the ground level is set above that of the application site, albeit the height differences gradually decrease from the southwest most part of the site to the northern most part of the site, where the access to the site is located and the ground levels eventually meet (same). For example the new dwelling's finish floor level would range between 6m to 1.6m below the Old School Road level, with the tallest section of the new dwelling (height of 9.6m) being where the greatest level difference is. Accordingly, in this location the dwelling would appear more single storey. Furthermore, it should also be noted that there is a 1m high Manx stone boundary wall with landscaping above, which further reduces the dwelling appearance when viewed from Old School Road when immediately passing the site. The remainder of the property would also appear as a one/one half storey property as it runs downwards and parallel with Old School Road. There would also be a gap retained between the boundary wall and the new dwelling of between 2.5m to 7.5m. It is clear, that the proposal would increase the amount of built development on this site, which in turn would be more apparent when passing the site. However, as indicated previously, the character and appearance of this section of Old School Road, is of two storey dwellings which are immediately adjacent to Old School Road or close to. This proposal would follow this line of development. 6.14 Arguable, it was initially considered that the most contentious view of the dwelling is from the crossing point to the northeast of the new dwelling. The curved nature of the building results in the rear elevation (southeast), which is three storeys in height and made up of large amounts of glazing, would not be especially visible from this public view, in fact perhaps not at all given the orientation of the road and the siting/curved nature of the dwelling. However, even if it were, it is not necessary considered being inappropriate. The neighbouring dwelling Greystones is taller than the new application dwelling and while Greystones is only two storeys, it does have a substantial raised rear terrace, which includes a significant retaining wall and has the overall appearance of a building being three storeys tall. Again beyond this property is Ardnne, which to the rear elevation is two and half storeys tall (taller than application site) at the rear elevation and they also have a rear raised decked area. Finally, the "Mariners" application site for three new dwellings had a very similar arrangement of large sections of glazing set over three floors which significantly increase the amount of built development on the site. While this application has not commenced (still live), it has been an acceptable form of development. This site would also be more public viewable from Old Laxey Hill. Again, what these aspects demonstrate is that the character and appearance of this area, of which the site forms part of, is made up of larger amounts of built development with large sections of glazing. However, as mention, in term of public views the southeast elevation would not be especially apparent from Old School Road. The elevation which would be most apparent from the crossing point would be angled views of the north east elevation of the dwelling (side elevation) which is two storeys in height. The currently view is of a rather unattractive flat roof garage which is closer to Old School Road than the proposal would be. Again given the nature of other properties in the area, some closer to the road it is considered this to be in keeping with the character and appearance of this section of the street scene. Again it is not considered the proposal from this view would detrimentally affect important views into and out of the Conservation Area. 6.15 It is noted that comments have been made that the application focus how the dwelling fits with properties along New Road in terms of roof heights and not the properties

18

along Old School Road. The drawings clearly show both and the design of the new dwelling which is curved and stepped in nature with four different curved roof sections are considered to take both street scenes into account. For example, while the highest section of the proposal is above the roof ridge of Corley Rock Cottage (opposite site to north), due to the downward stepped nature of the design and the gradual decrease in roof height, the section of new building closest to Corley Rock Cottage is below the roof ridge of this property. Again, this form of development is not uncommon as outlined in paragraph 6.6 of this report. 6.16 Comments have also been made of the design and finishes of the building. Design is a very subjective matter. As indicated previously, dwellings in the area are made up of a variety of housing types and styles which have been undertaken over many decades. This proposal would be finished in painted render and Manx Stone which is a common finish in the area. Arguably, the curved roof design is not a feature which is found currently in the area; however, just because something isn't there, doesn't necessary make it unacceptable. Again, while curved roofs are not common, the types of roof styles in the area are made up with pitched, hipped, flat, gable facing & lean-to etc, all with differing roofs angles and pitches. The finish of standing steam roofing is also not a common finish for roofs in the area, but again there is already a variety, including slate, slate like, concert tiles, & fibre glass in the area. The finished proposed has worked well for more contemporary design, for example the extension to a tradition property with existing slate roof in Maughold Village which the extension included the same type of standing seam type roof. This fitted very well with the original slate roofs and within a Conservation Area. Accordingly, the design and finish of the roof is considered appropriate. 6.17 Overall, whilst the new dwelling would increase the level of development on the site over the current situation; would introduce a new form of development, and would result in a new dwelling more apparent from public views; for the reasons outlined it is not considered the proposal would have a significant adverse impact to the visual amenities of the area to warrant a refusal and would comply with GP2 and EP36. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON HIGHWAYS ACCESS AND PARKING 6.18 The proposal would significantly increase the amount of off street parking on the site, while also increasing the area to enable better truing facilities within the site which currently does not exist. Two off road parking spaces are required and these are provided and more. The existing access is unchanged from the existing situation. While it is accepted that Old School Hill is very steep and is more difficult to enter/exit the sites existing access (same for neighbouring properties) than most properties, the fact remains the access is existing and serves a single dwelling and the new proposal is for a single dwelling which arguable has better manoeuvring/turning faculties within it, compared to the existing situation. Highway Services have considered the proposal and access arrangements and have raised no objection. 6.19 Overall, it is not considered the proposal would have any more of an impact than the existing dwelling, arguable given the improvements enlarging the driveway and increasing the potential for turning provision the proposal would be an improvement over the current situation. POTENTIAL IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES' LIVING CONDITIONS IN TERMS OF OVERLOOKING, LOSS OF LIGHT AND OVER BEARING IMPACT 6.20 There are two properties which would be potentially affected by the development the most; would be Seacliffe and Spyrryd-ny Marrey. There are properties in the surrounding area which would be affected also; however, the two listed are considered the properties most affected. 6.21 Seacliffe - In relation to the impact upon this property the proposed dwelling would be located to the south east and at its closest would be approximately 15.5m away from the

19

south/eastern corner of this dwelling. Fronting Seacliffe is a garden/decking area which would be approximately between 7 to 7.5m to the new dwelling. The ground level of the garden/decking area is significantly above that of the application site ground level; albeit when stood in the garden/decked area of Seacliffe, the new dwelling roof would be very apparent and seaward views would be lost. Views would likely still be obtained of the Laxey harbour and some seaward views from the garden/decked area would be retained. Loss of a view is not a material planning consideration; however, the main question is whether there is an overbearing impact upon outlook from the property of Seacliff. It is noted the previously refused application arguable had a greater impact than the currently proposal, as this application had a two dwellings on the site and increased the level of development on the site, closer to Seacliffe. This application was not refused on the grounds of having an overbearing impact; rather overlooking/perception of overlooking to neighbouring properties only. 6.22 It is not considered there would be a significant adverse impact overbearing impact from the main dwelling house of Seacliffe. The main outlook from these windows are in a southern direction over their own garden and towards the existing application house and beyond to Greystone. The main area of concern relates to the potential impact upon the overbearingness from the outlooks of the garden/decked area. Without doubt there will be a change of outlook from the garden/decked area; and depending and where you are stood within this area, the impact would be greater or lessened. From the decked area and sections of the garden, there will likely be still open and clear outlooks towards the sea and towards Laxey Harbour. From other garden locations open seaward outlooks would be lost by the proposal. Overall, this aspect of the proposal is a negative aspect of the development; however, it is not considered the impact would warrant its refusal solely on this ground. 6.23 In terms of loss of light, it is not considered the development would have a significant impact. The potential time when light may be lost would be late mornings, albeit given the level differences of the sites, the siting/design/height off the proposed dwelling and the suns orientation (east to west) it is not considered there would be significant loss of light to warrant a refusal. 6.24 There are three potential windows at the upper level which look directly towards the garden of Seacliffe. However, theses widows are low level windows (due to low head height due to height of roof at these location) and person would need to crouch down to view out of them and second they serve non-habitable rooms (i.e. en-suite, dressing rooms and hallway window). If the Committee had concerns a condition to require these windows have obscure glazing could be attached to any approval. There is a final window to the side of the staircase which potential has views towards the decked area of Seacliff. However, this window is a landing window and again does not serve a primary habitable or habitable window and therefore it is not considered significant level of overlooking would occur. 6.25 Spyrryd-ny Marrey - In relation to the impact to this property the issue mainly relates to overlooking and potential overbearing impact upon their outlook. Spyrryd-ny Marrey is located to the east of the application site and its ground level is approximately 2 storeys below the ground level of the application site. A useful example in terms of height difference between the sites, is if the new dwelling was constructed and you viewed out of the lower ground floor level windows/rear garden of the new dwelling, your eye line would be able to look over the roof ridge of Spyrryd-ny Marrey. The proposed dwelling would be sited approximately between 20m and 29m from the western most corner of Spyrryd-ny Marrey (closest point). Between the two properties there is the MER railway line and associated grass banks either side of the railway lines. 6.26 Firstly, given the distance between the properties, substantial differences in the topography of the land; position of existing flat roof garage to the rear of Spyrryd-ny Marrey,

20

suns orientation and layout/design of Spyrryd-ny Marrey; it is not considered the proposal would result in any significant loss of light to warrant a refusal. 6.27 Again for similar reasons indicated in par 6.26; it is not considered the proposal would have an overbearing impact upon outlook, especially given the primary habitable rooms (lounge/dining and kitchen) are located to the front (southeast) of the dwelling (Spyrryd-ny Marrey) and would be unaffected by the proposed development. Additional, due to the layout/design of Spyrryd-ny, distance, level differences etc it is not considered the proposal would have any significant overlooking into this property to warrant a refusal. 6.28 Arguably, the main potential issue, which was raised previously, is the potential overlooking and/or perceived overlooking from the new dwelling to the side garden of Spyrryd-ny Marrey. The proposal will clearly have a greater impact given there are more windows and the property is taller than the existing dwelling. It should be noted that from the lower ground floor and upper ground floor levels the level of overlooking would be limited or not at all, given the topography/ground level differences between the site, the distance and the heights and positioned of the grass bank along either side of the MER railway. Importantly the primary habitable living rooms (lounge/dining/kitchen) are at the upper ground floor level where most persons would use and live. The first floor windows which would have a greater level of potential overlooking serve two bedrooms only. Further, the proposal is directly in a south-easterly direction angled away from Spyrryd-ny Marrey. Accordingly, the main views/outlook from the site is of the sea views and it is more likely person/s would take of advantage of such views rather than partially looking into neighbouring properties. 6.29 It is important to note that the general character of dwellings in Laxey, are of properties on a hillside which are stepped up/down the hillside. What results in a level of inter-overlooking between properties generally. For example the neighbouring property (south of application site) has 8+ windows to its rear elevation, a upper ground floor large terrace which also has a small projecting terraces towards the MER line and a first floor terrace; all of which has potential views towards the garden of Spyrryd-ny Marrey, similar to how the application would. It should also be noted there are existing windows within the existing property (albeit to a lesser extent to what is proposed now) which have views towards Spyrryd-ny Marrey. While this does not automatically result in making the current application acceptable, it needs to be acknowledged that this is a common theme within Laxey as a whole, including the immediate area. 6.30 Overall, while the proposal would increase the level of development and have a greater level of potential/perception of overlooking; it is not considered the impacts would be so significant to warrant a refusal. 6.31 In terms of other properties in the area, namely Greystones, Thorneycroft, Corley Rock Cottage & Cape Cottage, it is acknowledged that given the new dwelling would be larger in sized compared to the existing dwelling; it will have a greater impact upon neighbouring amenities. However, the siting of the dwelling, ground level differences, siting of neighbouring properties in relation to site; position of primary habitable rooms etc; it is not considered the impact of the proposal would have a significant adverse impact to warrant a refusal. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON WILDLIFE ON THE SITE 6.32 The DEFA Ecosystem Policy Officer had initially highlighted that dark bush crickets had being recorded on the site, which under the Wildlife Act is a protected species (Schedule 5) and has sought a condition restricting the loss of all boundary hedgerows and vegetation not required to be removed to be retained. This issue was also raised during previous applications. A suitable worded condition should be attached which requires further detail plans of the protection of the hedging and their landscaping along the entire south-eastern

21

boundary be provided and approved by the department. This will serve to protect the wildlife in the area, including the dark bush crickets are protected and to ensure those hedges are protected for the duration of the works and in perpetuity. 6.33 Comments from Manx National Heritage are noted in relation to bats being found in the area. A condition requiring a bat report be produced prior to works (inc demolition) should be attached to any approval to deal with this. (vi) POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON THE MER LINE 6.35 In terms of how the construction works should be undertaken in associated with the MER lines, it is considered a note should be attached to the approval (applicants are already aware) which strongly recommend they discuss the construction method with the IOM Railways (Department of Infrastructure - IOM Transport) prior to works commencing on site. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, for the reasons indicated within this report it is considered the proposal would comply with the relevant polices of the IOMSP and the Laxey & Lonan Local Plan and therefore the application is recommended for an approval. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

22


Item 5.2 Proposal : Erection of 96 dwellings with associated roads, car parking

and landscaping Site Address : Field 434021 And 434031

Corner Of Douglas Road And Victoria Road Castletown Isle Of Man

Applicant : Haven Homes Limited Application No. : Principal Planner :

18/00524/B- click to view Miss S E Corlett

RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application subject to a legal agreement

______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes (if any) once the required legal agreement has been entered into 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Permitted Development Order 2013 or any Order superseding this, no fencing or walling may be introduced at the rear of plots 1-8, 80-96, to the side or rear of plots 32, 33, 42, 43 or 56 where this abuts a footpath or highway or area of public open space and no fencing or walling may be introduced in the rear garden areas of plots 49 - 56. Reason: these plots have a boundary which abuts either a public viewpoint or trees where the introduction of inappropriate fencing or walling could adversely affect the character of the development or the health of existing trees or both. C 3. Prior to the commencement of work on plots 49 - 53 inclusive, trial pits shall be dug to ascertain the root spread of the adjacent trees numbered T3, T8, T9 and T12 in the submitted Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment. If tree roots are found within the area to be excavated for the construction of the dwelling where the damage of such would affect the health of these trees, appropriate measures for the construction of the house must be approved in writing by the Department and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these details. Reason: to protect the trees which form the backdrop to the Conservation Area and the railway station. C 4. Prior to the commencement of any other work on site the tree protection measures shown in the Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment must be installed and retained throughout the construction of the estate. No vehicles may be parked nor materials stored within the Root Protection Areas demarcated by these protection measures. Reason: to protect trees which have importance to the character of the Conservation Area.


23

C 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Permitted Development Order 2013 or any Order superseding this, no extensions nor any garden shed, summerhouse or greenhouses which is built on excavated bases may be undertaken on plots 49 - 53 inclusive. Reason: these properties are close to existing trees and extensions could adversely affect the health of the trees by cutting through or damaging roots or result in structures would jeopardise the future of the trees by their proximity. C 6. 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 or the occupation of the dwellings, 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. Reason: The landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved. C 7. Prior to occupation of each dwelling, the respective car parking shall be constructed as indicated on the approved plans and shall remain as approved for the duration of occupation of the development. Reason: to minimise on-street car parking that could be detrimental to the operation of the highway. C 8. The development must include the measures recommended in Chapter 5 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report of August 2018, specifically the planting in the roadside verges of wildflower mix planted only with subsoil, the provision of a barn owl box facing towards Poulsom Park and the use of native tree and plant species within the proposed planting scheme. Details of the species of trees and plants to be used together with the location and details of the barn owl box must be provided to the Department and the development must be undertaken in full accordance with these details. Reason: to enhance the biodiversity value of the site. C 9. No dwelling may be occupied until such times as the signal controlled pedestrian crossing on Douglas Road has been upgraded to satisfactorily accommodate the additional pedestrian traffic which will result from this development. Reason: to encourage sustainable transport in accordance with the active travel strategy. C 10. The development may not be commenced until such times as a scheme for the delivery of the public open space has been approved by the Department and the public open space must be provided in accordance with these details. The scheme must include provisions for the future maintenance of the public open space following the occupation of the dwellings. Reason: to ensure that the public open space is provided in a timely manner and adequate provisions are in place for the future maintenance of this space. N 1. The applicant is encouraged to install bat and bird boxes within the development to enhance the biodiversity of the area. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) The development is considered to accord with the relevant Strategic Plan policies and where there is a departure from General Policy 2 in respect of non-compliance with the development brief in respect of the means of access, this is deemed acceptable in the interests of highway

24

safety. Where there is a shortfall in the provision of Public Open Space this is considered acceptable given the proximity and accessibility of Poulsom Park. This acceptance is dependent upon the application of appropriate conditions to suspend the provisions of the permitted development order in terms of the erection of fencing and walling for plots fronting or backing onto the existing highways including the railway and the footpath to the north east to prevent a hard edge to the development at these points - plots 1-8, 32, 33, 42, 43, 49-56 and 80-96. Also, the Order should also be suspended in respect of extensions to the properties on plots 49-53 to ensure that further development does not jeopardise the future of the adjacent trees. Conditions should also be attached to reflect the comments and requirements of Highway Services, the protection of the trees and a note attached to encourage the provision of bird and bat boxes. Finally the standard condition regarding planting and landscaping is also recommended

______________________________________________________________

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 consideration, under Article 6(4): Department of Infrastructure Public Transport Division Department of Infrastructure Housing Division Department of Infrastructure Ports Division It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4): 2, Reayrt ny Cashtal 10, Strathclyde Court, 46, 52, 54, 58 and 60, Victoria Road Dudley Mount, Douglas Road as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties and the following agencies 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 6(4): 29, Bowling Green Road Lea Crest, Bowling Green Road 19, Queen Street Clonaige, Douglas Road 2 Scoill Close, Peel (the unaddressed correspondence in support of the application) as they 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.

25

It is recommended that the following organisation 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 6(4): Manx Utilities as they own or occupy property that is within 20m of the application site (the IRIS main running underneath the railway line) in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy and they have 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 Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). It is recommended that the following organisation 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 6(4): Malew Parish Commissioners as they do not own or occupy property that is 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 and 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 Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS A SECTION 13 AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED TO SECURE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND AS THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT FULLY SATISFY RECREATION POLICY 3 AS NOT ALL OF THE REQUIRED PUBLIC OPEN SPACE IS TO BE PROVIDED ON SITE THE SITE 1.1 The site is a self-contained parcel of land which lies to the north west of Douglas Road, to the north of Victoria Road and whose western and north western boundaries abut an existing residential property - Shenvalla, which sits almost abutting the boundary, the steam railway and Castletown Railway Station. To the north east the site abuts a public footpath which sits on the other side of the boundary stone wall and boundary hedging/planting mostly in the form of a bramble hedge which is low enough to look over in places. This footpath leads to the railway line where it crosses above the line and runs adjacent to the north eastern end of Poulsom Park, with pedestrian access into this part way along, to join the Millennium Way long distance footpath. To the north east of the footpath is the former Ocean Ford car sales and repair garage and associated car parking to the rear. This use ceased some years ago although the land to the rear appears still to be used for some car parking. 1.2 The site has a variety of boundaries with the adjacent land: to Douglas Road and Victoria Road the boundary is formed by a stone wall, with the Victoria Road boundary having a row of conifers which currently stand at around 10-12m in height. The boundary with Shenvalla is formed by a fence with some trees on the application site side and the boundary with the railway station and line is formed by existing vegetation and trees. 1.3 The site contains a yard at the southern end, alongside Shenvalla which is hard surfaced, contains three sheds and has conifers around the northern corner with the rest of the application site.

26

1.4 Access into the site is currently only available through the yard and also from the footpath close to the northern corner of the site. A small section of the northern part of the field is not part of the application site: this contains a small compound and services cabinet. 1.5 The site is relatively flat, falling slightly from north to south - around 2m over 17.5m. A hedge bisects the site from the junction of Douglas and Victoria Roads to the railway line in a south east to north westerly direction. This hedge comprises a grassed bank with intermittent trees within it. 1.6 Built development surrounding the site comprises the former car garage to the north which is presently vacant, public sector housing to the south east in the form of the red tiled, brick and render finished new housing in King William's Way and Strathclyde Court. To the south are detached and semi-detached housing which are a mix of hipped and gable ended properties with slate and slate-like roof finishes and rendered walling. Each of these properties has a vehicular access directly from Victoria Road. 1.7 The context of the site is very mixed in terms of types of use, heights, ages and finishes of buildings. The site though, is a relatively large area of open land within a generally built up part of the town. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the development of the site for residential purposes, in the form of 96 dwellings (amended from 98 in the original submission) with one new vehicular access point off Victoria Road, pedestrian access to the public footpath towards the northern corner of the site as well as onto Douglas Road and landscaping and drainage to service the site. The dwellings 2.2 The dwellings will be a mix of terraced (25), semi-detached (54) and detached (17) houses, all two storey. 24 affordable units are to be provided on site - a mixture of two and three bedroomed units. Other than one additional terraced property, these are the only terraced houses within the estate and are all located in the eastern section of the site, some looking into the estate and eight facing onto Douglas Road. The dwellings are to be finished in painted render with sections of flat or lap cladding in a variety of contrasting colours. The roofing, not noted on the drawings but referred to in the supporting statement (paragraph 3.7), will be finished in good quality, moulded fibre cement slates in the case of those properties "close to the railway line" [it is assumed that this refers to properties numbered 49 to 59] and elsewhere in either the same slates or smooth concrete tiles in a variety of colours all on gable ended roofs. No indication on the drawings or within the statement has been provided as to which properties would be finished in which colour or, indeed, which colours are being considered, the streetscene plans which show the variety of colours of cladding, showing all of the properties with the same colour roofing. The applicant considers that the proposed buildings reflect and enhance the architectural character of the area. Planting 2.3 All of the trees which sit on the Victoria Road boundary are to be removed and replaced with an avenue of regularly spaced local species trees whose species are not detailed either in the plans or the supporting statement. Elsewhere, new trees will be introduced in the areas of public open space and within the residential plots, again of unspecified species. A new beech hedge is to be planted along the boundary of the site with the railway land and the Conservation Area. Parking 2.4 Each dwelling will have at least two parking spaces either in the form of detached communal spaces in the case of the terraced dwellings, or on-site parking in a driveway and a garage. The Permitted Development Order allows for the conversion of garages to living accommodation through the replacement of the garage door with a window provided that

27

there are within the curtilage two parking spaces with dimensions of 6m by 3.25m. Planning approval would not be required to use the garage for domestic purposes other than the storage of a motor vehicle, if there were no physical alteration to the building. Many of the spaces would not comply with the dimensions provided for in the Order so the associated garaging could not be converted. Drainage 2.5.1 An existing foul sewer runs through the site. This is to be diverted to lie beneath the estate road. This would continue the line of the sewer from the north from across Poulsom Park across the railway line and through the site to join the existing sewer which runs to the north of Station Garage and the Viking Hotel to turn south to run towards and join the sewer in Victoria Road. A new network of foul sewers will be installed within the estate under the proposed estate roads. 2.5.2 Surface water will be channelled through new sewers within the estate which run parallel with the proposed foul sewers referred to above, and will link to a new surface water sewer which will run beneath the railway line, between existing trees at the periphery of Poulsom Park, across the park and to a new outfall into the Silverburn. 2.5.3 The Drainage and Flood Risk Assessment refers to the site being greenfield and that a public sewer running within the site, flowing from north east to south west and comment that this is currently at a very shallow gradient. They comment that the proposed unattenuated direct discharge of surface water into the Silver Burn, utilising a flap valve, was approved by Manx Utilities. 2.5.4 In respect of flood risk, the site is not within an area identified as being at risk of flooding as is the proposed outfall location but that a high level overflow is to be installed within the surface water system to allow for continued discharge during a in 100 year plus climate change, flood event. 2.5.5 The plans have been amended to include the route of the surface water drainage from the site to the Silverburn, across Poulsom Park. 2.5.6 The applicant advises that the drainage and flood risk has been agreed with Manx Utilities. Access 2.6.1 Access is to be provided to the site through only one vehicular access located on Victoria Road. As submitted initially the scheme had two vehicular accesses, following the advice of the Area Plan for the South development brief but following discussions with the Highway Authority, this has been amended to a single point of access and it has been indicated by Highway Services that the safety and convenience of this access would be enhanced by the introduction of a prohibition of parking on the other side of Victoria Road - shown in drawing 014P in front of 44 - 64, Victoria Road, achieved through a Traffic Regulation Order. It should be noted that this is not essential to the scheme working effectively and safely although it is the preference of the DoI that this is achieved. A TRO is subject to separate consideration by another authority and planning approval could not be subject to this being approved prior to the development being commenced. 2.6.2 This access is opposite numbers 52 and 54, Victoria Road and takes the form of a simple T junction. Visibility splays are annotated as 2.4m 90m in each direction to the nearside carriageway and would necessitate the removal of a section of stone wall and a telecomms services pit to be relocated. 2.6.3 Pedestrian access is proposed onto the footpath to the north east which links to the existing footpath across the railway line and to Poulsom Park. A further pedestrian access is

28

to be provided out onto Douglas Road providing access to the bus stop and signalled pedestrian crossing there. 2.6.4 A Planning Transport Statement is provided within the application, referring to the location of the development and the inclusion of the pedestrian/cycle link in the northern corner, to Poulsom Park and the public footpath network including links to the town centre. They describe discussions with Department of Infrastructure prior to the application being submitted, and they clarified that the roundabout is required opposite Janet's Corner to provide a certain amount of uniformity for road users along the length of Douglas Road from the Bowling Green roundabout to Balthane. In order to prevent congestion through traffic turning right into the site, a yellow line may be required on the south bound carriageway but this is a matter for the DoI to consider when making their full technical assessment. They also refer to work being undertaken by the DoI on technical data associated with the proposed Ballasalla by-pass. 2.6.5 A further Transport Assessment was provided on 25th October, 2018 still including two points of access, which provides further information in support of the proposal. It advises that a capacity assessment has been carried out at the Bowling Green Road/A5 roundabout which reveals that all junctions will operate within normal requirements for current and future years and that the level of traffic which will be generated by the proposed development can be accommodated and will have no material effect on the safe operation of the local highway and will not add significantly to any congestion at the peak times on the local network. They report that there have been 11 collisions within the vicinity of the site between 2011 and 2018, 6 were classified as slight injury accidents with the remainder as damage only. Around half of the collisions were during damp or wet road conditions with 9 out of 11 occurring during daylight hours. There were no fatal or severe collisions within the study area (the length of Victoria Road and Douglas Road along the frontage of the site). The reasons for the accidents recorded included many where the driver was misjudging distance or speed, one where the driver was asleep and one where a child ran out into the road. They suggest that there are no trends for reasons or locations for accidents here. 2.6.6 They estimate the trip generation of the development to be between 57 (morning) and 62 (afternoon) vehicle movements during the network peak periods but suggest that the actual movements may be fewer, given the proximity to the town centre and the services and amenities there. They estimate morning queuing from the development onto Douglas Road would be 2 vehicles and 4 in the evening peak which is not considered to be significant. 2.6.7 Further information has been provided to the DoI regarding the revised proposals for the single point of access Open space 2.7.1 The site includes a number of areas of public open space. A corridor of open space runs around the outside of the properties which are closest to Victoria and Douglas Roads and this continues on both sides of the new access on Douglas Road. Further small areas of grass lie either side of the internal junctions to maintain visibility splays and the largest area of public open space is to be provided at the northern end of the site. This is referred to as "small children's play". A footpath from between plots 82, 83 and 84 links this area to the internal road network and then continues to join the public footpath running along the north eastern boundary of the site. The applicant suggests that older children will be able to access Poulsom Park for their recreation. 2.7.2 The applicant considers that the site is not large enough to accommodate open space other than as shown in the drawing and they refer to existing recreation facilities within close proximity in Poulsom Park where there is a BMX track, rugby pitch, children's play area and the Silverburn footpath as well as several school playing fields, a public swimming pool all of

29

which are illustrated on the submitted plan and they consider that the requirement for the provision of Public Open Space is satisfactory as proposed. Levels 2.8 The site levels are to change by up to 750mm towards the eastern part of the site and more generally around 200mm to a greater or lesser degree. Amended plans have been submitted to reduce the levels of the properties on plots 49 to 52 and a reduction in the number of properties in this part of the site to avoid impact on the trees to the rear. These properties have much larger side gardens, providing amenity space at the side to compensate for potential shading and the impact of the trees to the rear which lie outwith the site and which provide the context of the railway station which is a Registered Building (RB 257) and within the town's Conservation Area. Affordable Housing 2.9 Twenty four units are to be provided on site through the HPAS as affordable units. A legal agreement has been drafted to provide for this. Supporting statement 2.10.1 The applicant has had regard to the Landscape Strategy for the town and suggests that their development has no impact on the key views toward Langness and of Castle Rushen and King William's College nor on the quality and distinctiveness of the open area in which Castletown lies. They suggest that they do not require to provide an EIA as the site is not outwith the town. 2.10.2 In respect of public open space, the applicant explains that the site is relatively small and provides little opportunity for open space other than what is included in the application. They refer to significant public open space provision within Poulsom Park including a large children's play area, BMX track and rugby pitch as well as accessible promenade and beach, several school playing fields and a public swimming pool, all within walking distance of the site. The plan states that 4,842 sq m of formal open space is required, along with 1,614 sq m of children's play space and 2,152 sq m of amenity space and that the scheme proposes 4,211 sq m including a children's play area designed for small children (around 1,450 sq m dissected by a footpath). These calculations are based on the original submission for 98 dwellings. 2.10.3 They refer to the recent Residential Land Availability Study 2001 - 2016 which identifies a shortfall in the South of 452 units and suggests that the scheme will go some way towards meeting this deficiency. Ecology 2.11.1 A Protected Species Report has been submitted, dated September, 2018 which looks at whether the development including the demolition of the existing buildings (which would not require planning approval) will constitute an offence under the Wildlife Act 1990. They inspected the existing buildings internally and externally and no bats were found nor secondary evidence recorded. No barn owls or secondary evidence of them was discovered and the buildings offered low potential for roosting by bats. Some potential exists for swallows and recommendations are made in this respect. They recommend that if bats are found, work should stop immediately and further advice sought. Specialist brick structures which would support bats are available and are recommended and to avoid damage to nesting birds, work should be carried out between October 2018 and February 2019. If works are delayed until the following year, another survey will be required for the evaluation of breeding birds. Whilst incorporation of roosting opportunities for barn swallow is considered impractical, nest boxes could be incorporated for swifts, which are known in the town. 2.11.2 A further ecological report has been submitted, dated August 2018 and this looks at the ecological interest of the site more generally and considered research and desktop data

30

and a survey was undertaken in June, 2018. It reports that there are no statutorily designated sites within 0.5km of the site, the nearest being Langness ASSI to which there are no known connections to or associations with the application site. The nearest wildlife sites are the Ballalough Reedbed and a heronry, both of which are between 0.5km and 1km away. They describe the trees and Silverburn as providing habitat for bats and birds and the existing hedge bisecting the site providing highly suitable nesting habitat for birds, with blackbirds, wren, house sparrow and chaffinch observed on the site but the hedging also providing opportunities for raptors and predators which reduces the wildlife value of this feature. The south east corner of the site was also considered suitable for hedgehog, stoat and small mammals. 2.11.3 No invasive species were noted, nor protected wildflowers, rare wildflowers nor any species of special ecological importance. The main ecological connections to the site are the river and railway line to the north of the site. The majority of the site is described as poor semi-improved grassland which is of little ecological value. Given this, there are only slight opportunities for the creation of species-rich native habitat and this would not be possible without the removal of topsoil and there are no adjacent sources of species rich habitat to populate any new habitats and anything created would rely upon introducing flora through seeds and transplants. The maintenance of the trees, particularly on the northern boundary is recommended and with reinforcements where possible. They recommend the removal of non-native species (fuchsia) and replaced with hawthorn or hazel which are similar sized native species. As the proposed planting in the areas of public open space and gardens matures, this should equate to more habitat and connections will be maintained. 2.11.4 They recommend that all works to trees and shrubs should be undertaken outside the bird nesting season and where this is not possible, a nest check by a suitably qualified ecologist should be undertaken prior to works commencing. If a nest is identified, a buffer of 5m should be created until all young are fully fledged and no longer returning to the nest. Also, bat boxes in some locations and a barn owl box facing towards Poulsom Park could be considered along with roadside verges of wildflower mix on subsoil can add habitat and interest whilst only needing an annual cut. Trees 2.12.1 A Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been produced, dated 5th July, 2018. This identifies the need to remove 3 Category C trees, 1 Category C group and sympathetically prune 2 Category A trees, 3 Category B trees and 2 Category C trees. It recommends the removal of a further 2 Category U trees and 2 Category U groups irrespective of the development. 10 trees are proposed to be retained on site, one of which will require excavation within its root protection area (RPA) (T3 - a category A sycamore). The report recommends that the works will not have a noticeable adverse impact on their health but it is advised that a trial pit be dug to ascertain the spread of this tree's roots before excavation commences. 2.12.2 The report recommends that there may be future pressure from the residents alongside trees T01 - T12 to prune these trees as a result of light obstruction and perceived risk and they recommend that the trees have high amenity value and add a great deal to the character or the Station and adjacent park and therefore "any pruning must be controlled and minimised" and that a cycle duty of care tree survey commissioned by the tree owner would act to minimise and manage any risk posed by the trees to the proposed dwellings. Registering the trees would also ensure that any pruning work carried out is controlled by the Department has is carried out only by a suitably qualified arborist. Finally, it recommends a formal tree inspection carried out immediately following the completion of the development to identify any foreseeable risk posed by the tree to those owed a duty of care. This was prepared prior to the amendment of the scheme to remove a number of units here and redesign the layout of those remaining in this part of the site.

31

2.12.3 Further information was submitted, dated 5th February, 2020 which is a tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment which confirms the removal of a small number of trees on the railway station side, all of the trees alongside Victoria Road and some trees on the boundary with the rear of the public house with those surrounding the buildings currently on site. A realistic assessment of the root spread of existing trees near to proposed excavations has been provided indicating that this should not be an issue and a trial pit dug prior to the undertaking of any other excavation near to trees 3, 8, 9 and 12 on the northern boundary of the site. They advise that post construction there may be pressure to prune to increase light levels to the adjacent houses and this should be carefully controlled as the trees present great value to the character of the station and they recommend that a formal tree inspection is carried out immediately following the completion of the development to identify any foreseeable risk posed by the trees. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated as Proposed Residential on the Area Plan for the South (2013) and described as "in a good position being close to existing residential development, located on a main road and bordered by development to the north-east and west." There is an accompanying development brief in the Area Plan which states the following: Development Brief 6 1. Any initial application must include a Master Plan which should take into account the site's proximity to the Castletown Conservation Area and the Railway Station which is a Registered Building. 2. Vehicular access must be from either a re-aligned roundabout at the Bowling Green Road junction or a new roundabout junction at the King William's Way/Douglas Road junction. Individual access points to new properties from the Main Road will not be supported. 3. Pedestrian/cycleway facilities should be an integral part of the proposals to link the development to the centre of Castletown. 4. Early advice should be sought from the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority to discuss the proposed density of development and need for hydraulic modelling for the development site. 5. The Airport Runway Public Safety Zone (PSZ) must: be integrated into any design proposals; remain free from built development; and must have regard to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan Policies relating to the Airport Runway Public Safety Zone (PSZ) (Transport Policy 10 and Transport Policy 11 in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016). 6. The development must incorporate a mix of dwelling types and sizes and must use a variety of materials and finishes throughout the estate. 7. Dwellings which overlook the Main Road must be positioned and designed so that their principal front elevations face the Main Road. 8. Affordable housing shall be provided in accordance with the requirements set out in Housing Policy 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, 2007, or its replacement. 3.2 In addition to land identified within the APS as being suitable for proposed residential development, the Plan identifies a shortfall in housing provision for the town (paragraph 1.6.1) , which has resulted in the Castletown Housing Land Review 2016. This considers opportunities for residential development in the town, referring to the application site as having potential for the delivery of 83 units but the status being "not brought forward" at the time of writing. The report concludes that a total of 417 new dwellings will be required

32

between 2011 and 2026 and goes on to identify the need for additional sites, over and above those identified as suitable in the Area Plan, for future development. 3.3 The Strategic Plan requires development to be well designed and properly accessed without adverse impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property (General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 3, Environment Policy 42) and Transport Policy 11 prevents development which would result in a significant increase in the number of people residing, working or congregating within the Public Safety Zone associated with Ronaldsway Airport. It also requires that development does not harm protected wildlife (EP4 and GP2d) and should retain existing trees and sod banks (GP2f) and makes adequate provision for affordable housing (HP5) and Public Open Space (RPs 3 and 4 and Appendix Six). Transport Policies 2, 4 and 6 all require that consideration is given to pedestrians and cyclists and to the safety of all users of the highway network and TP3 requires that development does not adversely affect the attractiveness of existing rail routes as a tourism and leisure facility or their potential as public transport routes or cycle/leisure footpaths. 3.4 Infrastructure Policy 1 requires developments generally to be connected or connectable to the IRIS system. 3.5 Development within Conservation Areas must preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area and development close to but not within should not adversely affect important views into and out of the CA (EPs 35 and 36 as well as Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man). 3.6 The Department's Residential Design Guidance provides advice about how to measure the impact of development on the living conditions of those in nearby housing and generally, issues of privacy will not arise where the development is more than 20m therefrom. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site has not been the subject of any previous applications which are relevant to the consideration of the current proposal. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Department of Infrastructure IOM Railways (now Public Transport Division) seek consultation with them prior to the undertaking of any work involving the steam railway line and liaison with them regarding any fencing along the line (20.06.18). They submit a further letter on 20.07.18 to formally object to the application on the grounds that the development is likely to increase the risk to any potential occupiers of damage from their trees falling and on the basis of a reduced access for maintenance of these trees and reiterate all of these concerns on 14.09.18. 5.2.1 Manx Utilities initially requested a deferral of the application (19.06.18). They submit further comments on 20.09.18, advising that they have no objection to the application subject to conditions regarding the connection of the development to the foul sewer (which is covered by the Sewerage Act), no discharge of surface water to the foul sewer (again, the responsibility of the Sewerage Act) and they recommend that the applicant is advised that until the new surface water drain to the Silverburn is adopted by MU, this will remain the responsibility of the applicant (this is not a planning condition but an advisory note that should be communicated by MU to the applicant). They recommend that the diversion of the existing sewer should be undertaken in accordance with their requirements under Manx Sewers for Adoption (not a planning responsibility) and they provide advice about the adoption process and the need to obtain the permission of those who own land over or under which they may propose to install drainage. They seek a deferral on 04.10.18 pending further consideration then reiterate the comments of 20.09.18 on 12.10.18, adding that the proposed surface water sewer is shown to cross beneath the IRIS pumping main located beneath the

33

steam railway line and the critical need to avoid damage to this during construction, which must be discussed with MU. 5.2.2 Manx Utilities sought a deferral on 04.10.18 of the amended plans submitted then confirm on 12th October, 2018 that they have no objection subject to conditions relating to the Sewerage Act and Manx Utilities' own regulations. They confirm on 21.02.19 that the layout shown in drawing 01B is acceptable to MU subject to construction and protection details being supplied for the crossing of the IRIS transmission main underneath the railway track which must be agreed prior to any work commencing on site. They confirm on 10.02.20 that they have no objection subject to the points raised in earlier correspondence noted above 5.3 Castletown Commissioners ask a series of questions from the developer about the highway layout, surface water, proposed play facilities and the impact on local schools (12.06.18). The confirm on 20.02.20 that they remain supportive of the application but are concerned that no approach has been made to them regarding the use of their land for surface water drainage. 5.4 Department of Infrastructure, Housing Division advises that there are currently 15 people on the first time buyers' register and there are currently 81 on the general public sector waiting list. They suggest that the developer provide 24 affordable units on the basis of a 25% calculation (11.06.18). 5.5.1 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Ecosystem Policy Officer comments that developments of this size require an EIA and that consideration should be given to a preliminary ecology statement prior to further consideration (22.06.18).' She submits further comments on 18.09.18, following the submission of ecological information, recommending that the proposed recommendations in the report are undertaken, including the removal of fuchsia, the retention and planting of native shrubs and trees and restricting vegetation cutting to outside the breeding seasons. She would welcome the inclusion of barn owl nest boxes. 5.5.2 They confirm on 25.10.18 that they are happy with the findings of the Manx Wildlife Trust's Protected Species report. They suggest that there is no evidence of bats or barn owls and limited evidence of other birdlife in the buildings but she would still recommend the incorporation of bird and bat boxes into the development to allow for net biodiversity gain. 5.6.1 DEFA Arboricultural Officer expresses concern at the potential impact of the creation of drainage on the railway side trees but notes, after discussion with the applicant, that a trenchless method of excavation will be used and if the manholes are placed either side, outside of the RPAs the impact on trees should be minimal. He also expresses concern at the potential threat to trees from the proximity of the houses on plots 49-59 as well as the raising of the ground levels elsewhere on the site. He recommends a tree survey and constraints assessment should be undertaken (27.06.18). 5.6.2 He submits further comments following the submission of the Manx Roots Tree report, advising that the issue of proximity of the trees 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 and the Department's intention to register these trees which he considers have significant amenity value and contribute to the character of the area. He notes that even if they are registered, this does not prevent future requests for cutting back due to the impact they are having on residential amenity. He expresses concern over the potential damage through landscaping of the rear gardens of plots 49 to 59 and he expresses concern over the lack of information about how the surface water drainage will be installed at Poulsom Park without damaging the trees. He asks whether the species for new planting have been specified anywhere and suggests that this could be covered by condition (24.09.18).

34

5.6.3 The Arboricultural Officer responds to information provided by the applicant relating to the protection of the trees and the extent of the Tree Preservation Act, reiterating his concerns about post-development pressure on the trees and clarifying that he has no concern with the proposed moling technique for the introduction of pipework but only the detail of the depth and location of the works in relation to the trees concerned and keeping the manholes sufficiently distant from the trees and vehicle and plant movements are controlled to prevent compaction then it should be possible to manage the risk involved in this aspect of the proposal. He also considers that it should be possible to maintain the trees from the railway side although managing individuals' expectations in respect of private garden management (08.11.18). 5.7 Malew Parish Commissioners who are not the local authority for the site, comment that the Area Plan for the South refers to a proposed by-pass of Ballasalla and they ask whether this proposal has taken account of Transport Proposal 1 (25.07.18). 5.8 Department of Infrastructure, Ports Division advises that the proposed topography is acceptable to the Airport but seek consultation during construction as there may need to be high equipment under the Airport Approach and Take-off Protected Surfaces and they also seek consultation regarding lighting and landscaping (05.10.18). 5.9.1 Highway Services oppose the application as a Transport Assessment has not been submitted and that the current application fails to demonstrate that the proposals would be safe (19.10.18). They comment further on 19.10.18 that there is no Transport Statement and that the information provided fails to demonstrate that the proposal will be safe nor that there would not be an adverse impact on the highway network.. 5.9.2 Following significant exchanges of correspondence between Highway Services and the applicant, the former no longer object to the application, recommending that two conditions and an advisory note be attached to any approval, as follows: 1. Prior to occupation of each dwelling, the respective car parking shall be constructed as indicated on the approved plans and shall remain as approved for the duration of occupation of the development. Reason: to minimise on-street car parking that could be detrimental to the operation of the highway. 2. Prior to occupation of the first dwelling the developer shall provide details of the upgrading of the signal controlled pedestrian crossing on Douglas Road and implement the necessary works. Reason: to encourage sustainable transport in accordance with the active travel strategy. Informatives The developer would need to enter into Section 4 and Section 109A Highway Agreements. As part of the Section 4 process the developer should undertake a Stage 2 Road Safety Audit (19.02.20) Local residents 5.10.1 The tenants of 10, Strathclyde Court object to the application is concerned that the development is over-intensive, would result in a loss of view and lack of privacy. He is concerned that the amenities of the town - doctors and schools - will have a big drain on them and that there are a number of trees to be removed, including hawthorns which are native and should not be removed just because the development cannot accommodate them. He also expresses concern about the proposed roundabout and the lack of visibility from the Janet's Corner entrance (17.06.18).

35

5.10.2 They comment that the development will result in significantly greater levels of traffic on the A5 during and after construction and there are already traffic jams on it. The junction of Janet's Corner and the A5 offer limited visibility of oncoming traffic and creating a roundabout will only increase this difficulty. The result will be a dangerous road for traffic and pedestrians. They do not want their present scenic view destroyed by a housing estate and there would be issues of privacy for some new residents. An abundance of wildlife uses the site and the removal of existing trees will affect this. They do not consider that the development will benefit people in the south of the Island (21.06.18). 5.10.3 They ask on 30.07.18 why, if the site does not lie beneath the flight path, do planes fly over the field and on 22.09.18 and why the site is not of ecological interest as there is a heron's nest nearby in the park. 5.10.4 They submit a further comment on 27.07.18 suggesting that if the site does not lie within the flight path, why are planes flying directly overhead and an additional submission on 22.09.18 asking how many heron nests does it take to make a heronry as there are at least three herons' nests in the park opposite which is only 25m away. 5.10.3 They ask what are the legal requirements of having a pelican crossing so close to a roundabout and what distance is required and how will this affect the traffic and the safety of pedestrians (26.02.19). 5.10.4 They submit further comments on 06.02.20 asking again how the site will manage to get the volume of traffic safely out of the site in the mornings with only one access point and back in again in the evenings. 5.11.1 The owner of 19, Queen Street, Castletown supports the development, considering that it is on the main arterial route into Castletown and whilst a green field, will have less visual impact than other sites proposed for the town. He notes that the mix is attractive to the majority of purchasers and not just the rich (11.06.18). 5.12.1 The owners of 29, Bowling Green Road, Castletown consider that there would be an unacceptable increase in traffic on an already busy road and roundabout - an additional 196 vehicles and they do not believe that the increase in population is sustainable and they consider that the local schools may not be able to accommodate the increase in school children. The development will result in increased noise and would have a negative impact on the current character of the green fields. They also comment on impact on their views and the value of their property which are not material planning considerations (04.06.18). 5.13.1 The owner of Lea Crest, Bowling Green Road objects to the application, as she considers the roads around the site are already very busy, dangerous and severely congested and the proposed development would have a major impact on it. She suggests that the field is waterlogged for some of the year and noise and light pollution will be an issue for local residents and Poulsom Park. The fact that part of the site is under the flight-path of the Airport must be a cause for concern (19.06.18) 5.14.1 The owners of Dudley Mount, Douglas Road, Castletown, own land which abuts the site at the north east, express concern about drainage, the impact of increased noise, overlooking, loss of privacy and visual impact as well as traffic problems on a very busy main thoroughfare and they have concerns about modifications to their boundary wall (21.06.18). 5.14.2 They submit further views on 04.10.18, advise that they have no objection to the application but note that may at some point in the future, seek to develop their land and will require access to the main Castletown Road or via the proposed development which will have access to Castletown Road and this will require full access for emergency vehicles. If the development proceeds in its present form, their land will be land-locked and unable to be

36

developed and given the Government's statement that additional housing land should be found in Castletown, they believe that their land should be developed. They do not believe that there will be any significant impact on traffic or difficulties in vehicles joining Victoria Road nor will this be in any way burdensome on the infrastructure of the town. 5.15.1 The owner of Clonraige which sits to the north east of Dudley Mount, objects to the application as they feel the outlook from their land will be onto a housing estate rather than across fields as at present. They consider the density inappropriate and note that there will be increased traffic. The drainage in the area already causes problems and if mains drainage is to be introduced, this should be extended to the other properties on Douglas Road which are served by septic tanks. They suggest that they are already affected by noise from Poulsom Park and the closer proximity of the site will result in greater levels of noise (22.06.18). 5.15.2 They submit further comments on 20.02.20, reiterating their disappointment that the scheme still includes so many houses and emphasising their current issues with surface water, expressing concern that the increase in hard surfacing and raising of the land levels could exacerbate this. They advise that their property, like their neighbours are not connected to the main sewerage system and are served by septic tanks. They already experience noise and disturbance from Poulsom Park and this development will add to this. They have recently experienced power cuts from work they believe was being undertaken on site. They are surprised to see that these houses are already being advertised for sale before any decision has been taken. 5.16.1 The owner of 2, Reayrt ny Cashtal on the south eastern side of the A5, objects to the application, noting that there is a heronry within the site and considers that the density of housing is too great and underneath the flight path. The number of properties will have a resultant impact on traffic, sewerage, schools, and Castletown's charm as a tourist attraction which is based upon the town's semi-rural character and the development proposed would begin the process of eradication of its natural beauty (28.06.18). 5.16.2 They submit further comments on 05.10.18, reiterating the above comments, adding that the site is under the flight path and that the railway may be adversely affected by the development. She believes that the site could be developed sensitively, with fewer dwellings and wildlife habitat which would not have the same impact on local schools, sewerage, doctors' surgeries, etc. She also notes the limited visibility of vehicles approaching the Janet's Corner junction and the construction of a roundabout so close to their property would have a negative impact on their property as well as destruction of part of the stone wall running around the edge of the site. She believes that the latest census suggests that people are moving from the Island and that there may not be a need for the housing. 5.17.1 The owner of 46, Victoria Road objects most strongly to the development due to the already busy road and the difficulties she has getting out of her driveway. She thought that the application site was under the flight path for the Airport and could not be built upon. She believes that if these houses are built, none of the occupants will work and shop in the town and will add nothing to the community (08.07.18). 5.18.1 The owners of 60, Victoria Road note that the northern end of the site is within the Airport flight zone and having aircraft flying almost directly overhead is not ideal. The residents of Victoria Road already find it difficult to get out of their driveways at busy times and the roundabout would make the situation even worse. They suggest that the existing apartments and units in the town should be fully occupied before any new housing is introduced to ensure that footfall in the town is maximised and they wonder how many of the potential occupants will work in Castletown. They would welcome the removal of the brown conifers which appear to be being retained as part of the development (received 10.07.18).

37

5.19.1 The owner of 58, Victoria Road objects to the application on the basis of increased traffic levels, building beneath the flight path and the noise and mess that it will cause for those in the neighbourhood. Whilst she accepts the need for more housing for future generations, this should not be at the cost of damaging the character of Castletown (19.07.18). 5.20 Two respondents who do not provide an address (but are understood to relate to 2, Scoill Close, Peel) comment that they have been looking for an affordable property in the Castletown area since late 2016 and were unable to find anything so bought a house in Peel. Since hearing about the current application they have taken steps to purchase one of these proposed dwellings which would be a more suitable family home. They have read the negative comments about the proposal but believe that more affordably priced homes are needed in the area (29.10.18). 5.21 The owner of 52, Victoria Road expresses concern at the impact of additional traffic leaving the site, on the entrance to The Meadows, making it difficult for people living in Victoria Road to leave their properties in addition to the traffic associated with events held at the railway station, in the town itself, the Morton Hall and including the Parish Walk and the Southern Show and deliveries to the fuel filling station. 5.22 The owners of 54, Victoria Road share concerns about the difficulty of access if the development is approved and if parking restrictions are introduced there would be nowhere for visitors to their properties to park on the road. They are also concerned about noise and nuisance during construction from the establishment of a site compound near to them (06.02.20). ASSESSMENT 6.1 Principle of development 6.1.1 The land is designated for residential development on the Area Plan for the South. As such, there should be a presumption in favour of residential development here. Whilst not relevant to this application, it should be noted that Cabinet Office undertook an exercise to identify further sites for residential development, following the identification in the Area Plan that there was a shortage of development opportunities within Castletown considering its status within the settlement hierarchy. The calculations of need within that exercise included the presumption that the application site would be developed for up to 83 units and still recommended that further land should be designated for housing. As a result of that exercise, a number of sites were concluded as being worthy of consideration for their suitability for residential development through the submission of a detailed planning application and two such applications have been submitted to date (18/0987/B for 45 homes in Knock Rushen and 18/01172/A for the principle of up to 130 homes, sheltered housing, a residential care home and community centre on land off Malew Road). 6.1.2 There is no objection therefore to the principle of residential development here nor development that is implemented in the immediate future. 6.2 Access (GP2 and TPs 2, 4 and 6) 6.2.1 The development will be accessed via a new entrance onto Victoria Road. The Area Plan states that access to this site should be either a re-aligned roundabout at the Bowling Green Road junction or a new roundabout junction at the King William's Way/Douglas Road junction. What is proposed is not in accordance with these recommendations but it is clear from the submission from DoI that this recommendation is not capable of producing a safe means of access into the site which would accord with current highway standards. Similar to the requirement in the Area Plan for a level crossing of the railway line in the Ballasalla bypass proposal (19/00137/B), events have overtaken some of the statements in the Area Plan which now result in detailed requirements no longer being appropriate. The proposed access is considered by the highway authority to be safe and acceptable and such it is not

38

considered that the application is deficient as it no longer complies with all of the requirements of the development brief in the Area Plan. 6.2.2 There is pedestrian and cycle access from the site to Poulsom Park and the footpath system as well as to the nearest bus stops and pedestrian crossing. 6.3 Drainage (IP 1) 6.3.1 There is no objection to the proposal from the drainage authority, Manx Utilities. If the owner of the land over/under which the surface water drainage system is to run (Castletown Commissioners) have issues with this, that is a civil matter between the parties. No indication has been given that this land owner has any objection to the development, only that they have not been consulted on this aspect of it. 6.4 Airport Runway Public Safety Zone (TP11) 6.4.1 The layout does not propose any dwellings within the Runway Safety Zone and there is no objection from Department of Infrastructure Ports Division. Much of Castletown lies under the flight path of aircraft taking off and landing but only part of the town is identified as a PSZ where the congregation of large numbers of people should be avoided - such as new sports pitches or housing. In this case, as with other existing and proposed housing in the vicinity, there will be aircraft flying over the area but in terms of public safety, the development does not contravene the advice provided by the Airport. 6.5 Design (GP2) 6.5.1 The development brief in the Area Plan requires that there is a mix of house types and where development abuts the highway, that the dwellings should be arranged such that they have a frontage onto that highway. Plots 1-8 have been designed with their front doors and front elevations facing onto Douglas Road. The other properties closest to the public highway - plots 95, 32, 33, 42 and 43 have not been arranged or designed with a front elevation facing the highway nor has there been an incorporation in the side facing the road, of any particularly interesting features, which is unfortunate. However, these elevations are separated from the highway by a landscaped zone incorporating trees which will soften the view into the site and there is a distance of over 10m between the buildings and the highway. 6.5.2 The layout and house designs are mixed and interesting with a variety of house types, sizes and colours as well as materials. There is no predominant style of housing in the area with the relative uniformity in age and materials of the semi detached pairs and detached properties along Victoria Road and the new development of similar properties within Janet's Corner, interspersed by the stepped apartments in Strathclyde Court. The detached properties further north add to the variety of styles and materials in the area. 6.6 Affordable housing (HP5) 6.6.1 The proposal accords with the Strategic Plan requirements for affordable housing through the provision of the requisite whole numbers of units on the site. 6.7 Impact on adjacent houses (GP2 and the Residential Design Guidance) 6.7.1 The development is not close enough to existing residential properties to create an unneighbourly impact through inter-visibility, overshadowing or loss of privacy. Whilst those is properties which look directly towards the site will have their view changed, as the site is designated for development it is not reasonable to object to this change on principle. There is also no right to a view as a material consideration. Those near the site will also experience a change from a quiet field to a busy residential estate with the accompanying noise and activity but again, given the land use designation of the site, this is not considered sufficient to refuse the application. 6.7.2 There has been an objection on the basis of potentially prejudicing access to adjacent development land. This land is not presently designated for development and there is no

39

requirement on a landowner to provide an access or a right of access which does not presently exist, within their development. It is physically possible that the land to the rear of the former garage, if it were developed, could be accessed directly through the front of the site, as it is presently and there is no requirement for the application site owner to be the provider of access to this land when there is land contiguous with it, which could and does provide access. 6.8 Impact on the Conservation Area (EPs 35 and 36 and PPS 1/01) and impact on the railway (TP3) 6.8.1 The greatest impact on the Conservation Area comes with the introduction of housing close to the curtilage of the railway station. What is currently a view into an open field for users of the railway will change to one into a housing estate with the rear elevations of a number of detached and a pair of semi-detached dwellings. The boundary treatment at the rear of these properties is to be a planted hedge rather than fencing which will not only help soften the impact of the buildings but will also reduce the potential damage to the trees alongside this boundary. 6.8.2 The experience of being on the train includes vast expanses of rural countryside but also views into existing and developing environments. There is development very close to the line as it runs through Ballasalla and on the approach to Castletown, the train passes existing industrial units within the Ronaldsway Industrial Estate and also the public house and dwellings between the station and Alexandra Road. What is proposed here will be no different and will mark the approach of the train to a town. The treatment of the boundary and the buildings which will be seen are considered to result in an acceptable impact from the railway. 6.9 Trees and ecology 6.9.1 There will be an impact on the trees on site in that some will be removed to facilitate the development and others may be threatened by the development once completed and occupied. The trees to be removed are not considered to contribute positively to the character of the area and whilst there is likely to be some threat post development, there is some control through the exercise of the Tree Preservation Act 1993 and the Department has tried to influence the layout of the site so that the pressure to remove or prune trees will be limited. The development should be undertaken in full compliance with the Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment. 6.9.2 Ecosystems Policy Office have confirmed that there are no protected species within the site that would be affected by the development and a note should be included to encourage the incorporation of bird and bat boxes within the development. The application includes a schedule of works to enhance biodiversity on the site and these should be undertaken in accordance with these recommendations (Chapter 5 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report of August 2018). 6.10 Public Open Space 6.10.1 The proposal is required to provide 8,672 sq m of Public Open Space in the form of 4,878 sq m of formal open space, 1,626 sq m of children's play space and 2,168 sq m of amenity space. The proposal will provide the full complement of children's play space in the northern corner of the site and more than the requisite amenity space, including pathways linking the outer parts of the estate with the public highways, bus stops and pedestrian crossings. The development will provide no formal POS but will provide links to the existing sports pitches in close proximity in Poulsom Park. The applicant suggests that the site is not large enough for such facilities to be provided on site - it could be argued that it could be if there were fewer houses - and that there is a BMX track and rugby pitch as well as accessible promenade and beach, several school playing fields and a public swimming pool, all within walking distance of the site. If it is not desirable or practicable to provide the full complement of POS on site, it is possible to make good any shortfall through a commuted sum payable to the local authority. In this case is it not known whether the applicant has approached the

40

local authority or whether the local authority has indicated that such a commuted sum would be desirable and could enhance the provisions for POS for the town in general or this development in particular. 6.10.2 It is the case the this development is closer to existing areas of public open space and formal sports facilities than many of the other sites designated for residential development in terms of its proximity to Poulsom Park which provides a range of publicly accessible recreational facilities. Access is to these is available via a safe and quick pedestrian route over the railway and into the park. As such, whilst it is necessary to have facilities for small children to be able to play within the site it is not considered so necessary to have formal recreation facilities provided on site in this case. On this basis, it is considered that the provisions for public open space as included in the application are satisfactory. A condition is recommended to demonstrate how the POS will be provided and maintained into the future. CONCLUSION 7.1 The development is considered to accord with the relevant Strategic Plan policies and where there is a departure from General Policy 2 in respect of non-compliance with the development brief in respect of the means of access, this is deemed acceptable in the interests of highway safety. Where there is a shortfall in the provision of Public Open Space this is considered acceptable given the proximity and accessibility of Poulsom Park. This acceptance is dependent upon the application of appropriate conditions to suspend the provisions of the permitted development order in terms of the erection of fencing and walling for plots fronting or backing onto the existing highways including the railway and the footpath to the north east to prevent a hard edge to the development at these points - plots 1-8, 32, 33, 42, 43 or 56, 49-56 and 80-96. Also, the Order should also be suspended in respect of extensions to the properties on plots 49-53 to ensure that further development does not jeopardise the future of the adjacent trees. Conditions should also be attached to reflect the comments and requirements of Highway Services, the protection of the trees and a note attached to encourage the provision of bird and bat boxes. Finally the standard condition regarding planting and landscaping is also recommended. Subject to the above, the application is recommended for approval subject to the completion of a legal agreement under Section 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to secure the delivery of 24 units of affordable housing as referred to in paragraphs 2.2, 2.9 and 6.6.1. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

41


Item 5.3 Proposal : Creation of an extension to existing cemetery with associated

accesses Site Address : Field 432808

Land Adjacent To Malew Church Great Meadow Malew Road Castletown Isle Of Man

Applicant : Church Wardens, Malew And Santon Application No. : Principal Planner :



______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. Prior to first use of the proposed development the proposed accesses shall be surfaced in bound and stable material across its entire width for a distance of at least 5.0m back from the highway boundary. Reason: to avoid loose material being deposited on the highway. C 3. Prior to first use of the proposed development the developer shall provide the visibility splays as indicated on the plan 02E received on 03.02.20 and shall be maintained for the duration of the use of the development. Reason: to ensure highway safety. C 4. Prior to first use of the proposed development the proposed access and parking layout including the works to the field access shall be provided and maintained for the duration of the use of the development. Reason: to ensure that the development operates as intended and does not compromise highway safety. C 5. 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 or the use of the site for car parking and burial purposes. 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.


42

Reason: The landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved. N 1. In order to provide the proposed accesses the developer will need to enter into a Section 109A Highway Agreement with the Highway Authority. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) The proposal is considered to provide an acceptable means of extending the existing burial grounds, in accordance with the Area Plan for the South as well as providing much needed car parking to serve the church, in a manner which is considered to have an acceptable environmental impact.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4): Billown Mansion House and accompanying grounds and 24, Bayr Grianagh as they 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 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. It should be noted that the current owner of the land is automatically afforded IPS under the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), and as such, the owners of Billown Farm are considered to be Interested Persons in this case.

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE DEVELOPMENT IS PARTLY CONTRARY TO THE LAND USE DESIGNATION IN THE AREA PLAN THE SITE 1.1 The site is a parcel of land which lies on the western side of the A3 Malew Road directly to the south of Malew Churchyard. The burial ground for this church extends to the other side of the road, to the north of an existing dwelling, Ballaqueston. To the south of the application site, a little distance from it is one of the accesses to Billown Mansion House and a small dwelling - East Lodge. 1.2 The site has a frontage to Malew Road of 118m and it extends 89m westwards into the field. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the use of this part of the field as a church yard for burials and the scattering of human ashes. The development includes the provision of a vehicular access and egress for users of the site together with an access for farm vehicles going to the agricultural land to the west. 45 parking spaces are proposed including accessible spaces and space for the parking of hearses with the parking and access finished in permeable block paving and set back from the highway by a grass strip of 5m. To the west of the access and parking area there will be

43

two areas for burials and a garden of remembrance, surrounded by a 1.5m high wall, to match those surrounding the burial ground. 2.2 The access for church visitors will be on the basis of an in and out arrangement with the in being at the southern end and the out 15m to the north. The existing roadside wall will be lowered to 1m. An existing field access immediately south of the church yard is to be reduced to pedestrian width only with the existing gate post retained and the space in between filled with metal gates. 2.3 The applicant explains that it is an obligation under Manx law for the Church Wardens of Malew and Santon to provide a burial ground for the residents of Castletown and Malew. The present burial ground was opened in 1953 with space for 1,000 graves and this is nearing capacity with around 10-12 burials per year here and around 5 years' space left at this rate. They advise that the average speed of traffic passing the site is 50 mph which would result in the requirement for a visibility splay of 120m in each direction which they have shown as measured to the far side carriageway from a point 2.4m back from the edge of the carriageway. They describe the arrangement whereby any hearse and funeral cortege will continue to park directly in front of the main pedestrian entrance to the church to the south of the building where there is a layby. 2.4 The first phase of the scheme will be the central burial area and the garden of remembrance. The site rises to the north west and this area could be planted as a feature. They suggest that the proposed parking will also serve visitors to the existing church and churchyard. The edge of the site will be secured by a stockproof fence. The applicant hopes to purchase additional land in order to provide a woodland burial facility. 2.5 The reduction of the roadside wall will be achieved by the removal of the existing informal vertical stone copings and the provision at a lower height, of a rounded top to match the church boundary wall. 2.6 New trees to be introduced would be hawthorn and ash to match other trees along this road. 2.7 Additional plans received on 30th April, 2019 show the site having been reduced in area such that it has a frontage of 120m (compared with 135m as originally submitted). Subsequent amendments show the reduction of the agricultural access to pedestrian access only through the introduction of metal gates to match existing ones within the church and the agricultural traffic will use the main entrance into the car park. The applicant notes that this access has not been used for agricultural traffic for some years as alternative accesses are now available for that. 2.8 The applicant has provided further clarification of the process by which the site was selected and comments on the suggested alternatives to the north and north east. They reiterate that the site is favoured above others primarily due to safety and further due to its natural landscape. They suggest that Option 2, to the north of the existing church involves a difference in ground level and site lines are more restricted. Option 3 across the road from the Church was not considered suitable as it is on the other site of the road from the church and where there is a burial at the church there is a requirement for the entire funeral party, which can involve elderly persons and those grieving, to cross a busy and fast road. If required, they are prepared to undertake work to provide further evidence to support these positions. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Part of the site is designated on the Area Plan for the South (2013) as Proposed Churchyard This does not include all of the site proposed in this application: that area extends to around 40m to the north of the application site and is a different shape. The site lies within

44

an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on the 1982 Development Plan Order and adjacent to the site is an area of archaeological interest. The Area Plan refers to the site as follows: 8.19 Extensions to Burial Grounds 8.19.1 There are proposals to extend two of the existing burial grounds within the South. The first is at Rushen Parish Church and the designation of the land for such purposes is included within the Development Brief for Ballakilley (Site 23). The second is an extension to the churchyard at Malew Church, the land required for such purposes is extensive and as such should only be laid out as formal churchyard when the need arises. In the meantime, the land, which is currently used for agricultural purposes, should remain as such. Land is also allocated for burial purposes at Arbory Church. 8.19.2 Site 27 Location: Malew Parish Church, Malew Proposed Designation: Churchyard 8.20 Development Brief 27 Given the size of the additional churchyard and its likely long term use, a detailed planning application will be required to address the following matters: 1. Phasing of the site and the general layout and design approach; 2. Access and parking arrangements; 3. Requirement for any structures or buildings; and 4. Landscaping - any proposals including all boundary treatments (the walling alongside the highway shall be retained in its current state). 3.2 Malew Church itself is a Registered Building (RB256). 3.3 Land which is not designated for development is generally protected from development under Environment Policy 3 and where the protection of the countryside for its own sake is paramount, as stated in Environment Policies 1 and 2. General Policy 3 sets out those exceptions to the presumption against development and this includes, "development recognised to be of over-riding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative". There is no reference in the Strategic Plan to burial grounds or cemeteries. 3.4 On the agricultural soils map, the site lies within an area of the highest quality on the Island. This relates to area of limestone and stretches north to include Billown Quarry and to the other three sides of Cross Four Ways. All of the land surrounding the graveyards on both sides of the road are included in this. Environment Policy 14 states: Development which would result in the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2) will not be permitted except where there is an overriding need for the development, and land of a lower quality is not available and other policies in this plan are complied with. This policy will be applied to (a) land annotated as Classes 1/2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map; and (b) Class 2 soils falling within areas annotated as Class 2/3 and Class 3/2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The existing churchyard site has been the subject of a number of applications for alterations and extensions, none of which is relevant to the current proposal. REPRESENTATIONS

45

5.1 Malew Parish Commissioners have no objection to the application (06.03.19). 5.2 The representatives of the owners of Billown Mansion and accompanying land, who are in the process of purchasing the land, request that they are afforded interested person status (IPS) on the basis that they are purchasing the site although their existing curtilage lies outwith the 20m referred to in the Operational Policy on IPS. They consider that the proposal would result in an adverse environmental impact in this area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance, and would be highly visible to the public. They query why the first phase is not next to the church and consider the scale of the development and amount of road frontage, excessive. They regret the loss of the agricultural land and note that the allocation in the Area Plan is further from their client's property. They do not consider that alternatives were considered thoroughly enough with option 3 appearing to them to be more suitable and provide a plan of how the development could be accommodated there less conspicuously and with more potential for future expansion (12.03.19). 5.3 The applicant responds to this by suggesting that the site has been lengthened to accommodate the required visibility splays which relate to a speed of passing traffic of 50 mph. Given this, they considered that phase one should start in the middle, away from the older graves which adjoin the edge of the existing graveyard 5.4 The owner of 24, Bayr Grianagh in Castletown is disappointed that there is an objection to the application and advises that in her view, a setting such as this is entirely appropriate for a burial ground where our ancestors placed their loved ones and the standing stone at Skilbrick would not be obscured. She confirms that her family are buried in the existing churchyard and it gives her great pleasure to know that they are resting in a place of such beauty. She regularly attends the site and acknowledges the difficulty in crossing the road from the layby to the other side of the road and notes that parking is not easy which would all be resolved with the new proposal (27.03.19). 5.5 In response to the proposed purchase of the site by others, the applicant's representative suggests that the application site is the preferred one and the discussions for this have been on-going for a long time, until the vicar passed away quite suddenly and the application was delayed whilst new church wardens were appointed. They consider that there are no other places with appropriate sight lines. The Burial Authority will not be in a position to negotiate the purchase of the land until planning approval has been granted and whilst it may be owned by others, the Burial Authority has a duty to find suitable burial sites for Malew and Castletown and there is provision within the Act for compulsory purchase although that is not the preferred route. 5.6 The representatives of the prospective purchasers submit further comments on 09.04.19, indicating that the required sight lines of 120m are not available to the entrance to the site and they suggest that as the speed limit is significantly lowered around the church, an alternative access could be provided within this area. 5.7 Highway Services opposed the application on 17.04.19 for reasons relating to the fact that the required visibility splays of 2.4m by 120m have not been demonstrated as being available. They also suggest that the farm access should be widened to better accommodate farm traffic and some form of barrier introduced to prevent burial traffic using the agricultural exit. A swept path diagram for the hearse should be provided. 5.8 The owners of Billown Farm confirm that they are the present owners of the land and have never entered into any agreement to sell the land to the church. They endorse and support the submission by the prospective purchasers (09.05.19).

46

5.9 Following the submission of amended plans in January 2020, Highway Services submitted further views, indicating that they no longer oppose the application as the proposal now includes satisfactory provisions for access and visibility, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to first use of the proposed development the proposed accesses shall be surfaced in bound and stable material across its entire width for a distance of at least 5.0m back from the highway boundary. Reason: to avoid loose material being deposited on the highway. 2. Prior to first use of the proposed development the developer shall provide the visibility splays as indicated on the plan 02E and shall be maintained for the duration of the use of the development. Reason: to ensure highway safety. 3. Prior to first use of the proposed development the proposed access and parking layout including the works to the field access shall be provided and maintained for the duration of the use of the development. Reason: to ensure that the development operates as intended and does not compromise highway safety. Informative In order to provide the proposed accesses the developer would need to enter into a Section 109A Highway Agreement with the Highway Authority. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues in this case are whether the principle of the use of the land as proposed is acceptable and if so, whether the layout as shown is acceptable in visual, environmental and highway safety terms. The ownership of the land is not a material consideration: if the applicant has no right to undertake the development as they have no control over the land, that is a matter for them. The purchase of land occurs irrespective of and separate from the planning process as do any proceedings in respect of compulsory purchase. Principle 6.2 The site is partly designated for this purpose on the Area Plan. There is no accompanying text in the Written Statement which explains how the site came to be defined in the way it was in the Plan. This should be the starting point if there is demonstrated to be a need for an expansion of the churchyard and whilst the objectors point out that the proposed site is larger than that shown on the Area Plan, at least part of it coincides with the area shown in the Plan which could not be said for any other proposed locations. It is also relevant that the church is on the same side of the road as the site resulting in those visiting the church being able to park and access the church without needing to cross the highway. The series of bends would make it difficult to provide a pedestrian crossing which was safe to use unless placed some distance from the bends which would then make it impracticable and unlikely to be used. 6.3 There is clearly an established need to continue to provide burial places and a place for the interment of ashes and it is logical and desirable that this should continue to be associated with the church rather than having a separate location for the church as from the burial ground as is the case with Braddan Parish where, again people would have to cross two busy roads to go between the two, or resort to using a car. The Area Plan makes it clear that it is acceptable to have an extension of the churchyard in this location as well as making provision for car parking and access. 6.4 Whilst there were other options considered, neither of these is designated for this use and it is considered that wherever the car park would be, it would be visible and have the same or

47

similar visual impact. It is also important that if it is to be used, that those who wish to use it can see clearly where it is and how to enter. It is inevitably therefore, likely to be visible. 6.5 Whilst the location of the site is within the highest quality agricultural land on the Island, this is true of all of the land surrounding the church and again, the land is partly designated for this purpose on the relevant Area Plan. Layout 6.6 The proposal will retain much of the existing roadside walling which adds significantly to the character of the area. In order to be effective the car park and its entrance need to be seen. The site lies adjacent to the church, the layby and Ballaqueston, all of which create a different character to the otherwise open character of the surrounding area although the rural nature is already interrupted by the various residential properties here such as the Billown Mansion House gate lodge, Church Farm and Great Meadow. The change in speed limit suggests that the character is changing as the buildings come into view and the otherwise relatively straight road changes to a series of bends. It is not considered that the proposal would have so significant or adverse a visual impact as to warrant refusal for that reason. Highway safety 6.7 The plans have been modified to take into account highway safety, in particular the prevention of vehicles using the existing farm entrance, which needs to be retained but should not provide access for significantly greater numbers of vehicles due to limited visibility to the north. In addition, visibility has been measured to accord with accepted standards. CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal is considered to provide an acceptable means of extending the existing burial grounds, in accordance with the Area Plan for the South as well as providing much needed car parking to serve the church, in a manner which is considered to have an acceptable environmental impact and the application is supported. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

48


Item 5.4 Proposal : Erection of two apartment blocks to provide 66 residential

apartments with associated car parking, landscaping and drainage infrastructure

Site Address : Garage And Adjoining Land Between Former Wool Control Centre & 41 Peel Road Peel Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 4LX

Applicant : Douglas Borough Council Application No. : Principal Planner :



______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. Prior to occupation of the first dwelling, the car parking along with access and turning areas shall be constructed as indicated on the approved plans and shall remain as approved for the duration of occupation of the development. Reason: to minimise on-street car parking that could be detrimental to the operation of the highway. C 3. Within one month of this decision becoming final a detailed scaled plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department which shows at least 66 spaces for cycles parking within the site. This approved scheme is required to be completed and ready for use prior to the occupation of the first apartment and maintained and retained for cycle parking thereafter. Reason: to encourage sustainable transport in accordance with the active travel strategy C 4. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the visibility splays as indicated on the Site Plan have been provided and these shall have no obstruction greater than 0.9m above back of footway level and no greater than 1.0m above carriageway level. Reason: to ensure highway safety. C 5. The painting scheme/colours of the two buildings hereby approved and as shown on drawings A_PL_055 & A_PL_056 shall be completed prior to the occupation of any unit and maintained and retained thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Department.


49

Reason: In the interest of visual amenities of the street scene and the buildings which will also ensure the terrace affect is created and maintained which is an important aspect of the development. C 6. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. C 7. No development shall take place until full details of soft and hard landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include details of new planting (including tree planting) showing, type, size and position of each. 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. 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. Details of the hard landscaping works include footpaths and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the building/s hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development. C 8. This planning approval for 66 apartments can only be taken up by the applicants Douglas Borough Council and may only be occupied for the purposes of Affordable Housing (Public Sector Rentals) as proposed. Reason: The lack of Public Open Space, Affordable Housing provisions and under provision of off street parking spaces have only been judged acceptable given the Applicant's specific use/needs of the building. C 9. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or damaged in any manner during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of occupation of the building for its permitted use, 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 agreed and implemented. 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 10. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the protective fencing shown in the approved Tree Protection Plan (drawing A_PL_058 and AL_PL_058 Rev A - dated as received 4th November and 20th December 2019, respectively) marked as a green line, shall be fully installed and shall be retained for the duration of the construction process. Reason: To ensure that trees marked for retention are adequately protected, in the interests maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated.

50

C 11. The replacement tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the location and site plan (drawing A_PL_058 and AL_PL_058 Rev A - dated as received 4th November and 20th December 2019, respectively) submitted in support of the application. The planting shall be carried out in the first planting season following the completion of the development. 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 that replacement tree planting takes place to mitigate the tree removal required to facilitate the development N 1. The developer would need to enter into a Section 109A Highway Agreement in order to undertake works on the existing highway. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) Given the proposal would not have a significant impact upon public or private amenities, whilst re developing a prominent site within Douglas Town Centre within a sustainable location, it therefore complies with the relevant planning polices outlined within the Isle of Man Strategic Local Plan, The Draft Area Plan for the East and The Isle of Man Active Travel Strategy 2018 - 2021.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons 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 6(4): 1 Railway Terrace, Douglas is 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.

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL 1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of the former Athol Garage car sales building which lies between the former wool control building (a stone building which sits to the south east of the Brown Bobby fuel filling station) and a terrace of three storey Victorian buildings which mostly accommodate apartments. The site until recently had hard surfaced parking areas around the single building (former Athol Car Showroom) on the site which was a one storey (two storey to rear due to topography of site) and a typical basic flat roof with large areas of glazing. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of two apartment blocks to provide 66 residential apartments with associated car parking, landscaping and drainage infrastructure. 2.2 The applicants of the application are Douglas Borough Council who seeks the new apartments for affordable housing (Public Sector for rent). The applicants advise that existing Douglas Council apartment blocks on Lord Street are approaching the end of their practical

51

lifespan and the provision of new dwellings on Peel Road as proposed will give the Council the option of relocating existing Lord Street tenants if required. The long term future of the Lord Street sites is yet to be determined. 2.3 The larger of the two buildings would be located along the northern elevation of the site, fronting onto Peel Road. This building would be six storeys, although from Peel Road it would appear mainly as a five storey building. The building would have a total width of 58.8 metres, a depth of 13.8 metres and its height would range between 10.6 metres and 17 metres when measuring the Peel Road elevation. 2.4 To the rear of the main proposed building is an additional detached five storey building, although the two lower levels are mostly designated for parking and are below the ground level of the site. Accordingly, from Peel Road the building would also appear as a five storey building. The building would have a total width of 19 metres, a depth of 13.8 metres and its height would range between 10.6 metres and 16.2 metres when measuring the Peel Road elevation. 2.5 Both buildings would be primarily finished in smooth render of different colours. The use of stone, brick, pressed metal, metal cladding is also proposed. The windows and doors would generally be finished in powder coated aluminium in a grey or similar colour. 2.6 The proposal would provide a total of 28 parking spaces within the site and a secure bike store for 25 cycles within the main building. However, during the planning process an additional plan was provided which showed an additional room which could provide storage space for an additionally 33 cycles (vertical storage on walls) and an additional 8 cycles storage to the previously shown room to give a total of 33, up from the 25 initially shown. Accordingly, a total of 66 cycle spaces could be provided within the site. 2.7 For information the proposal design, scale, siting and finishes are similar to a previously approved application (believed to have been commenced). While there are some slight alterations the main change are the introduction of a hipped roof, compared to the original proposal which had a very shallow hipped roof, and the building was seven storeys at the rear which included two lower levels of car parking which result in a total of 73 car parking spaces throughout the site. 3.0 PLANNING STATUS AND POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area of Light Industry and Private Woodland on the Douglas Local Plan of 1998. It should be noted that the majority, if not all of the built development on the site is within the area designated as Light Industry. The western side of the site which is currently a wooded area is the section designated as Private Woodland. The site is not within a Conservation Area. 3.2 Under the current Draft Area Plan for the East the site (DH022) is designated as "Industrial" and also within the catchment area of "Proposed Comprehensive Treatment Areas 3". 3.3 Following the recently Public Inquiry to the Area Plan for the East the Independent Planning Inspector made the following comments, which relate to the application site being designed for residential development (providing a approximate yield of 63 dwelling): "I consider that priority should be given to the development of land allocated for residential development within existing settlement boundaries. That land would provide about 560 dwellings, as shown in the Table 1 below. Much of it consists of vacant or underused sites in Douglas, which detract from that town's appearance and vitality. It is important that this land should be restored to beneficial use as soon as possible. Taken together with the 600 dwellings that were either built between 2011 and 2018, are likely to be the product of extant

52

planning approvals, or will be the likely output of future conversions, this would leave a need for the allocation of sufficient land for the provision of about 340 additional dwellings, to meet the identified immediate requirement for 1,500 additional dwellings." 3.4 Due to the site location, land use designation and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:- 3.5 The Spatial Distribution Policies within the Strategic Plan set out the hierarchy of settlements, indicating that Douglas will remain the main employment and service centre for the island, with other towns as supporting service centres. 3.6 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." 3.7 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." 3.8 Strategic Policy 10 states: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement" 3.9 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 space 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 adverse 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."

53

3.10 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 semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value." 3.11 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." 3.12 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." 3.13 Housing Policy 5 states: "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more." 3.14 Housing Policy 6 states: "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." 3.15 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." 3.16 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." 3.17 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." 3.18 Transport Policy 8 states: "The Department will require all applications for major development to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7." 3.19 Community Policy 10 states: "Proposals for the layout and development of land will be permitted only where there is provided proper access for fire-fighting vehicles and adequate supplies of water for fire-fighting purposes." 3.20 Community Policy 11 states: "The design and use of all new buildings and of extensions to existing buildings must, as far as is reasonable and practicable, pay due regard to best practice such as to prevent the outbreak and spread of fire." DRAFT AREA PLAN FOR THE EAST - "Draft Published 25th May 2018 - Updated version to show minor modifications";

54

3.21 Urban Environment Proposal 2 states: "All new development and regeneration proposals within the Comprehensive Treatment Areas and Douglas Town Centre must demonstrate design elements to provide and enhance areas of public realm through sensitive and context-specific design." 3.22 Housing Policy 3 states: "The Island's housing need of 5100 additional dwellings between 2011 and 2026 is to be met by a spatial distribution of housing across the North, South, East and West as follows: o North 770 o South 1,120 o East 2,440 o West 770 o All-Island 5,100" 3.23 CTA Proposal 3 (Treatment Plan) states: "Development of this area could include either leisure, retail warehouse (bulky goods), offices and residential uses. The acceptability of the range of uses and their precise location shall be assessed as part of a development brief taking into account accessibility, highway impact, design, visual impact and flood mitigation. Provision for a cycle route that links to the Heritage Trail shall be included". 3.24 Transport Proposal 1 states: "Development proposals must take into account the Active Travel Strategy and any specific actions set out in the Active Travel Action Plan." 3.25 The Isle of Man Active Travel Strategy 2018 - 2021 states: "The long-term vision for the Isle of Man is: to be an Island where cycling and walking are normal and realistic transport choices for people of all ages and abilities. One of the main ways in which to achieve this vision will be to increase the number of people travelling actively. Active travel is defined as "walking or cycling (including the use of electric bicycles) as an alternative to motorised transport (cars, buses, motorcycles etc) for the purpose of making everyday journeys. The Department will incorporate terms such as "walking" or "walker" as a generic term to include running as well as non-motorised uses for instance wheelchairs, electric wheelchairs, mobility scooters and other mobility aids, scooters and other means of self-propulsion." 4.0 REPRESENTATIONS 4.1 Douglas Borough Council initially raised no objection (received on 13th 29.11.2019). 4.2 DOI Highway Services have no objection (received on 27.01.2014) to the application and make the following comments: "Key highway issues The key highway issues are as follows: o Layout of the site access and Section 109A Highway Agreement; o Internal access road layout; o Traffic generated by the proposed development and impact upon the local road network; o Pedestrian access onto the external highway network including access to bus services; o On site car parking provision; o Stage 1 Road Safety Audit; and o Cycle parking. Background A previous planning application 13/91517/B was approved on 2nd June 2017 for 73 apartments with 73 on-site car parking spaces.

55

Attached to the approval notice for 13/91517/B were planning conditions in relation to the provision of car parking and turning around areas in accordance with the approved plans, provision of cycle and motorcycle parking in accordance with the approved plans and allocation of car parking spaces. The current application is supported by a Transport Assessment (TA) which was used to support the previous application 13/91517/B and is dated November 2014. The TA makes mention of the then proposed 70 apartments with 73 car parking spaces. The TA provides a detailed description of the existing local highway network in proximity of the proposed development site. The TA indicated that the development would generate around 20 vehicle movements in the morning peak hour and around 18 vehicle movements in the evening peak hour. Note that a journey in and then out is 2 vehicle movements. Whilst it was demonstrated that the traffic generated by the development would not have a significant negative impact upon the highway network, it was recommended that either the words 'KEEP CLEAR' are marked in the westbound lane of Peel Road at the access to the development or yellow box markings are laid in the carriageway so that vehicles which may queue at the approach to the traffic signals do not prevent other vehicles from turning right into the development and hence block the eastbound lane of Peel Road. The current application is for 66 apartments comprising 18 x 1 bedroom units and 48 x 2 bedroom units; that is, a total of 114 bedrooms with on-site car parking reduced significantly to 28 spaces. Layout of the site access and Section 109A Highway Agreement The access has been assessed as part of a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA), the outcomes of which are detailed further on in this report. The footway in front of the site is only around 1.8m wide but due to the location of the proposed access, the use of land within the site and the reduction in height of the Manx stone wall to the south eastern end of the frontage, visibilities of 2.4m x 43m can be achieved. It is noted that the Manx stone wall would be reduced in height to 900mm, or no more than 1.0m above the adjacent carriageway level. The site access within the highway boundary has radius kerbs and is around 5.8m wide. Tactile paving has been indicated on the footway on either side of the access and dropped kerbs would need to be provided. It has been demonstrated by means of swept path analysis that the access could accommodate the in and out turning movements of the appropriate waste collection vehicle. It is understood that the proposed access would make use of an existing access. Any accesses or sections of an access that are not required would need to be reinstated to footway with a full height kerb width. Following initial comments from Highway Services the applicant confirmed on an updated plan that all of the redundant drop kerbs on Peel Road are to be replaced with full height kerbs. The RSA raised the issue of a gully being located within the site access and it was recommended that this be relocated. It is noted that the recommendation in the TA for a 'keep clear' road making in the west bound lane by the site entrance has been incorporated within the plans.

56

The developer would need to enter into a Section 109A Highway Agreement with the Highway Authority in order to construct the access as indicated on the plans which should include the dropped kerbs for the pedestrian crossing, the reinstatement of redundant dropped kerbs and the relocation of the gully. Internal access road layout The ramps up to Peel Road from the car park are steeper than the normal standard but with an average gradient of around 1:11 over 23m upwards to the highway, this should not normally present a problem as slopes down to the highway are more problematic in icy conditions. Highway Services advised the applicant to check that there was not a risk of vehicles grounding at changes in gradient and a drawing was subsequently provided that indicated transition zones within the ramps. A suitable turning around area has been provided within the site for a waste collection vehicle. This has been demonstrated by means of a swept path analysis. Refer also to the section relating to Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. Traffic generated by the proposed development and impact upon the local road network Due to the TA being based upon a much greater level of car parking provision the traffic impact will be a very robust assessment. That is, the development would generate around 7 or 8 vehicle movements in the peak hours rather than the previous 18 or 20. Therefore the traffic impact of the development upon the local road network would be relatively small. Pedestrian access onto the external highway network including access to bus services The proposed development would be around 600m from the town centre and would generally be within a 10 minute walk to many facilities within the pedestrianized Strand Street. The bus station on Lord Street serves other parts of the island and is just over 600m from the proposed development. There are also bus stops on Peel Road within 200m situated to the west of the site. It is considered that the site is in a sustainable location with good access to facilities on foot, bicycle and public transport including the steam railway. On site car parking provision As stated above the current application is for 66 apartments comprising 18 x 1 bedroom units and 48 x 2 bedroom units; that is, a total of 114 bedrooms. Under normal circumstances in a development away from a town centre there would be a requirement for 114 on-site car parking spaces. The currently proposed 28 car parking spaces are 25% of the normal requirement or only a 42% provision per apartment. The car park layout is acceptable in terms of size of spaces and layout. However; the TA does not address the greatly reduced car parking provision. Douglas Borough Council has provided supporting information in relation 176 flats in 5 town centre locations which have zero on-site car parking provision. A further 27 flats have 1 space per flat but there is low demand for these spaces. Douglas Borough Council intends to replace or refurbish many of these flats whereby the tenants would be relocated to the proposed new apartments. Due to the sustainable location where there is ready access on foot to most everyday required facilities, including public transport and the fact that most of the relocated tenants would not be car owners, it is considered that 42% car parking provision per apartment would be acceptable in this location under these circumstances. Ducting within the car parking areas will be provided to enable the installation of electric charging points should these be required by future tenants.

57

Stage 1 Road Safety Audit The application is supported by a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) which raises the following potential problems: o Problem A - Service vehicles accessing the site. The proposed turning area for a refuse collection vehicle has been amended which is now satisfactory. o Problem B - Existing redundant dropped kerbs. This has been addressed on a revised plan and will form part of the Section 109A works. o Problem C - Existing gully in the centre of the proposed site access. The relocation has not been indicated on the site plan but is mentioned in the designer's response to the RSA. The relocation can be undertaken as part of the Section 109A works. o Problem D - Provision of tactile paving at the site entrance for pedestrians. Tactile paving has been indicated on the plans but not the dropped kerbs. Again, this can be undertaken as part of the Section 109A works. o Problem E - Access to car parking spaces. It is understood that this was resolved by reducing the number of spaces from 30 to 28. Cycle parking In the supporting information Douglas Council states 'The Council strongly supports and encourages the active travel strategy and will provide secure cycle storage at the new Peel Road apartments and all future town centre housing developments.' This statement is of particular importance where the car parking provision is below normal standards. The Manual for Manx Roads states that 1 cycle parking space should be provided for each residential dwelling and for flats this should be a communal facility provided as an integral part of the development. There are 66 apartments and a single cycle storage room was initially proposed within the lower ground floor of the main building where it was indicated that around 25 cycles could be stored. This initial provision was not considered to be sufficient and an amended proposal was submitted by the applicant with an additional cycle storage room on the lower ground floor. The revised plan indicates that the required 66 cycles can be stored by means of vertical storage racks. The spacing of the racks appears to be at 0.29m centres. By comparison using conversional Sheffield cycle stands with a normal spacing of 1.0m, each of which could accommodate 2 cycles, the average spacing in this case would be 0.5m. The applicant would be required to provide more detail of cycle parking systems in order to demonstrate this this spacing is viable. It should be noted that some UK authorities allow a reduced standard in terms of numbers where there are a large number of apartments and the facilities are shared. In view of this, a modest reduction in the number of spaces may be acceptable if higher quality cycle parking could be provided. It is therefore considered that subject to further details of the cycle parking being provided, the 2 proposed cycle storage rooms would acceptable in principle. Representation A representation has been received that made mention of the following highway related issues: o Lack of on-site car parking and concerns about an increase in on-street car parking; o Increase in traffic as a result of the development; and o The site should include an additional access into Railway Terrace. The traffic generation and on-site car parking have been previously addressed within this report. The site access would not be of an adoptable standard and could not provide a public highway link to Railway Terrace. Suggested Planning Conditions

58

1. Prior to occupation of the first dwelling, the car parking along with access and turning areas shall be constructed as indicated on the approved plans and shall remain as approved for the duration of occupation of the development. Reason: to minimise on-street car parking that could be detrimental to the operation of the highway. 2. Prior to occupation of the first dwelling, the developer should provide further details of the proposed cycle parking for the approval of Highway Services and the approved cycle parking shall be provided as indicated on the approved plans. Reason: to encourage sustainable transport in accordance with the active travel strategy. 3. Prior to occupation of the first dwelling the developer shall provide the visibility splays as indicated on the Site Plan with no obstruction greater than 0.9m above back of footway level and no greater than 1.0m above carriageway level. Reason: to ensure highway safety. Informative: The developer would need to enter into a Section 109A Highway Agreement in order to undertake works on the existing highway. Recommendation: DNOC" 4.3 DOI Housing Division makes the following comments (received on 20.01.2020): "We refer to the aforementioned application, and we can confirm that we have looked at the detail of the application and have considered the provision of a 25% affordable housing requirement. In the case of this application, the Applicant is Douglas Borough Council and the proposals include the creation of 66 apartments which are all to be Public Sector Homes for Rent, and will be used to accommodate a mix of existing DBC tenants and persons from the DBC housing waiting lists. Accordingly, the Department would confirm that in the context of this application there is no requirement for any other housing provision as all the proposed units are affordable. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the matter." 4.4 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture - Assistant Arboricultural Officer makes the following comments (received on 18.12.2019): "I would like to make the following comments in relation to application 19/01222/B (Garage and Adjoining Land between Former Wool Control Centre & 41 Peel Road Peel Road Douglas) The applicant has submitted a tree report by Lezayre Landscapes Ltd dated 17/12/2013 that has outlined the condition of the trees. This report references appendix 1 (a tree protection plan) but it appears that this drawing has not been submitted. A separate a tree removal/ protection plan (ref: A_PL_058 and A_PL_058 Rev A), produced by Dandara, is provided with the supporting documents, however the proposal requires a number of trees to be removed to facilitate the development. I note that this has already been approved under 13/91517/B but feel I should point out the extent of urban tree canopy cover being lost as part of this proposal. The mitigation planting does not fully mitigate this impact. The protection plan (A_PL_058) shows a line of tree protection fencing on the edge of the canopy line which may not fully in accordance with the recommendations made in BS5837:2012, but in this instance it is justified due to pre-existing site conditions. The wooded copse to the south of the development which is a registered area has started to encroach and is likely to require pruning to facilitate access. I recommend that you request a pruning specification so that we can assess the impact this may have.

59

The planting described on A_PL_050 propose s4 species of trees. 1 of the 4 trees (ash) are not available on the island due to disease and the other 3 may ultimately be too large for its position. I recommend you request further detail/ revised replanting plan. If the pruning specification and amended planting details are submitted and this application is approved, I recommend that you consider applying the following conditions: 1. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, destroyed, pruned, cut or damaged in any manner during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of occupation of the building for its permitted use, 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 agreed and implemented. 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. 2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the protective fencing shown in the approved Tree Protection Plan (drawing A_PL_058) marked as a green line, shall be fully installed and shall be retained for the duration of the construction process. Reason: To ensure that trees marked for retention are adequately protected, in the interests maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated. 3. The replacement tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the location and site plan (drawing A_PL_058) submitted in support of the application. The planting shall be carried out in the first planting season following the completion of the development. 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 that replacement tree planting takes place to mitigate the tree removal required to facilitate the development." 4.4.1 Following these comments and additional discussions with the applicants, including additional information the Assistant Arboricultural Officer makes the following comments (06.01.2020): "The specifications given in the pruning plan would have little impact to the landscape, and forestry would have no objection to the works described." 4.5 Senior Fire Safety Officer - IOM Fire & Rescue Service (received on 30th January 2020) comment they have met with the applicants to discuss the proposal in relations to various exceptions beginning potentially acceptable, but additional safety measures (fire sprinkler system, fire rates smoke control system in the means of escape) would be required to be provided/additional information; and that the floor height on storey 4 is 11.8m which exceeds the requirement for an alternative means of escape, however again they comment they are willing to consider an exemption for the requirement of a second means of escape form the 4th storey on this occasions due to the nature of the excessive height being 0.8m and the inclusion of a sprinkler and smoke control system as outlined previously; finally as it is proposed to accommodate disabled occupants on the ground floor only, if the management

60

of the building changes in the future the Fire & Rescue Services must be informed before such changes take place. 4.6 The owner/occupier of 1 Railway Terrace, Douglas (received on 06.01.2020) objects to the application on the following summarised grounds: should include 1 space per apartment as existing street in area are already swamped with cars; site should include returning road access back to Railway terrace as it was previously; designs not in keeping with townhouses across Peel Road and Railway Terrace; and traffic on this road is at breaking point already and adding 70 apartments could make it impossible for people to get into Railway Terrace. 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application: 5.2 Re-development of site with residential scheme of seventy three (reduced by amendment) apartments - 13/91517/B - APPROVED subject to the following 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2 The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times. Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety. C 3 The development shall not be occupied or operated until the bicycle store and motorcycling parking bays have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. The bicycle store and motorcycling parking bays shall be retained at all times thereafter. Reason: To promote sustainable travel in the interests of reducing pollution and congestion. C 4 Each apartment shall be allocated one of the car parking spaces and the space will be available only for the parking of a private vehicle associated with that apartment. Reason: to ensure adequate car parking standard for the scheme. C 5 No site works or clearance shall be commenced until protective fences which conform with British Standard 5837:2012 (or any British Standard revoking and re-enacting British Standard 5837:2012 with or without modification) as shown on drawing A/PL 008 REV H and in compliance with the submitted tree protection measures as indicated within the applicants "Updated Planning Statement - Amended Scheme, April 2014" written statement. Unless and until the development has been completed these fences shall not be removed and the protected areas are to be kept clear of any building, plant equipment, material, debris and trenching, with the existing ground levels maintained, and there shall be no entry to those areas except for approved arboricultural or landscape works. Reason: To safeguard the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.

61

C 6 No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. C 7 No development shall commence until details of the colour and texture of the render have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. C 8 No development shall take place until full details of soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include details of the roadside landscaping adjacent to Peel Road, within and around the car park areas and to the south-western corner of the site. 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 or the occupation of the last apartment, 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. Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development." 5.3 Approval in principle to re-develop site for residential purposes - 11/00724/A - APPROVED 5.4 Approval in principle to re-develop site with office building and associated parking - 11/00723/A - APPROVED 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The following Material Planning Issues should be considered: 1. Principle of Residential Development; 2. Character and appearance; 3. Parking Provisions & Highway Issues; 4. Loss of trees/tree protection; 5. Potential Impacts upon Neighbouring Residential Amenity; 6. Potential Legal Agreements; and 7. Potential Impact upon Wool Centre building. PRINCIPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 6.2 As indicated previously, the site is designated for light industrial use and therefore the proposed development is not compatible with the land use zoning of the area. However, it should be noted that the un-adopted written statement to the Douglas Local Plan, in paragraph 8.14, states that "Within the central area of the town there exist pockets of industrial use which could well be relocated in order to free up development area with potential for better and more appropriate use, in particular residential. Such existing industrial uses in the central area of the town will therefore be encouraged to relocate". 6.3 It is also important to note the previous approvals (13/91517/B, 11/00723/A & 11/00724/A) which allowed the principle to re-develop site for residential purposes or office uses, i.e. neither use were compatible with the current land use designation. Whilst both of

62

these AIP applications have now expired, the 13/91517/B application is believed to have commenced. Accordingly, weight is attached to these approvals. 6.4 Whilst the proposed use of the land for residential purposes does not accord with the land-use zoning on the Local Plan, it nevertheless accords with the Planning Directorates recent practice in respect of other similarly zoned land in the immediate area, and with the Directorate's general policy of encouraging residential development within the central areas of our towns. Furthermore, the existing buildings and site were last used as a car showroom (temporary car park) and are unlikely to be used for light industrial purposes in the future. The site is also adjacent to residential properties and a non-residential use could have arguably greater impact upon neighbouring properties. 6.5 Final the Planning Inspector comments as part of the Area Plan for the East are of significant weight, that essentially this site is suitable for residential development. 6.6 Accordingly, it is considered the principle of developing the site for an alternative use, i.e. residential, to be acceptable in this locality; however, there are other material considerations to be taken into account in order to determine whether the proposed development is acceptable. CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE 6.7 The proposed building would be apparent from a number of publicly viewable locations. The main views would be from Peel Road and from Circular Road. It should be noted that the overall design, mass, scale and overall appearance is very similar (if not slightly smaller) than the previously approved scheme (13/91517/B). 6.8 The proposed buildings would be standalone structures detached from neighbouring properties. However, they would be read in conjunction with the existing traditional terraced properties and the former wool control building. Due to this, it is important to ensure the new proposal respects the proportion, form, design and appearance of the existing terraced properties. Visiting the area it was evident that the neighbouring property Nr 41 Peel Road is located to the southeast of the main apartment building. Nr 41 is also the last property which forms part of the traditional Victorian terrace along the same side of Peel Road. These properties are mainly three storeys in height; however, the two closest properties Nr 41 and Nr 39 are fours storeys in height, namely due to flush flat roof dormer windows being installed, giving a four storey appearance. There are also other properties which have had dormer extensions undertaken within this terrace. To the northwest of the site is the former wool control building which is large detached stone building, having the appearance of a two storey building. 6.9 Opposite the site are further terraced properties, which are categorised by three and half storey properties (Nrs 28 to 36) with the half storey created by an original flush dormer window to the front elevation, which adds to the attractiveness and quality of the buildings and street scene. Within the same terrace there are other examples of differing design, one being Analyst House which is an example of a more contemporary designed office building. This has similar proportions and form, including the same eves detail and similar bay windows of the original terraced buildings, but the use of large expanses of glazing (i.e. floor to ceiling) results in a more contemporary design, although retaining the similar proportions and form of the existing terrace. 6.10 The proposed building when viewed from Peel Road would mainly appear as a five storey building albeit, the main building is flanked at each gable with a three/four storey winged building to help reduce the massing and scale of the proposal. The submission also includes a vertical emphasis with the inclusion of vertically proportion widows and vertical projecting square bay windows. Furthermore, the used of various painted render colours also emphasises a row of terraced properties, rather than one building, which is considered useful

63

in terms of the context of the area made up of terraced properties. The design is more contemporary in design and would certainly appear as a different design approach along this section of Peel Road, albeit a modern interpretation of a traditional Victorian terrace. 6.11 It should be noted that a different design approach from the traditional Victorian style, has been previously accepted on the nearby site of Allen Bank site (corner of Peel Road and Circular Road) which approved 52 apartments (06/01098/B). This again was contemporary in approach. 6.12 In relation to the height, mass and scale of the proposals, namely the main block fronting onto Peel Road, it is perhaps important to note that the proposal would be sited 15.8 metres from the gable elevation of Nr 41. This would ensure a sizeable space between new and old and gives a clear break within the street scene. Whilst the buildings is mainly rectangular in shape and sizeable in mass, the uses of the projecting bay windows, a variety of finishes, including stone to the majority of the ground floors where they meet Peel Road and the use of different colours all help to reduce the overall impact of the building. 6.13 The vertical emphasis created by the vertically proportioned windows, bay windows and painted finishes, all help to create the appearance of individual terraced properties, rather than one block of apartments. Accordingly, due to these design features the building is generally well broken, creating a variety of terraces, and helping to reduce the overall mass of the building. 6.14 It is also noted, that whilst the original showroom garage building on the site is smaller in scale, being single storey when viewed from Peel Road, it is not considered in keeping with the area and certainly did not add to the character of the area or street scene. 6.15 Overall, whilst the proposed design is more contemporary in approach, the height, mass, proportion and scale of the proposal would be appropriate and in keeping with the properties in the street scene and consequently it is considered the proposal would comply with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. PARKING PROVISIONS & HIGHWAY ISSUES 6.16 Arguable, this is perhaps one of the most contentious issues with the proposal. As identified within Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, one off road parking space is required for a one bedroom unit and two spaces are required for two or more bedroomed units. In this case the proposal is for 66 apartments, 48 two bedroom apartments, with the remaining 18 units being one bedroom apartments. Accordingly, a total of 114 spaces are required on site by this proposal to accord with Appendix 7. 6.17 This submission proposes a total of 28 car parking spaces (i.e. one space per apartment) and potentially 66 cycle parking spaces. Therefore it could be considered contrary to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and therefore refused on these grounds. However, it is important to note that Appendix 7 includes possible reasons to allow a relaxation of the parking standards. One of these reasons paragraph (d), indicates that if a site is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality, then a relaxation may be made. Further, Strategic Policy 10 seeks new development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement. 6.18 The site has good pedestrian links to Douglas centre and local services/ shops. Furthermore, the site is adjacent to a principle bus route.

64

6.19 The applicants (DBC) have provided a statement as part of their submission which outlines the reasoning for the development and also the aspect of parking provision on this site. The highlight that: "The Council intends to commence a programme of redevelopment to replace or refurbish these ageing town centre flats buildings (200 in town centre of Douglas), with the Peel Road apartments being the catalyst." 6.20 Further they comment: "None of the Council's existing town centre flat buildings have off street parking with the exception of Hanover House…". A list is also provided which indicates that: o James Street flats (42 flats) & Kings Street flats (24 flats) both with no off street parking and limited on-street parking provision. Further, Coronation Terrace flats (28), Lord Street flats (56 flats), Quine's Corner flats (26 flats) all with no parking provision. Hanover House flats (27 flats) have 1 space per flat parking provision on site, but not all have been allocated to tenants due to lack of demand. 6.21 The applicants consider given the lack of parking associated with the majority of their existing housing stock in proximity to the site (i.e. town centre locations), the fact the majority of their residents do not have cars and as the parking spaces at Hannover House flats are not in sufficient demand; this suggests that a reduction on parking on this site is acceptable and would meet their needs. 6.22 It is also important to note that the Draft Area Plan for the East includes Transport Proposal 1 which seeks that development proposals must take into account the Active Travel Strategy and any specific actions set out in the Active Travel Action Plan. The application site is also a very short distance from Circular Road which is part of the main priority (a total of 10 priorities areas within Douglas) of IOM Government to encourage walking and cycling which would connects Douglas Centre with existing facilities on Peel Road and Pulrose. 6.23 Highway Services have considered the scheme, which includes a detailed Transport Assessment, and have raised no objection to the amount of parking provision provided or concerns of the potential traffic generated by the site or the potential impact of the access onto Peel Road. 6.24 Overall, whilst the amount of parking spaces is well below the generally required level; it is considered give the sites central location within Douglas; good pedestrian links; good public transport links; within walking distance of the main services, shops and employments areas on the IOM; within the Active Travel Area of 2.5 miles from the centre (site is 500m from Douglas Town Hall); and given the applicants unique situation and knowledge of the needs of their future occupants; the proposal would be acceptable and would be a sustainable development within Douglas Town Centre and meet the aims of the Active Travel Action Plan, Transport Proposal 1 of the Draft Area Plan for the East & Strategic Policy 10 of the IOMSP. LOSS OF TREES/TREE PROTECTION 6.25 The proposal does include the removal of 18 trees on the site, which is slightly more than the previous application, which required 14 trees removing. The trees proposed for removal essentially run along the boundaries of the existing woodland area, with the majority of trees being retained. Accordingly, whilst the proposal would result in the loss of some trees, it is not considered the woodland area as a whole would be significantly affected and that the amenity value would still be retained. It is also noted that new tree planting (total of 7 trees) and additional landscaping is proposed to the southwest part of the site (existing wooded area).

65

6.26 A tree protection scheme has also been provided to protect the existing trees proposed for retention. A condition should be attached to ensure this is undertaken as well as the additional conditions suggested by the Forestry Division. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTIAL AMENITIES 6.27 The properties that may potentially be affected by the development would be the properties opposite the site, Nrs 38 to 30 Peel Road, which appear to mainly accommodate a number of residential flats. The potential impacts mainly relate to the proposal having a potential overbearing impact upon the outlook, loss of light and/or overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy. 6.28 The proposed main apartment building would be located between 16 metres and 19 metres away from the front elevations of these properties. Whilst these are below the generally accepted 20 metre guideline, for directly facing windows, consideration is given the site is within a town centre where generally terraced properties do not meet this standard. Furthermore, other properties along Peel Road have similar relation to each other. The proposal is also similar distance/siting as the previously approved scheme which would have a very similar impact. Overall, it is considered the distances would be appropriate on this site ensuring potential overlooking would be insufficient to warrant a refusal on these grounds. 6.29 It is also considered there would be a potential for some overshadowing to the ground floor rooms/apartments of these neighbouring properties. However, due to the relationship between the proposed and existing buildings and the sun orientation, the periods of light lost would be from late afternoon and not for prolong periods of time throughout the day. Accordingly, it is considered again, the potential impact through overshadowing would not be sufficient to warrant a refusal. 6.30 The outlook from these neighbouring properties will change. Currently, they have views of the former car showroom. The upper floors have views over the showroom building to the trees and hills beyond. The views from the upper floors will be most affected by the development, as views to the trees behind the car show room and the hills beyond would likely be screened. Views from the ground and potentially first floors would likely remain as existing i.e. built development. In terms of the upper floors in planning terms there is 'no right to a view'. The issue is therefore is the height and mass of the building such, that it has an overbearing impact upon the existing occupants. Whilst there will be a difference, it is considered the distances between the proposals and existing, would ensure the overbearing impacts would not be so significant to warrant a refusal. 6.31 It is perhaps important to note that permission has been granted to convert a number of the former terraced townhouses into a number of apartments along Peel Road. These all have similar outlooks to those of the existing occupants of the properties opposite the proposed development would have, and such views where previously considered acceptable in terms of outlook. 6.32 Overall, it is considered whilst the proposed development would have an impact upon neighbouring amenities, it is not considered the impacts would be so significant to refuse the application on these grounds. Further,, the potential impacts would be very similar, if not the same, as the previously approved scheme. It is also noted no objections have been received by any neighbouring property in the area. The proposal therefore complies with General Policy 2. POTENTIAL AMENITIES FOR FURTHER OCCUPANTS 6.33 Careful consideration has been given to the potential amenities for the occupants of the new apartments, especially those to the rear of the site and thoses located within the rear section of the smaller five storey detached apartment block some of which have views towards the woodland to the rear. Whilst some of the apartments to the rear will have

66

outlooks to nearby trees, some will appear to be within the canopies of the trees. It is not considered this would be unattractive; in fact arguably the reverse to some people, but clearly some apartments may have less direct sunlight light. This was a similar situation to the previously approved application, albeit this scheme proposes to site the rear detached five storey apartment back 2m further away from the wooded area, which will give slightly more light into the apartments. Overall, it is considered the proposed apartments would have pleasant outlooks from the principal rooms and be provided with an acceptable level of amenity. 6.34 All apartments are served by lifts and bin stores are communal, located within the ground floor level. 6.35 Overall, it is considered the level amenities for each apartment would be acceptable, and comply with General Policy 2. POTENTIAL LEGAL AGREEMENTS 6.36 There are potentially two Section 13 Legal Agreements which would generally be needed to be agreed and entered into by the Planning and Building Control Directorate and a Applicant, these relate to provision of both affordable housing and public open space. 6.37 In terms of the affordable housing provision, as indicated within Housing Policy 5 the Planning and Building Control Directorate will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more. Due to this a total of 16.5 units of the total 66 apartments would need to be affordable. However, given the applicants are Douglas Borough Council who are providing the apartments as affordable housing (Public Sector rentals), it would seem unnecessary to seek a Legal Agreement in this instance given all 66 units are affordable units. A personal condition should be attached to any approval which states that only Douglas Borough Council can take the permission up. 6.38 Again in terms of open space provision it is considered a total of 3936 sqm of open space would need to be provided. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan indicates that the preference is for open space to be provided on the site of the development. This case, as with most cases for apartment developments, it is not considered possible or reasonable for the open space to be provided on this site. The next available option is for the space to be provided nearby if possible. The third option is to provide a commuted sum to the Local Authority for them to use either providing a new facility and/or use on existing facilities (upkeep/upgrading etc). Again given the applicants are the Local Authority it would perhaps be unnecessary that a further Section 13 Agreement be provided seeking a commuted sum towards the open space provision be provided, as the Local Authority would essential be paying the commuted sum payment to itself. Again a personal condition should be attached to the approval given this reason. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON WOOL CENTRE BUILDING 6.38 The proposed building would be located immediately to the south east of the Wool Centre building, which has the appearance of a two storey stone workshop building. The Wool Centre building has been considered for registration by the Department in recent times, potentially due to its historical interest because of its military associations and use since 1896 and also due to its architectural interest in terms of its construction and that it is unique on the island. Whilst it was accepted by the Department that the property has some historic interest given it was the first purpose built Drill Hall on the island; it was not considered that this was sufficient reason to Register the building. 6.40 In relation to the potential impact of the proposed development upon the Wool Centre building; consideration was given, especially when initial scheme of previous application was submitted which proposed a five storey building immediately adjacent to the Wool Centre

67

building. Following discussions, including the then Conservation Officer, it was agreed that the north-western section of the new apartment building would be reduced by a storey, which essentially provides a step effect between the main five storey apartment building and the Wool Centre building. This aspect has been included in the current application as well. 6.41 It should also be noted that the main elevation of the apartment building is setback 3.5 metres from the front elevation of the Wool Centre building and from the public footpath. There can be no doubt that the proposal will not have an impact upon the Wool Centre building, given its height, proximity and positioning. However, the current building and use of the site could also be argued to impact upon the appearance of the Wool Centre building currently. It is also noted that the south-east gable wall of the Wool Centre building, the majority of which would be screened by the new development, is not the most attractive or beneficial to the visual amenities of the building or street scene, given it has been rendered in the past, whilst the remainder of the building is Manx stone. 6.42 Overall, whilst there will be an impact upon the Wool Centre building; for the reasons indicated above, it is considered the proposal would not have a significant impact upon the Wool Centre building, which would in the main still retain its character and appearance within the street scene. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the reasons stated in this report and given the proposal would not have a significant impact upon public or private amenities, while re developing a prominent site within Douglas Town Centre within a sustainable location, and therefore complying with the relevant planning polices outlined within the Isle of Man Strategic Local Plan, The Draft Area Plan for the East and The Isle of Man Active Travel Strategy 2018 - 2021. Accordingly, it is recommended the application for an approval subject to conditions listed 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

68


Item 5.5 Proposal : Additional use of guest house as a restaurant Site Address : Athol Park Guest House

Athol Park Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6EX

Applicant : Mr Alan Capon & Mrs Shang Chen Application No. : Principal Planner :

19/01284/C- click to view Miss S E Corlett


______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. No meals may be served to the public after 2200hrs on any day. Reason: to ensure that the restaurant does not adversely affect the living conditions of those in neighbouring property. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) The development is considered to accord with the provisions of General Policy 2 in respect of impact on the neighbouring properties and highway safety and not to have an adverse impact on the vitality of the village centre as stated in Business Policies 9 and 10.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4): Fairfield, as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE DEVELOPMENT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE LAND USE DESIGNATION ON THE AREA PLAN

https://www.gov.im/planningapplication/services/planning/planningapplicationdetails.iom?ApplicationReferenceNumber=19/01284/C

69

THE SITE 1.1 This site is a terraced, three storey property situated on the southern site of Athol Park. The property is one of a terrace of eight traditional properties, seven of which lie to the east and one more modern one which adjoins to the west. 1.2 The building is a three storey Victorian building with a projecting three storey bay, the same as its neighbours. 1.3 The building has plastic framed casement windows throughout, like all of the windows in the terrace and has its original timber door frame. Kentraugh, the property at the northern end of the terrace has a more modern frame and door where the plastic frames have a flat profile and the door is solid plastic with a round headed glazed feature in the upper part. The property next to this, Greenfold, has its original door frame but with a plastic door with two vertical glazed lights in the upper part. Alongside this, Fairfield previously had a plastic door in a timber frame but recently this has been replaced (without permission) with a plastic frame and this is the subject of a current retrospective application (19/01218/B) which was approved. To the immediate south of the application property, Norwood has a flat, plastic framed and a similar door to that in Greenfold. To the south of this all of the properties have retained their original door frames, some having more modern doors but all in timber. The newer frames are flatter and do not have the decorative details or profile of the originals. 1.4 The property had until recently a plastic sign above the central front ground floor window announcing "Anchorage". Recently, and without permission, a sign has been erected above the front door announcing the name of a restaurant. Another sign was also in place to the right of the front gate, announcing "Anchorage Guest House Bed and Breakfast". Advertisement consent has recently been refused for this (19/01285/D). THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the change of use of the property from a guest house which accommodated ten bedrooms and which provided meals for its guests, to a guest house with a restaurant on the ground floor along with a sitting room and kitchen. The layout shows eleven tables seating 30 persons at any one time. The restaurant would be open to non-guests. 2.2 The applicants state that there are no other Chinese restaurants in Port Erin, Port St. Mary, Colby or Castletown and they will not operate a take-away facility. They will not be opening "late into the evening" as they do not wish to upset their guests or neighbours. No hours of operation are given but they subsequently indicated that they would serve food no later than 2200hrs (see below). 2.3 The existing property has ten bedrooms over the first and second floors with a separate bathroom on the first floor that may be available for diners. On the ground floor there is a dining area in the front half of the building with a sitting room and kitchen to the rear separated by a toilet. 2.4 There are to be no internal changes to the building, only its use where as well as guests staying at the guest house using the dining facilities, the public may also be able to dine here. They suggest in the past the guest house served breakfast, lunch and evening meals. They intend to stop serving meals by 2200hrs partly as later dining may affect their guests. Diners may choose to smoke outside, as may guests but the table in the front garden area is located as far from Fairfield as is possible, separated from that property by the entrance stair and from the neighbour by plants. They have no intention of serving food outside. They advise that the steps are lit by strips under the capping on the left hand side and the light does not illuminate adjacent property. They are not going to operate a take away services and suggest that their cooking times will not be as long so the impact will not be the same as for a take away where food has to be available as long as customers may visit the premises.

70

2.5 They suggest that the application has been advertised sufficiently through the site notices and the local press and the siting of the notice was protected from the wind. 2.6 A parking survey has been provided which indicates the numbers of available parking spaces between 1800hrs and 2000hrs and the applicant is confident that there is space available at lunch times. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site is within a wider area of residential use on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 and within the village's proposed Conservation Area. As such, General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan is applicable as follows: "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: (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; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality". 3.2 There are no policies in the Strategic Plan which advise on restaurants although there are policies which relate to retailing which is generally in a separate Use Class to retail, although in some town and village centres, it is now possible to change between retail and café/restaurant use without needing planning approval. The Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 refers to Port Erin as having a retail area which stretches from the supermarket on Bay View Road and the parade of shops on Orchard Walk, across Church Road and Station Road, and down Strand Road to the Lower Promenade. It notes that "whilst there are often vacant units, and a number of seasonal shops, the range of services is varied and the overall character lively" and "6.22.3 There is more potential within Port Erin to accommodate further convenience shopping. There are places within the Mixed Use area which are under-used but have real potential. Opportunities exist to enhance the built environment and comparison shopping facilities and the Department will support proposals which will achieve these goals. The Development Brief for Site 21 (Land Opposite the Cherry Orchard Hotel) highlights the importance of making the best use of sites in the Mixed Use area." 3.3 The Strategic Plan encourages retail development generally to be located in town and village centres: Business Policy 9: "The Department will support new retail provision in existing retail areas at a scale appropriate to the existing area and which will not have an adverse effect on adjacent retail areas. Major retail development proposals will require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment." Business Policy 10: "Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exceptions of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances identified in Business Policy 5." 3.4 As the site is in a residential area in terms of land use designation and character, General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan is relevant as follows: "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:

71

(c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (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". Transport Policy 7: The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The Plan recommends that in the case of town centre shops space for service vehicle use should be provided and for neighbourhood shops spaces for staff, customers and service vehicles will be required. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The property has been the subject of applications for replacement windows and doors and is currently the subject of an application for the signage above the door (19/01285/D). REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Port Erin Commissioners resolve to support the application although they have concerns about the impact of the development on car parking, but note that there are car parks available in the vicinity. They request a condition which requires the restaurant to be closed to the public by 2200hrs each day (17.12.19). 5.2 Highway Services initially expressed concern but latterly raised no objection based upon the applicant's parking survey which indicates that there is adequate parking available (19.02.20). 5.3 Manx Utilities raise no objection subject to conditions which relate to the provisions of the Sewerage Act 1999 (11.12.19). 5.4 An objection has been received from the owner of Fairfield, which site immediately alongside the application property, stating that they have been there for over 20 years and they are aware that the application property has been used as a bed and breakfast for many years. They consider the change of use to a public restaurant in a predominantly residential area is totally out of keeping with the area due to the increase in visitors and as there is an outside seating area which is likely to be used by smokers and possibly diners this would have an adverse impact on their privacy. They note that the steps are steep and that there is no access for wheelchair users. They comment on the illuminated sign which is the subject of another current application. They refer to a number of other Chinese take aways in the village with one being only 50 yards away. The refer to the kitchen being at the rear of the property and the use will create smells and noise and delivery vehicles creating congestion at the rear and creating additional parking and access problems. They are aware of residents of Glen View Terrace complaining about the noise and smells from the extractor associated with the existing take away near them. They refer to potential group parties arriving by taxi or mini bus departing late in the evening will be unsettling and not a peaceful home that they currently enjoy. They refer to the site notices being stuck on the front door and not being clearly visible from the public highway. 5.5 The applicant provides a response to some of these concerns and has also provided a parking survey.

72

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues in this case are whether the introduction of a restaurant use would detract from the vitality of the village centre and whether the use would have any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties or highway safety. 6.2 It is relevant that there is already a dining facility on the site which would have similar if not the same impact on smell and activity albeit that the restaurant may increase the amount of comings and goings and the times of cooking. Guests may well come and go at the times of operation of the restaurant as well as later and for this reason it is not considered that there would be a significant impact on the neighbouring properties in terms of smell and activity nuisance. It is relevant that only one household in this terrace has objected to the application and the proposal has the support of the local authority. It is also relevant that it is not in the operator's interests to create noise or disturbance which would affect their own guests within the property. 6.3 There would appear to be sufficient car parking available to service the restaurant given the parking survey and likely times of operation. 6.4 Whilst the location is not within the centre of the village, it is not far from this and in an area which once had guest houses which attracted comings and goings and the provision of meals for guests. It is not considered that the location of the restaurant here, alongside the existing catering facilities of the guest house, will have a detrimental impact on the village centre. CONCLUSION 7.1 The development is considered to accord with the provisions of General Policy 2 in respect of impact on the neighbouring properties and highway safety and not to have an adverse impact on the vitality of the village centre as stated in Business Policies 9 and 10. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

73


Item 5.6 Proposal : Alterations, erection of a first floor extension, erection of a

two storey extension, relocation of existing conservatory and extension of decking

Site Address : 4 Park Close Glen Vine Isle Of Man IM4 4HB

Applicant : Mr Madhusudan Malikireddy & Mrs Meena Aduma Application No. : Planning Officer :

19/01416/B- click to view Mr Paul Visigah


______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) The proposed extension located to the rear of the dwelling, which is already well screened from public views, would have minimal visual impact as viewed by the public and would have no significant impacts upon public or private amenities. It is considered acceptable and therefore complies with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the relevant sections of the Residential Design Guide.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are mentioned in Article 6(4): the owner/occupier of 15 Park Close the owner/occupier of 12 Glen Vine Park the owner/occupier of 11 Glen Vine Park the owner/occupier of Whintell, 13 Glen Vine Park the owner/occupier of 3 Park Close as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).

_____________________________________________________________


74

Planning Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS 5 REPRESENTATIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing, detached dwelling situated within the cul de sac of Park Close, a continuation of Glen Vine Park. The dwelling sits on the lower side of the estate road and is a two storey dwelling with integral garage and a hipped roof. The external finishes are smooth, painted render below a brown tiled roof. 1.2 The house has a single storey annex on the south eastern elevation closest to number 3 which is also a two storey dwelling but with gable ends and an attached garage closest to the boundary with the application site. 1.3 The property currently has a conservatory on the rear which leads out onto a decked area. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the upward extension of the single storey side elevation to bring it up to the height of the main ridge and eaves and a rearward extension whose roof will be at the same level as the main house. 2.2 The side extension will accommodate two en-suite bathrooms and a wardrobe. There will be windows in each elevation; two serving bathrooms with one looking towards the side of number 3 which will have obscured glazing, and a window on the front elevation which will serve a closet (wardrobe). 2.3 The rear extension will project 2.9m from the existing rear elevation and will have a 3m wide expanse of patio doors leading into the relocated conservatory, and horizontally proportioned window at ground floor level and four windows in the first floor. There are currently five windows in the rear elevation at first floor level - all serving bedrooms, two very slender ones. The new windows will be larger than the smallest windows currently in this elevation. 2.4 An existing area of decking is to be extended to accommodate an additional small area in front of the new extension and the conservatory is to be relocated onto the front of the new extension. 2.5 The extension will be 15m to the rear boundary of the property to the rear (12, Glen Vine Park and 28m to the closest part of that property. The neighbouring dwelling at number 13 is slightly closer at 23.5m to its closest point. 2.6 No supporting information has been submitted. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Predominantly Residential. As such, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant: General Policy 2: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;

75

(c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape and (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality". "8.12.1 Extensions to Dwellings in built up areas or sites designated for residential use As a general policy, in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general." 3.2 The Department has recently published the Residential Design Guidance (March 2019) which provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property. 3.3 Section 4.3: Two Storey Rear Extension 4.3.1 These types of extensions have the potential to produce the greatest impact upon the amenities of those in neighbouring dwellings (see Chapter 7). There may be concerns if a proposal is to extend a semi-detached or terraced property along or close to the joint boundary. Extensions, which could have an adverse effect on the ground-floor living rooms or kitchens of neighbouring properties, are unlikely to be supported. However, problems may not arise if the neighbouring property already has a single-storey extension or outhouse on the boundary. In these cases, the Department is more likely to support proposals for a two-storey extension (if it keeps to all other aspects of this document). Each proposal should pay particular attention to poor outlook for and overlooking of the neighbouring property. As such, chapter 7 of the RDG 2019 would form a key component of the assessment of impacts on neighbouring dwellings. Other section vital to this assessment are the paragraphs within sections 4.4 of the guide. 3.4 Section 4.4: Extension to Side Elevation 4.4.1 This type of extension is a common extension throughout the Island as many properties are built with an attached garage which can physically accommodate being built above. Generally, the main issues relate to the potential visual appearance of the extension within the street scene and of the individual dwelling as well as the impact on the amenities of those in neighbouring property (see Chapter 7). 4.4.2 It is key that any side extension respects the proportion, design and form of the existing dwelling and that it appears as a subordinate to the main dwelling. A side extension should generally not project in front of the existing building or have flat roofs, a pitched roof will normally be essential to any side extension. The roof of the proposed extension should match the original in terms of pitch and shape. The ridge line should either follow or, often preferably, be lower than the original dwelling. 4.4.3 Whether the side extension is single or two storeys, the height and width of these side extensions should be proportionate to the size of the main dwelling. The width should be significantly less than the width of the main dwelling. The ridge height of single storey side extensions should normally be below the eaves level of a two-storey house to give clear definition between single- storey and two-storey elements. 4.4.4 Generally, where the property stands in a line of detached/semi-detached dwellings and the extension would fill in the gap; there is a risk that the extension will create a terraced appearance. This is not always in the interests of maintaining the character of the street, individual house, and in the interests of visual amenity, should be avoided.

76

4.4.5 One way of maintaining a visual break would be to set back the extension behind the front of the dwelling by a metre to create a clear break. In some circumstances only the first floor would be required to be set back by 1 metre, although this will be determined on a case by case basis. However, it is still advisable that the ground floor should be set back behind the front elevation, even if only by 0.3m to create a "shadow" which avoids the unsightly joining of old with new finishes, whilst also providing a distinction, albeit modest, of the extension from the main house. 4.4.6 A second way of maintaining a visual break would be by leaving a gap of at least 1 metre between the side of the extension and the boundary of the property. However, a slight setback should still be retained, potentially at first floor level at least. Again, this design helps avoiding the "terracing effect". In any case, where space permits the Department would encourage applicants to retain a pedestrian passageway, between the side extension and common boundary. This will also enable access for maintenance purposes, filling of oil tanks, allow transportation of refuse and garden waste, without passing through Habitable Rooms and give the dwelling a setting within its own plot. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There are a number of previous planning applications which are considered to be materially relevant in the assessment of the application, all of which have been approved (3 in total). 87/00518/B - Erection of four-bedroomed house and garage, Plot 4, Glen Vine Park Close, Marown 90/01193/B - Construction of conservatory, 4 Park Close, Glen Vine, Marown. 93/01424/B - Extension to create additional living accommodation, Leylandii, Park Close, Glen Vine, Marown. All the works appear to have been carried out on sections of the building that would be altered by the current application. REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. 5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they 'Do not oppose' in a letter dated 7 January 2020. 5.2 DEFA's Senior Biodiversity Officer has written in with the following comments in a letter dated 15 January 2020: We have several records of bats roosting in houses at Park Close. The proposed alterations may impact on a bat roost. The Ecosystem Policy Team recommends that an ecological assessment for bats is undertaken prior to the determination of this application. Bat surveys should be undertaken in accordance with the Bat Conservation Trusts Bat Survey for Professional Ecologists - Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition 2016). Surveys are required to identify the species of bat utilising the property, their abundance and whether they are breeding and this will determine the mitigation required. Should bats be found then mitigation plan for their protection should be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the determination of the application. The presence of bats will not prevent the property from being altered but provision must be shown for the ongoing protection of the bats. Bats are listed on Schedule 5 of the Wildlife Act 1990; they are protected by law and it is an offence to: o intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take a bat o intentionally or recklessly damage or destroy, or obstruct access to , any structure or place which bats use for shelter or protection

77

o intentionally or recklessly disturbs any bat while it is occupying a structure or place which it uses for that purpose. The maximum penalty that can be imposed is a fine up to 10,000 pounds. 5.2.1 In response to the request by DEFA's Senior Biodiversity Officer that a Bat Survey Report which was received on & February 2020: Ecological Assessment and Conclusion The inspection revealed no evidence of previous or current occupation by bats. The building is soundly constructed and well-sealed which results in a lack of potential roosting features for the structure as a whole and a lack of access to the building by bats. The ecological assessment resulting from this inspection, taken together with the results of the desk assessment, was that the building has low suitability as a potential bat roost location. It is therefore my conclusion that the proposed alterations to the building will not materially impact the habitat for bats. 5.2.2 Having received the Bat Survey Report for the site, the Senior Biodiversity Officer has written in with the following comments in a letter dated 14 February 2020: Further to my email of 15th January, we have reviewed the Bat Survey Report undertaken by the Manx Bat Group dated 5th February 2020. The Ecosystem Policy Team is satisfied that the proposed extension will have no impact on bats. 5.3 Marown Parish Commissioners have stated that they have no objection to the application in a letter dated 16 January 2020. 5.4 The Owners/Occupiers of 15 Park Close, a neighbouring property to the northeast of the application site has written in to object to the proposal on 13 January 2020 with the following comments: The building will be notably out of character with all other properties within Park Close. Building will be aesthetically unpleasant. It will fill the full length of the site looking like a slab sided office block. Building will impact on the value of other properties within Park Close. Suggestion: Front elevation of the building should remain as that depicted in the North East elevation in the existing plans and elevations. 5.5 The Owners/Occupiers of 12 Glen Vine Park the abutting property to the rear object to the application on 16 January 2020 with the following comments: I object on the grounds it will impose on my privacy and it will devalue my property. No one will invest in my bungalow with a monstrosity of a house and sun lounge overlooking it. 5.6 The Owners/Occupiers of 11 Glen Vine Park the abutting property to the rear have written in to make the following comments regarding the application on 18 January 2020: I write with regards to the above Planning Application, and the impact it will have on my home in Glen Vine Park. 4 Park Close overlooks my home and its elevated position and size means it is already a fairly imposing property when viewed from my rear garden. I have serious concerns that the proposed development will further increase this and make the property very overbearing when viewed from the lower properties in Glen Vine Park. The extension to the rear elevation

78

of the property as outlined in the application will reduce the privacy in my rear garden and the patio area to the side of my home, and I worry that they will be able to see directly into the rooms at the rear of my property. I have attached a couple of photos to help demonstrate my concerns regarding loss of privacy. The first is taken from my back door; the second is from my patio area to the side of my home. There is one tree in their garden which currently helps obstruct the view from their upper floor windows into my rear bedroom. There is no mention of any loss of trees in their planning application, but I would like to request the planning officer to make it a condition of any approval, should approval be granted to ensure that this tree is protected throughout the development, and retained afterwards. I would also suggest that the applicant consider installing some kind of hedging or tree line to the rear boundary fence to soften the impact on the lower properties in Glen Vine Park. 5.7 The Owners/Occupiers of Whintell, 13 Glen Vine Park the abutting property to the rear object to the application on 15 January 2020 with the following reasons: i. The elevated position of 4 Park Close already undermines privacy aspects to the rear of our properties with visual exposure to our rear bedrooms and gardens. ii. The proposed extensions being so significant will further undermine our remaining privacy as the building is brought closer to us and as mentioned, because of its elevated position, we will become even more overlooked and privacy to our bedrooms will be further compromised. iii. The proposed extension will make the property so imposing that it will undoubtedly impact the general desirability and saleable value of our individual properties in Glen Vine Park. iv. The present style and presentation of the building has no external aesthetic value to speak of and although we don't have details of the final build finish, we suspect that the proposed changes will not enhance its present appearance. Finally, failing your acceptance of our objections, may we suggest that any approval given by you should be conditioned to include the erection of a suitable natural screening which must not be over-imposing, acceptable to the affected residents and supplied by and properly maintained at the applicants own expense. 5.8 The Owners/Occupiers of 3 Park Close, Glen Vine, the abutting property on the eastern boundary of the application site has written in to object to the application with the following comments in a letter dated 23 January 2020: We wish to register our objection to the above mentioned planning application reference 19/01416/B, with relation to the Residential Design Guidance (RDG) published by the IOM Government in July 2019, on the following grounds; The proposed changes to the property are NOT in keeping with the character & appearance of Park Close, in contravention of RDG item 3.3 & 4.4. All existing dwellings in the Close consist of a central structure with a single story attachment to the side i.e a garage or a reception room. There are currently no two-story structures in close proximity to adjoining dwellings. The existing property footprint extends to maximise the full width of the plot. The proposed first floor extension would therefore change the front view of the property to present an overwhelming and dominant presence both on the plot and in the cul-de-sac, resembling a block of flats rather than a detached house, thus having a significant Visual Impact Upon the Street Scene, with no respect to the proportion, design or form of the existing dwelling or neighbouring properties.

79

The proposed first floor side extension would become dominant over our kitchen & utility room areas, creating a significant loss of light and an overbearing influence to the west side aspect of our property, in contravention of RDG item 7.1. The proposed rear extension would have a dominant impact upon the outlook and privacy of our garden, in contravention of RDG item 7.4. In view of the rear garden topography, the height of the pitched roof and the level of the first story windows at the rear extremity of the extension will significantly impact our level of comfort, enjoyment & outlook of our property/garden. Further, we believe the plans submitted by the applicant are both inaccurate and misleading with regards to the Elevation descriptions noted. The front elevation of 4, Park Close actually faces North North West (and not North East as stated). The rear elevation of the property is South South East, which is significant with respect to the impact of the proposed extension on the privacy of our garden. The side elevation West South West is shown incorrectly on the plan as "South East Elevation" and the side elevation East North East is shown incorrectly on the plan as "North West". We have enjoyed the consideration of our neighbours since building our home on this plot in 1984, with regards to the impact of any changes. We trust that these points raised in objection to the proposed plans will receive fair & reasonable consideration with respect to the principles of residential design & development. ASSESSMENT 6.1 There is a presumption in favour of development as set out in GP2 and paragraph 8.12.1 subject to the works not having any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area or the living conditions of those in surrounding dwellings. As such, these are the issues in this case. 6.2 Character and appearance of the area and the application property 6.2.1 With regard to the first floor side extension, it is noted that the works will be visible from the street scene, albeit, only at an angle when entering the cul de sac, as the orientation of the dwelling and the nature of the existing boundary treatment which comprises a 3.5m hedge with some trees would screen views as visitors and residents exit the close. It is also noted that the street scene comprises a mix of building designs, styles and property sizes which makes the proposed change fit seamlessly into the existing street scene which is diverse in its current state. 6.2.2 Whilst the Owner/occupier of 3 Park Close has stated that 'all existing dwellings in the Close consist of a central structure with a single story attachment to the side i.e a garage or a reception room', it is noted that Nos 5, 8 (Balley Keeilley), 10, 14 and 21 are not designed to reflect this description; reinforcing the fact that close consist of properties with varied designs, style and finishing; some of which reflect modern characteristics, with others bearing dated outlooks. 6.2.3 An issue that would have been a concern is the impact of the first floor extension on the street scene, as it brings the first floor of the application dwelling closer to 3 Park Close. However, the distance between the properties on the close is varied with the first floors of some of the properties considerably close to each other, particularly Nos 5 and 6 Park Close which are only 2.7m apart, Nos. 17 and 18 which are 3.4m apart and Nos. 13 and 24 which are 3.5m apart at the rear and 4.5m apart in front. Given that the distance between the application site and 3 Park Close is 3m, and would only consist of a first floor extension being built closer to a single storey section of the abutting dwelling, it is not considered that this

80

would be an aberration within the street scene. As such, what is proposed will not have any adverse impact on the character or appearance of Park Close. 6.2.4 The proposed extension at the rear would be visible from the rear access lane, but would not appear unusual or out of keeping with the rear of the surrounding properties with abutting views to the rear access lane, given the extension is contained to the rear of the existing dwelling and given the amount of built development to either side of the site, which have significantly large rear elevations. Overall, any impact on the character and appearance of the area and the site itself would be minimal and in accordance with General Policy 2. 6.2.5 In terms of the impact upon this modern property, the proportion, form, scale, design and finish of the rear extension is such that the proposal would form an appropriate form of development. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would not have significant impacts upon the amenities of the existing property to warrant a refusal. 6.2.6 Whilst it would have been more appropriate for the roof of the side extension to be set lower than the roof ridge of the main dwelling, the design of the property is such that dropping the roof ridge would result in the loss of symmetry and uniformity which the proposed change would bring to the front elevation, considering the design of the property is somewhat basic. 6.3 Impact on the living conditions of those in surrounding dwellings, notably 3, Park Close, 11, 12 and 13, Glen Vine Park Impact on 3 Park Close 6.3.1 With regard to the possible impacts on 3 Park Close, it is noted that they key issue to consider is if there would be any impact of overshadowing or overbearing impact, since overlooking or loss of privacy cannot result from the proposed development, seeing the proposed window on the north-west elevation of the first floor side extension would be installed with obscure glazing. 6.2.2 The east-west movement of the sun means that, for both adjacent properties, any shadowing resulting from the extension would not be unacceptably above that already experienced on the side elevation of the abutting dwelling, particularly given the pitched roof proposed. Whilst it would bring the first floor closer to the application dwelling, the impact is not considered to be unduly exacerbated given the windows to be impacted are north facing and as such impacts on sunlight getting to these rooms would be limited. Similarly for overbearing impacts, the application property would still be 1m at the closest point(front elevation) and 1.8m at the rear; creating the required distance to avoid the overbearing impact or a terraced feel developing between both properties, thereby complying with paragraph 4.4.6 of the RDG 2019. Measurement and evaluation of the distance between the side elevations of the properties within the cul de sac has shown that the distance is noticeably small (ranging from 2.6m to 4.1) and as such the distance of 2.9m between the application dwelling and 3 Park Close is considered to be acceptable. Impact on 11 Glen Vine Park 6.2.3 In relation to the potential impacts upon 11 Glen Vine Park, this neighbouring property is located to the south west of the site and the extension at its closest point would be 22.2m from the rear elevation of this property, diminishing any possibility for overlooking to occur. Moreover, the nature of the site boundary for the application dwelling, as well as the orientation of 11 Glen Vine Park when viewed from the application dwelling would limit views to its rear garden, thus limiting any privacy concerns that could result. During the site visit, it was noted that views to the rear garden from the habitable rooms on the rear elevation of the application dwelling will be considerably constrained by the orientation and

81

boundary treatment on this property. Accordingly, given this modest rear projection, the design/height of the new extension, and existing boundary features, it is not considered that the proposal would significantly affect the amenities of the occupants of Nr 11 Glen Vine Park. Impact on 12 Glen Vine Park 6.2.4 In relation to 12 Glen Vine Park, four of the windows on the rear elevation which face this abutting dwelling will be brought closer to the rear windows by 2.8m. This will result in a distance of 28.2m between the proposed windows and the rear elevation of this application dwelling, a distance which is significantly greater than 20m; which is the minimum distance below which privacy concerns would result (Section 7.5 of the RDG 2019). Based on the foregoing, it is not considered that there would be any impacts on the privacy of the residents of 12 Glen Vine Park as a result of the proposed development. As well, the proposed rear extension would have its roof set 100mm lower than the existing roof ridge, making it a subordinate addition to the main dwelling, besides the fact that it would only have a depth of 2.8m and as such would not result in overbearing impacts on this abutting dwelling. Impacts on 13 Glen vine Park 6.3 With regard to the potential impacts upon the amenities of 13 Glen vine Park, it is noted that there wold be no views into the rear garden or any of the windows on the rear elevation of this dwelling from the application site. The nature of the boundary treatment of this property (the 3.5m hedging, as well as the projecting flat roof of its garage towards the rear garden would ensure that there are no views to the rear garden of this dwelling. It is also noted that the windows on the rear elevation of this dwelling would be 25.2m away, making overlooking an unlikely concern for the proposed development. CONCLUSION 7.1 In summary, the proposal meets the requirements of the aforementioned policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and is acceptable. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

82


Item 5.7 Proposal : Erection of summerhouse (retrospective) Site Address : Hillingford

Jurby Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 3PL

Applicant : Mr Jamie Michel Teare Application No. : Principal Planner :



______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) Overall, the sauna building is an incidental building/use to the main dwelling house when either used as a single dwelling house and/or for B&B guests. It is not considered the proposal would result in any significant impact upon private or public amenity and it is concluded that the planning application accords with the provisions set out in General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons 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 6(4): Auldyn Lodge, Mount Auldyn, Ramsey Braemar, Mount Auldyn, Ramsey Thie Maynrys, Mount Auldyn, Ramsey As they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). 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 6(4): Thorn Hey, Jurby Road, Ramsey As they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and/or

_____________________________________________________________


83

Planning Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THERE ARE 3 LETTERS OF OBJECTORS WHO ARE RECOMMENDED FOR INTERESTED PARTY STATUS WHICH ARE CONTRARY TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE OFFICER 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Hillingford, Jurby Road, Ramsey which forms a two storey detached dwellings located on the southern side of Jurby Road and north of the turning head of Mount Auldyn (cul-de-sac) within a wider an suburban area of Ramsey. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The planning application seeks approval for the erection of a summerhouse (retrospective) to the rear garden of the property, located along the eastern boundary of the site, adjacent to neighbouring residential property Landfall. 2.2 The summerhouse has a width of 3,2m, a depth of 4.2m and a height of 2.7m. A decked area runs around the summerhouse which is no higher than 0.3m above ground level. The mature hedgerow (approx. 2.5m to 3m in height) which runs adjacent to the summer house and along the eastern boundary has been retained. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There are no previous planning applications which are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application. 4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being within predominantly residential use under the Ramsey Local Plan. The site is not within a Conservation Area. 4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains one policy that is considered specifically relevant to the assessment of this current planning application: 4.3 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;

84

(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." 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services comment there are no highway implications (10.01.2020). 5.2 The owners/occupiers of Braemar, Mount Auldyn, Ramsey (31.01.2020) have objected to the application on the following summarised grounds: spar is only a small part of overall development; noise created by the spa being used late into night; concerns of use of our own garden and dwelling; concerns spa will increase traffic to residential cul-de sac; spa is used for business use; environmental concerns of cleaning the spa and if approved suggest conditions restrict times of use; restricted to paying guests of B&B; a maximum number of guests; and music should not be played at excessive volumes. 5.3 The owners/occupiers of Thie Maynrys, Mount Auldyn, Ramsey (24.01.2020 & 25.01.2020) have objected to the application on the following summarised grounds: visual impact of the sauna close to our boundary and we can see into the sauna from bedroom windows; out of keeping with area; light pollution; concern of noise impact by loud conversations or music (conditions restricting times to 8pm); applicants are using site as B&B; concerns sauna/spa will increase traffic to residential cul-de sac; environmental concerns of cleaning the spa; and structural concerns of building. 5.4 The owners/occupiers of Auldyn Lodge, Mount Auldyn, Ramsey (29.01.2020) have objected to the application on the following summarised grounds: concerns sauna/spa will increase traffic to residential cul-de sac; and noise created in quiet residential area. 5.5 The owners/occupiers of Thorn Hey, Jurby Road, Ramsey (06.02.2020) have supported the application on the following summarised grounds: have no objections; applicants have been exceptions neighbours; the use of the site as a B&B has had no noise or disruption to us whatsoever ad we have never had any noise or light pollution issues; and the site has adequate parking within the site, without the need for parking in Mount Auldyn. 5.6 It should be noted comments relating to Covenants, impact on property values are not material planning considerations which can be taken into account when determining this application. 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 Firstly it needs to be acknowledged that only the building (with accommodates the sauna) is being considered for this application. The hot tub is not considered to be development and the decked area meets the requirements of the Permitted Development Order. Further the use of the main dwelling and its associated grounds/gardens/buildings etc for B&B purposes is also acceptable under the Permitted Development Order (up to three bedrooms) and again not under consideration. 6.2 The key issues to considerer in the assessment of this planning application are firstly the potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the street scene; secondary the potential impact upon neighbouring residents; and thirdly potential highways safety concerns. POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE STREET SCENE 6.3 The proposed works would not be a prominent feature in the street scene given its size, rear position, location between the application dwelling and neighbouring dwellings and given the landscaping features in the area (front/side/rear gardens). Accordingly, it is considered the proposal is acceptable from this respect.

85

POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING RESIDENTS 6.4 The proposals will have the most impact upon the neighbouring property to the south of the site "Landfall". However, given its size, height & design of the summerhouse and mature landscaping along the boundary it is unlikely to have significant impacts to warrant a refusal. Comments made from neighbours are of the building appearing from their first floor bedroom windows. Whilst this is a fact, it is not considered the proposal adversely affects the amenities of the neighbouring property, either through overlooking, overbearing impact and/or loss of light. Furthermore, garden sheds/summerhouse and other similar types of building are common forms of development within residential gardens and being within a residential area, it is a type of structure you would expect to see in neighbouring garden/s, especially at first/second floor window levels which overlook neighbouring properties. Furthermore, the bedrooms are not primary habitable rooms (i.e. lounge/kitchen diners). 6.5 In terms of the noise impacts associated with the sauna, these are significantly reduced given the building is an enclosed building. Further, whether it is used purely for the residents of a single dwelling and/or with additional B&B users, it is not considered such a building/use in a residential context is unacceptable. If persons, whether B&B guests or permanent occupiers of the dwelling cause noise issues this is a matter outside planning control as there are other legislation which deals with anti-social behaviour whoever that may be and would be a responsibility of the owner of the property. It is not considered the proposed building and its associated sauna results in any adverse noise impact. 6.6 In terms of light pollution, again the lighting of a summerhouse in garden is not unreasonable or unexpected and in this case does not have a significant impact upon neighbouring properties, especially primary habitable rooms. Photographs submitted from a concerned neighbour also indicated garden lighting being a concern, but again this is not considered to be development and not an aspect this application is consideration. HIGHWAY SAFETY 6.7 The applicant site has sufficient parking for at least six vehicles to its front driveway, off Jurby Road. Again the use of the site as a B&B is not in question. This use would generate the perking demand and not the sauna building which is a building incidental to the use of the main dwelling and not likely to be the primary use of the site. Accordingly, while there is an garden access to the site onto Mount Auldyn, it is not considered likely this would become the main access to the site. However, it should be noted that even if it were, it is not considered the amount of traffic associated with the use of the site as a B&B/dwelling would be so significant to warrant a refusal. Highway Services have also raised no concerns. OTHER MATTERS 6.8 Consideration was given to attaching conditions which restrict hours of operation of the sauna, number of persons at any one time and/or only persons occupying the main dwelling permanently (inc their friends and visitors) and B&B guests; however, all potential considerations where considered to be unenforceable, nor required in this instance for the reason given. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, the sauna building is an incidental building/use to the main dwelling house which either used as a single dwelling house and/or for B&B guests. It is not considered the proposal would resulting in an significantly impacts upon private or public amenities and it is concluded that the planning application accords with the provisions set out in General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 as such the planning application is recommended for approval. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

86

(a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status

87


Item 5.8 Proposal : Erection of replacement dwelling Site Address : Ballacain Cottage

Lhagg Road Dalby Isle Of Man IM5 3BU

Applicant : Paul And Katherine Bergin Application No. : Principal Planner :



______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. Prior to the commencement of any work on site including the demolition of the existing buildings, the applicant must have written approval by the Department of a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal of the site, identifying any species which are protected by the Wildlife Act 1990 or identified therein as invasive species, together with appropriate protection and mitigation measures. The development must be undertaken in accordance with these details. Reason: to accord with Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan. C 3. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the applicant must have written approval by the Department of a planting scheme for the proposed seeded roof, incorporating species native to the Island, and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these details. Reason: to maximise the biodiversity value of the development. C 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), extension, garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: to control development in the interests of the character and appearance of the surrounding area and taking into account the particular design of the replacement dwelling. C 5. Prior to the commencement of athe development hereby approved, an Energy Statement shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Department which demonstrates the new dwellings has a Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating of at least 97 (or similar rating system) and prior to the occupation of the dwelling a further Energy Statement post


88

completion shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department (planning) to demonstrate that the SAP rating of at least 97 (or similar rating system) has been achieved. Reason: the reason why the application is considered acceptable is due to the overall environmental impacts as outlined on Housing Policy 14 and namely the eco efficiency credentials of the new dwelling N 1. An agreement under Section 109 of the Highway Act will be needed in respect of work at the edge of the carriageway to ensure that the access to the property is suitably kerbed, surfaced and drained. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) The development is considered to result in a beneficial environmental impact, taking into account the thermal and energy efficiency of the proposed dwelling and the use of natural materials in the external finishes and is therefore in compliance with Housing Policy 14 of the Strategic Plan.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4): Ballacooil as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4): Glen View, Lhagg Road Creggan Mooar House, Doarlish Mooar, Lhagg Road Ballacain Field, Lhagg Road Driftwood, Dalby Riverside Cottage, Lhagg Road 6, Oak Road, Peel 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, the address is 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 or 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.

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL COULD BE CONSIDERED NOT TO COMPLY WITH THE HOUSING POLICIES OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN

89

THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling which has been the subject of a number of previous applications and for which the curtilage as shown in those applications is the same as that now proposed. The existing property is a traditional cottage which has been extended (see Planning History) and permission was also granted for a replacement dwelling. Whilst some work was commenced on the foundations (see Building Control application 07/07415/DOM - some trenches have been dug to the east of the dwelling in the position of the eastern gable of the approved house, no concrete has been poured), no building work was undertaken and the existing house was not demolished (it would have had to have been to fully implement the approved scheme). It is currently not occupied. 1.2 The site sits below the Lhagg Road which runs south from the heart of Dalby, closer to the coast than the A27 road which links Peel with the A36 highway which links South Barrule with Port St. Mary. The existing dwelling is visible although not prominent and is the first dwelling on this road from the village. The Lhagg Road continues downhill, past a number of dwellings and a farm, ending in a river valley with two further dwellings on the southern side of the valley. The Lhagg Road is a public highway: the Raad ny Foillan long distance footpath runs along the coast, some distance (700m) away to the west. 1.3 The existing dwelling is traditional in form and appearance albeit that it has not been lived in for some time and at the time of the 2007 application for replacement, was in poor condition. 1.4 Also on the site are stone outbuildings, or the remains of them including a roofless stone building which appears to have all of its walls and a further building to the north of the house. There is vegetation between the buildings and the Lhagg Road which screens much of the buildings from general view. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a replacement dwelling with the complete demolition of the existing buildings on the site - the dwelling and the outbuildings. The replacement dwelling takes the form of a flat roofed unit with a seeded roof connecting to a reconstructed stone building roughly where the existing roofless barn sits. The apex of the flat roof will be level with the ridge of the existing cottage and the rebuilt barn around 0.5m higher than what would be the ridge of the existing barn, had it still had its roof. 2.2 The existing house is described in the application as being habitable but not of architectural or historic interest (Housing Policy 12). They further describe the dwelling as having changed and evolved over hundreds of years including the addition of poor quality extensions. 2.3 The applicant wishes first and foremost to erect a dwelling to Passivhaus standard - which is the highest international standard for energy efficiency - which also provides accommodation for the applicants' family (two elderly relatives who are not directly related to each other) and to achieve this as unobtrusively as possible. Modification of the existing buildings would not achieve thermal efficiency required nor would it satisfy the applicants' space requirements. The applicants identified the visual and physical spread of buildings on the site and constructed a design which falls within this and whilst also providing amenity space in the form of a sheltered, walled garden with the accommodation wrapped around it. The proposed house sits on the footprint of the existing dwelling albeit 80% larger. This calculation includes thicker walls which are required to achieve Passivhaus standards - using a standard cavity wall throughout would have resulted in an increase of 64%. They consider that it would be unreasonable to penalise a proposal that would make a considerable contribution to current Government policy in relating to Climate Change on this basis and

90

particularly as this is slightly less than the increase involved in the scheme which had approval and which in their view was commenced. 2.4 They refer to paragraph 4.3.8 of the Strategic Plan which encourages developers to consider the context of the site when designing new proposals and add that the applicant's desire to have something of Passivhaus standards has heavily influenced the form of what is proposed with the stone elements reflecting the existing/former barns on the site and visually tying the modern to the more traditional buildings in the group. Also being used are oxidised metal detailing to the parapets, window surrounds and between some of the windows which provides a reference to the traditional materials which can be found in the countryside along with timber cladding and white render with the flat, green roof that will be planted with indigenous species all of which will help the new building blend into its context and be visually unobtrusive. 2.5 They believe that the proposal complies with HP14 as it results in an environmental improvement and will contribute to Government's policy on Climate Change whilst not having an obtrusive impact on the landscape. 2.6 They confirm that the proposed dwelling will exceed the new Building Regulation standards in respect of insulation and energy use and will be low/virtual zero energy and generate electricity from photovoltaic cells. It will have no fossil fuel boiler and it is anticipated that virtually all the energy required will be generated on site and that battery storage will be used along with insulation, heat recovery, passive use of solar energy and internal heat sources using extremely little primary energy and the energy needed to build the house is insignificant compared with the energy saved later on. They would hope to source as much of the material needed on Island, as possible. 2.7 The house will comprise two distinct elements: a flat roofed section which has square and horizontal windows with two vertical windows on the inner facing elevation and where the lower floor elevations are finished in white painted render and the first floor in ash timber cladding with matching doors. Windows will be frameless and triple glazed and where there are frames, these are to be anthracite grey with oxidised metal between windows where there are longer horizontal sections. The stone building will have a pitched, slated roof and a section of flat roofing with oxidised metal trim on the parapet surround. 2.8 Internally, the scheme offers a lower ground floor level which will accommodate three bedrooms (one en-suite), a bathroom and craft room and plant space with stair access and a lift up to the main ground level. This in turn provides two sets of bedrooms which are separated by a communal living space (lounge, dining room, kitchen and pantry). One of the sets of bedrooms has two wetrooms associated with the two bedrooms. The other has a single bedroom with en-suite bathroom and dressing room, a snug, an office and a small hall where the lower ground floor stairs and lift emerge. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Town and Country Planning (Development Scheme) Order 1982 as not for a particular purpose and of high landscape value and scenic significance. It is outwith the area of ecological value on that plan although Environment Policy 4 protects ecology and highlights the various levels of protection afforded through different legislation. 3.2 As such, there is a presumption against development as set out in Environment Policies 1 and 2 which protect the countryside for its own sake and where the protection of the rural landscape is considered to be of paramount importance. 3.3 Existing dwellings which have retained their habitable status and which are not considered to be worthy of protection may be replaced if they accord with HP12:

91

"The replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless: (a) the existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment; or (b) the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation. In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria: (i) the structural condition of the building; (ii) the period of non-residential use or non-use in excess of ten years; (iii) evidence of intervening use; and (iv) evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon." 3.4 If the proposal can comply with HP12, and in this case permission has already been granted for its replacement (see Planning History below), Housing Policy 14 is relevant as follows: "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area, which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2- 7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building. Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact." PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Planning approval was granted for the extension to the dwelling which currently appears on site under and a complete replacement under 07/01264/B. This was a traditionally styled but larger (quarterland style) dwelling which increased the floor area by approximately 66%. This approval was subject to a condition which required the following: "Prior to the commencement of the development, finished floor levels of the proposed dwelling must be submitted and approved by the Planning Authority. Such levels shall be taken from a fixed datum point outside the application site." Information was submitted on 30.11.11 and approved as satisfying that condition on 02.12.11. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Patrick Parish Commissioners indicate that they have no objection to the application (15.01.20). They write in again on 28.01.20 advising that after having been approached by a number of residents they wished to reconsider the application. The contribute a third time on 11.02.20 advising that of the current and previously approved schemes, they prefer the current proposal which would be less evident from above and they believe that the proposal would be less imposing on the neighbouring properties. That said, they believe that the design could be improved upon by the use of less angular shapes and a less severe colour for the timber work and they continue not to oppose the application.

92

5.2 Highway Services recommend that they have no objection on 10.02.20, noting that whilst the existing access is not ideal, there will be no materival change in development so there is no highways objection. They note that an agreement under Section 109 of the Highway Act will be needed in respect of work at the edge of the carriageway to ensure that the access to the property is suitably kerbed, surfaced and drained. 5.3 Ecosystems Policy requests that a Preliminary Ecological Survey be undertaken prior to the determination of the application and note that they have records of protected flora and fauna on the site as well as prohibited species and has the potential to accommodate other protected species. They also would like to see details of the species for the planting of the green roof and would prefer to see more local species used (31.01.20). 5.4 A number of local residents object to the application, expressing dissatisfaction with the non-traditional design compared with other existing properties in the vicinity as well as previous proposals for redevelopment and development in the vicinity which has been encouraged to use traditional design, some comparing it with an industrial building and highlighting the prominent and important position of the property Concern is also expressed regarding the increase in size, the impact on the landscape and noting that the Island has Biosphere Reserve Status Glen View, Lhagg Road (27.01.20) Creggan Mooar House, Lhagg Road (25.01.20) Ballacooil, Lhagg Road whose northern boundary abuts the southern boundary of the site who also comment that their privacy and outlook would be affected by the proposal (23.01.20) Doarlish Mooar, Lhagg Road (25.01.20) Ballacain Field, Lhagg Road (the adjacent field to the north of the site and who previously owned the site and who has introduced more than 150 trees in the adjacent field) (31.01.20) Driftwood, Dalby (01.02.20) Riverside Cottage, Lhagg Road (21.01.20) 6, Oak Road, Peel (27.01.20). 5.5 The owner of Ballacooil adds on 11.02.20 that he does not believe that the former approval is still valid, not having been commenced and even if it were accepted that the digging of the trenches did constitute development, that approval contained a pre-commencement requirement for details of levels to be provided, which was not satisfied. He expresses concern that additional information has been submitted by the applicant after the consultation period, removing objectors' ability to comment and no comparison has been made between the approved and the proposed, only the existing and the proposed. He does not believe that the local authority have taken into account the views of the neighbours in the taking of their decision. He questions whether the Commissioners' position is correct if the previous approval is not extant (18.02.20). 5.6 The owners of Ballacooil submit further comments on 24.02.20 in response to the applicant's response to the objections which have been submitted to date. They remain concerned that information was submitted at a time which did not enable proper consideration either by the Commissioners or other interested persons. They suggest that it contains misrepresentations and misleading statements but infer that the implicit message is that if the current application is not approved, they will proceed with the 2007 application which would, in the applicants' view, have a worse impact on the environment. This appears to have influenced the Commissioners who concluded that they did not object to the application. The objectors believe that the 2007 approval is not extant and in any case the current application is a stand alone proposal which should be considered irrespective of any other approval or application. There is no information relating to how the proposed application compares with the approved one. They note that the Commissioners' position

93

takes no account of the objections which have been received. This, with the recently adopted procedure for assessing Interested Person Status risks disenfranchising the local community and they seek address of the perceived flaws in the consideration process before a decision is taken. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The property is an existing one albeit in poor condition. It retains all of its walls and roof and would not appear to have been lived in within at least the last 13 years. Whilst it has not been occupied for some time and requires substantial work, there has been no intervening use and is still capable of being renovated and occupied. As planning approval was granted it is perhaps not surprising that no recent maintenance work has been undertaken. Work has clearly been undertaken to dig out part of some of the foundations. The test of whether something has commenced is usually one for the Courts in the event that the commencement is legally challenged and it is not customary for the Department to advise or determine whether commencement has occurred. The test is perhaps whether what has been undertaken constitutes development and given that no concrete has been poured and the trenches are alongside the house and only approximately 600mm deep, in this case, it may well be determined that the development has not commenced for the purposes of taking up the 2007 approval. Another way of looking at it would be whether the Department would take enforcement action on the digging of the trenches were planning approval not to have been granted and it is unlikely that the Department would take action over so small a scale of work. However, even if that approval is not now extant, as the same planning policies were applicable to that development as would be now (HPs 12 and 14) and there have been no material changes in circumstances, it would be unreasonable to assume that a different decision would be reached today if the same application were submitted. This previous approval even if not still extant, is considered a material consideration to which regard should be had. For all these reasons., the principle of the replacement of this property is considered acceptable and HP12 is considered satisfied. The issue is whether the proposal complies with the requirements of HP14, particularly in respect of the size and appearance of the property. 6.2 The new dwelling is on the footprint of the existing and is greater than 50% larger than the existing (as was the scheme approved under the 2007 application). It is not of a design in accordance with Planning Circular 3/91. There are, however, within HP14 two provisions for stepping away from a replacement dwelling which is traditional in design and no greater than 50% larger: they are two distinct provisions. The policy allows the replacement of a traditional dwelling - which the existing is considered to be - with something which is not traditional where it can be demonstrated that the new house is of modern or innovative design - which this is considered to be - and where there would be no adverse visual impact. It is also recommended that the existing materials are re-used or replicated and that any slate or stone should be re-used where possible. 6.3 As proposed the building recreates the stone outbuildings and this part of the building is considered to have a neutral impact. The modern section, whilst strikingly modern, will have a limited impact due to the inclusion of the grassed roof which will be the part of the building which is most visible from the Lhagg Road as shown in the montage and where the elevations facing the road are finished in stone. Much of the existing vegetation within the site is to be retained with a new wildflower verge introduced alongside the entrance drive which is in the same place as the existing. One tree is to be removed. 6.4 It is considered that the building will generally be less prominent than either the existing or proposed and as such, it is considered that the visual impact would not be adverse, thus complying with that part of HP14, subject to comments about the materials - see Conclusion. 6.5 The other provisions within the policy, which relate to the size of the new property, state that a larger building could be acceptable where the proposal is to replace a building of poor form with one of traditional character (which this is not) or where there would be a reduced

94

visual impact and where there would be an overall environmental improvement. As stated in 6.4, it is considered that the proposed building due to its form and how it would sit in the site, compared with the entirely two storey buildings on site and as approved, could well have a reduced impact in the landscape once the existing and proposed planting has matured and naturalised. It is considered that this part of the policy is also satisfied. The environmental impact should also consider the carbon footprint of the development and in this case, what is proposed would significantly reduce the environmental impact - in terms of thermal efficiency and energy use - than either the approved replacement dwelling or the existing property. Other considerations - environmental improvement 6.6 Whilst HP14 does not have regard to environmental considerations when contemplating the design of the new house (this only applies when considering the siting or size of the building), the current Government policy and position on addressing Climate Change - the Climate Change Bill and Climate Change Mitigation Strategy 2016-2020 - is that developments should be taking account of this and reducing energy costs where possible and practicable and that emissions, particularly carbon emissions should be reduced. This also includes reference to reducing the need to travel and whilst this site is not sustainable in terms of being within close proximity of a settlement which provides services which would reduce the need to travel - for example, Dalby and Glen Maye have no shop, school or significant opportunities for employment - it accommodates a dwelling which could be occupied either in the existing dwelling or its approved replacement. The proposed building accommodates a study which could facilitate the occupants working from home which would reduce travel as would inclusion of accommodation for the applicants' parents. 6.7 There is an increasing number of applications which purport to be creating environmentally friendly dwellings which could outweigh other concerns, such as policy. Some, such as the current application, and a recent one at Ardonan in Andreas (19/00875/B) include comprehensive submissions and which are managed through the application of conditions such as the following one, to achieve the stated energy efficiency: "Prior to the commencement of any works an Energy Statement shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Department (planning) which demonstrates the new dwellings has a Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating of at least 97 (or similar rating system) and prior to the occupation of the dwelling a further Energy Statement post completion shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department (planning) to demonstrate that the SAP rating of at least 97 (or similar rating system) has been achieved. Reason: A reason why the application is considered acceptable is due to the overall environmental impacts as outlined on Housing Policy 14 and namely the eco efficiency credentials of the new dwelling." 6.8 Whilst there are concerns about the impact of the dwelling on the privacy of those in the adjacent dwelling, Ballacooil, it must be taken into account that the existing and the approved replacement dwelling both had the front elevation facing in this direction with two levels of windows. What is proposed will have a high level window and a corner, larger window looking in the direction of the adjacent property which will allow visibility across the field towards Ballacooil which sits over 200m away and separated from the application property by an agricultural field, not a residential curtilage. 6.9 Procedure 6.9.1 There is concern that proper consideration has not been possible due to the timing of submissions to the local authority and to those who have expressed an interest in the application. However, the Commissioners have had ample time to see the objections which have been submitted and to allow for any change of stance. The additional information which has been provided responded to comments made and in the same light, the objectors have had the opportunity to respond further to these, which indeed, the owners of Ballacooil have

95

done. The information which has been submitted does not change the scheme in any way but simply adds further information and opinions on what has been submitted. This is a normal part of any planning application. If the Commissioners do not agree with objections which have been raised, this is not a matter for the determining authority but one between the local authority and its constituents. CONCLUSIONS 7.1 There is clearly local concern that what is proposed will not sit comfortably and easily into the landscape and that a more traditional style of replacement dwelling should be required. It is certainly the case that almost all of the properties in the immediate vicinity are traditionally styled and those that are not tend to be obvious departures from the vernacular. What is proposed here will be different with its partly flat roof, partly clad elevations and overall appearance but the use of natural cladding on the upper part of the flat roofed section should help the building merge into its surroundings and not stand out. It could be argued that a building as proposed would have less impact than a white painted rendered pitched roofed cottage although such an argument would be weakened by the fact that a traditionally designed building would not need to be hidden or disguised and would sit clearly visible like the others in the surrounding area and indeed the existing house. 7.2 The Government's steps to tackle climate change will be greatly enhanced by domestic properties being reconfigured or even replaced to accommodate better ways of heating and sealing the buildings. It is clearly more difficult to accommodate the highest levels of thermal efficiency and renewable energy in a traditionally styled dwelling with small windows, cement rendered or stone walls. The dwelling proposed here could also be said to have a reduced impact as viewed from above, given the flat, seeded roof. 7.3 The building will be visible from the footpath to the west and the Niarbyl cafe and car park. However, given the distance - 640m to the car park and 770m from the footpath, and the materials to be used, it is not considered that the development would have so significant an impact to justify refusal of the application, given the environmental benefit of the thermal and energy efficiency of the proposed property. 7.4 The proposed stone buildings, in order to sit comfortably in the landscape need to utilise the correct type of stone: many new developments are utilising stone which is unsympathetic in terms of its colour, size and pointing. As such, a condition requiring a sample of the stonework to be approved prior to it being applied, should be attached to any approval granted. If possible, existing stone from the demolished outbuilding should be re-used. 7.5 Similarly, the use of white render on the lower ground floor, whilst acknowledging the use of these materials in traditional rural house construction, could be considered inappropriate on a building which bears no resemblance to the form and appearance of such properties. It could be considered that a more subtle finish and colour could be appropriate to align with the natural appearance of the other finish materials which otherwise seek to minimise the impact of the building in the countryside. A condition could be attached to control this. 7.6 A condition should also be attached to require the undertaking of a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal as directed by DEFA, prior to the commencement of work. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material

96

(d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

97


Item 5.9 Proposal : External and internal alterations to barn, additional use of

dwelling as a dog day care & homestay business (retrospective) and alterations to existing vehicular access to improve visibility

Site Address : Rockville Main Road Crosby Isle Of Man IM4 2DW

Applicant : Ms Patricia Weldon Application No. : Planning Officer :

19/01194/B- click to view Miss Lucy Kinrade


______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. The dog homestay and day care use shall be restricted to the area shaded blue on drawing number 03 date stamped and received 29/10/2019. Reason: The application has been assessed on this area only, and any use of the property outside of this area would require being assessed as part of a separate planning application. C 3. The modification works for the access as shown in drawing number 05 Rev A date stamped and received 29/10/2019 shall be carried out in accordance with those details within 6 months of the decision becoming final and the visibility splays (2.4m x 95m to the west, and 2.4m x 65m to the east) maintained free from obstruction thereafter. Reason: In the interest of highway safety. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) The proposed cladding works are considered to have an acceptable visual impact and the additional use of the dwelling for dog homestay and day care is not considered to result in any environmental impacts, no significant adverse noise impact on adjacent neighbouring dwellings or to result in any highway safety concerns.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None

_____________________________________________________________


98


THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS PART OF THE PROPOSAL MAY BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. THE SITE 1.1 The application site is an existing residential property known as 'Rockville' located on the northern side of the main road running through Crosby and west of the Ballavitchel Road. The dwelling is accessed via a private drive direct from the A1 main road; the entrance is formed by pillars and walling on both sides. 1.2 The existing dwelling is set back from the main road and is surrounded by a number of agricultural fields each which is lined along the boundary by hedging and vegetation and a number of trees. 1.3 The main house is two storey and sits parallel to the road approx. 90m back from the highway. To the front and side of the house is a private garden part of which has been paved and fenced creating a dog day care pen. Access to the dog pen can be achieved externally through a gate, or through the main house as the pen is also linked to the attached double garage and to part of the ground floor living area. 1.4 Behind the house and within a small concrete yard area are two existing outbuildings, one a stable and the other an open fronted barn. 1.5 The barn is 16m long x 5.5m wide and has recently been re-clad throughout resulting in an enclosed outbuilding. The metal cladding is black and the building has been installed with two pedestrian doors and a central garage door. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application comprises two parts, retrospective approval for the cladding works and alterations to enclose the existing open fronted barn and the retrospective approval for the additional use of part of the ground floor of the dwelling as a dog day care and dog homestay business. 2.2 To facilitate the operation of the dog day care business the proposal also includes modifications to the existing access entrance to lower the walls and gate pillars to achieve an improved highway visibility. 2.3 Following discussions with the agent regarding the extent of the red line for the proposal an amended drawings was received which sought to address and redefine the extent of the red and blue lines for the proposal. PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications. 3.2 There have been a number of dog day care facilities approved in recent times, most of which have been within existing Industrial Estates although there have been a number across the Islands countryside: o 19/00533/C - Douglas Head Industrial estate o 18/01299/C - Hills Meadow industrial estate o 18/00799/B and 18/00127/B Balthane Industrial estate

99

o 18/00338/C - Strenaby, Onchan o 18/00011/B - industrial unit, Demesne Road, Douglas o 17/00842/C - Viking Works industrial area, Peel o 17/00364/B - Ballablack Farm, Arbory o 16/00911/C - Snugborough industrial estate o 16/00817/C - Main Road, Onchan 3.3 There have also been a number of refused dog day care facilities including: o 19/00646/C - Lapwings, East Foxdale Road, Eairy - Whilst the location was considered suitable, the access and visibility was of concern and the proposed operation would result in the harmful impact on highway safety. o 16/00381/C - proposed the change of use from forestry buildings to a dog day care facility at The Tanyard in Santon and this was refused for reasons relating to the poor visibility for and of those emerging from the site and also for the considerable noise nuisance which could be experienced by the dwelling on the other side of the road. PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site is not designated for any particular purpose and is located within an AHLV in accordance with the 1982 Development Plan. The policies and aims of the IOM Strategic Plan seek to protect the Island's countryside from harm. In the assessment of the physical works to the barn consideration shall be given to Environment Policy 2 which seeks to safeguard AHLV's from unwarranted or harmful development. In the case of the additional use of the dwelling for a dog day care use consideration shall be given to a number of the Strategic Aims which require that development is primarily located within towns, villages and settlements (Strategic Policy 2) and new development should be located and designed such as to promoted an integrated transport network and to minimise journeys by private car, make the best use of public transport, not adversely affect highway safety for all users and encourage pedestrian movement (Strategic Policy 10). 4.2 In addition to the policy situation, the care of animals is generally something that may need to happen away from built up areas due not only to the noise nuisance which could arise but also due to the size of premises required and ideally some outdoor exercise space. Examples given in 3.0 illustrate the range and types of location where this type of facility can be considered acceptable. REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only. 5.1 Marown Parish Commissioners - No objection (dated 24/11/2019). Following the receipt and circulation of an amended red/blue line drawing the Commissioners requested a deferral (dated 06/02/2020). No objection was confirmed on 21/02/2020. 5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do not oppose subject to conditions (dated 04/12/2019) - the existing site access arrangement is to be subject to an intensification of its use as a result of the proposal although is not considered to be so significant as to cause congestion in or out of the access and the modifications to the entrance will present a material improvement to visibility for those exiting and for passing drivers being able to see vehicles pulling out, and this betterment from a road safety aspect is considered to outweigh the intensification of use and on balance considered to be acceptable. In light of this a condition requiring the entrance wall being lowered to 900mm and visibility splays being provided and maintained thereafter.

100

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The recladding works to the existing open fronted barn are considered to be acceptable, the building is not readily visible from public view and the works are contained within the extent of the existing built up area and yard and no new or adverse visual or amenity impacts are expected as a result of the works as to warrant a concern or refusal. 6.2 In terms of the change of use element of the proposal, the site is not designated for development and the dwelling is a modern building, its conversion could not therefore be supported by any of the policies which allow conversion of old and interesting buildings (Environment Policy 16), it is therefore necessary to determine whether there are any other factors which would lend support to the proposal and if so, whether there would be any adverse environmental or amenity impacts arising as a result. 6.3 The care of dogs is becoming a desirable facility for those owners who may work during the day and who wish to have their animals cared for in their absence. Whilst there is no planning policy support for such uses, it is accepted that this is something which the local population desire and is generally in the interests of animal welfare: indeed the applications cited above demonstrate this. There would therefore be a benefit from this form of facility and the location would be suitable for those travelling past the site to and from work minded that the main A1 road is an arterial route into and out of Douglas where the major concentration of employment may be found. 6.4 The potential for noise nuisance necessitates that dog day care is either carried out in buildings which are well insulated or where the site itself is well away from noise sensitive premises, particularly residential properties. It is therefore considered acceptable in principle that a rural property such as this could be acceptable for this type of use. 6.5 The site is some distance from adjacent residential properties with the closest being The Half Way House approx. 115m away and on the opposite side of the main road. The drawings and supporting information for the application indicate that the dogs being looked after will occupy part of the ground floor and there will be an external fenced yard. The nature of the business is dog home stay and day care facility, the business is not a kennel facility and dogs sleep in the house except those visiting for day care who are dropped off and picked up daily. During the week there can be an average of 15 dogs at one time on the premises and the applicant is registered with IOM Government (Agricultural Directorate) as a dog homestay facility. In terms of noise there is potential for barking noise when the dogs are outside, although the distances between properties and the background noise of the main road is as such that such barking noise is not to result in any significant adverse harm to neighbouring amenity, it would also be in the applicants best interest to not have dogs barking frequently through their own peace and enjoyment 6.6 The supporting statement for the application indicates that the dogs are generally walked on mass at nearby plantations or the beach, but that occasionally they are walked in the adjacent fields under ownership of the applicant, the infrequency of walking the dogs in the fields has been addressed through the removal of the fields from the red line of the application site boundary. Any change to frequency resulting in a material change of use of these fields would necessitate the applicant seeking planning approval for the use and which would need to be fully considered as part of a separate planning application. This application is for the change of use of part of the existing house only and external fenced yard adjoining the house shaded blue on drawing number 03. 6.7 Highway Services have considered that the nature of the business operation and the expected intensification of the use of the site is not so significant as to cause any congestion in or out of the site and that the modifications to the access will present a material improvement in terms of its visibility for both the users of the entrance and traffic

101

approaching or passing the site. The set back position of the dwelling and the hardstanding surrounding the house is considered to be sizable enough to accommodate those vehicles dropping off or collecting their dogs without impact to the highway. In this respect the proposal is considered to have any acceptable highway impact. CONCLUSION 7.1 The fairly rural location is considered suitable for the proposed additional use being on an arterial route and sufficient distance from the neighbours as to limit amenity and noise impacts, modifications to the access are to result in an overall highway improvement beyond the existing arrangement and no highway safety issues are expected as a result of the proposal a condition for the access works is considered applicable as per the Highway Officer recommendations along with a condition restricting the dog day care and homestay to the area shaded blue on drawing 03. The physical cladding works to the existing barn to the rear of the dwelling are also considered to be acceptable and not to result in any visual harm to the surrounding landscape. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

102


Item 5.10 Proposal : Creation of new access, including footpath, wall and gates Site Address : Field 312862

Main Road St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3LU

Applicant : Creamo Ltd Application No. : Planning Officer :



______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the details (including timings) of the Tree replacement scheme for the affected trees and details (including timings) of any remedial works to trees that are to be retained on site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details of any replanting and remedial works. Reason: To safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area. N1. The applicant needs to enter a section 109A Highway Agreement in order for the access to be constructed onto the adopted highway. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) It is considered that the planning application is in accordance with General Policy 2, Transport Policy 6 and Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and Policy OS/P/2 of the St Johns Local Plan 1999.

______________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THERE IS AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL


103

THE SITE 1.1 The site is part of a field situated on the southern side of the A1 (Peel Road) just after the junction with Curragh Road (A3) as you approach St. John's from Greeba. The field which has a fairly regular shape has Kerrowdhoo as the abutting property on the western boundary, while Dreem Faaie is situated on the eastern boundary, separated only by a track which serves the abutting field on the southern boundary. The field which presently has no access has its northern boundary formed by a continuous line of mature trees, with low stone wall which has shrubbery growing out of it on to the roadside. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is for the Creation of new access, including footpath, wall and gates. The proposed works would involve: i. Creating a new site access 5.5m wide directly opposite Parsonage Glebe a residential cul de sac situated directly opposite the field. The access will be slightly inclined, rising from the site which is about 750mm below the level of the highway to the level of the highway. ii. The creation of pedestrian walkways on both sides of the access that will run parallel to the site boundary by Peel Road. This would involve shifting the existing boundary by 2m from the highway. 125mm upstand Half Better kerbs will be installed along the boundary of the walkway with the highway. iii. Erection of Manx stone boundary wall 600mm high along the new site boundary, by the created walkway. iv. Installing a double gate with masonry gate post with cap. The gate will be 9.2m wide, with each side measuring 4.6m wide. 2.2 The proposed works will be preceded by the removal of some mature trees and sod hedges along the site boundary to enable the creation of the access and walkway. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site is within an area recognised as "Predominantly Residential" identified on the St Johns Local Plan 1999 and the site is within a Proposed Conservation Area (St John's Proposed Conservation Area). As such, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains some policies which are considered to be specifically material in the assessment of this current planning application 3.3 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: 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; (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;

104

3.4 Environment Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development. 3.5 Section 11.4: Pedestrians 11.4.1 Walking is also an important means of travel in its own right or as part of most journeys. All pedestrians need safe and convenient means of crossing and passing along roads. Alternatively provision should be made for walking journeys separated from general traffic. Transport Policy 6: 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. 3.6 Due to the zoning of the site and the proposed works the St John's Local Plan contains one policy which is relevant to this application, Policy OS/P/2 states; "No new development shall be permitted which would adversely affect the southerly open countryside views from Peel Road." PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning application and no previous planning application within the vicinity of the application site is considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application. REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. 5.1 The Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division has written in to refuse the application with the following comments in a letter dated 2 December 2019: There are no details as to whether the visibility splays as shown on Drw 022/101 are commensurate with vehicle speeds on the A1 Peel Road. A speed survey is required in order to understand whether the access is safe for both drivers merging onto Peel Road but also for approaching drivers being able to see and react to the vehicle pulling out of the minor road. Drop kerbs also required along the kerb radii within the bell mouth to accommodate pedestrians who wish to cross the proposed access. There are no details as to what the proposed access is to serve or whether it will be adopted or not. Notwithstanding the above, the basecourse should be 100mm thick and the subbase 225mm thick. Based on the submitted information, the proposals are not considered acceptable from a highways aspect. Refusal is recommended. 5.1.2 Having received amended plans from the applicants, the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division has written in to state that they 'Do no oppose' with the following comments (24/01/2020): Previous highway consultation comments were made on 2nd December 2019 which stated an objection. The isses raised were as follows:

105

o The need to undertake speeds surveys to determine if the proposed visibility splays would be suitable for the actual 85%ile speeds. o Pedestrian dropped kerbs would be required on either side of the proposed access; o Confirmation on whether the proposed access was intended to be adopted; and o Construction details of the access. Information has now been provided that indicate that the proposed visibility splays of 2.4m x 60m would be adequate for the 85%ile speeds that would be lower than 37mph. The plans now indicate that dropped kerb pedestrian crossings would be provided on either side of the proposed access. The Access would have a carriageway width of 5.5m, with 10m radius kerbs and a 2.0m footway on either side of access. At the back of the footway there would be 600mm high walls. Gates are indicated as being set back 13m from the edge of the carriage way; this depth could accommodate most vehicles but if larger vehicles were to use the future development then the gates could be set back as part of the details of a future planning application. The construction details have been confirmed that are acceptable. Other than the part of the proposed access that will be within the highway boundary, the applicant has confirmed that it is not their current intension to have access adopted but that it would be constructed to adopted standards in the event that there was a future intension to have it adopted. In order for the access to be constructed onto the adopted highway the applicant would need to enter a Section 109A Highway Agreement. Informative: The applicant needs to enter a section 109A Highway Agreement. 5.2 DEFA's Arboricultural Officer confirms that there is no objection to the planning application and has made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 25 November 2019: "There are a row of trees growing out of the base of the wall (or on it in some cases). I presume these are being removed to create the required visibility splay, but we would probably issue a licence for these regardless of this application due to the damage that is being caused to the boundary wall, although it may have been conditional to some replanting. These trees include: 1x Cherry laurel*, 1x Cypress, 1x Birch, 11x Sycamore, 10x Ash, 4 x Hawthorn, 1x Holly. *Not licensable under the Tree Preservation Act In addition to these trees, the removal of the following is required to create the actual entrance, cutting through the row of (mainly conifer) trees set a little further back in to the field: 3x Lodgepole pine, 1x Norway spruce, 1x Silver fir, 1x Larch, 1x Beech." 5.3 German Parish Commissioners have stated that they object to the application on the following grounds (12/12/2019): The existing field access is on a corner which causes difficulties with visibility particularly as the Police will not support the Commissioners to have parked cars along this road removed stating their reasons as traffic calming. There are already multiple accesses to this site from the Main Road and farmer garden centre. There is no requirement for a footpath on this section of the road as there is no other footpath on that side, the footpath through the village is on the other side of the road.

106

The Commissioners object to the removal of the trees on the roadside due to the historical nature of the surrounding area and its proximity to Tynwald Hill. The Commissioners feel the loss of the trees would be detrimental to the area. The Commissioners can see no reason for such a grand entrance to an agricultural field which has no planning permission for alternative use or development. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key issues in this case are the principle of the proposed development, potential visual impact of the proposed works to the street scene and area as well as the possible highway safety issues. 6.2 The principle of the development 6.2.1 In considering the justification for the development, it is noted that what is proposed would provide a means of access to the field as it is clear that there is currently no means of access to the field available to the owner so there is a genuine need for the access. It is also noted that the access is designed to be unobtrusive in appearance with visibility afforded through re-aligning the stone wall, in addition to the gate and walkway being recessed into the field or considerably set back 13m from the highway; to provide safe access for pedestrians and vehicles unto the highway. 6.2 potential visual impacts 6.2.1 The proposed access comprises both the removal of a section of the roadside vegetation and the installation of a walkway (2m wide), including the installation of a new stone wall to replicate the existing. Although these works would results in the removal of some mature trees on the site, it is noted that the removal of the trees would enable the creation of the required visibility splays from the site. Besides, DEFA's Arboricultural Officer has noted that regardless of this application, licence would have been issued for the removal of the affected trees due to the damage that is being caused to the boundary wall by these trees, and as such the loss of these trees is therefore not considered to be of such substantial harm to warrant refusal of the application. It is, however, noted that a condition requiring the replanting of the affected trees would be vital in ensuring that the affected species are restored to the site for the benefit of the overall environment. 6.2.2 Considering the immediate surrounding area is characterised by Manx cottages, interspaced with some modern dwellings and open fields bounded by Manx stone walls and thick tree lines with significant shrubbery, what is proposed under this scheme would ensure that the existing green screen provided by the trees for the open field are preserved. As well, the works would restore the traditional stone wall on the boundary of the site by creating a new wall mirroring the appearance and finishing of the existing wall, although recessed from the original boundary line. This would ensure that a congruent wall line is formed with the surrounding properties, preserving the character and appearance of the street scene, since the proposed works would be visible from various vantage points along the A1. 6.2.3 Granting the new entrance gates would be a new introduction within the street scene, its appearance would be somewhat concealed as the new access would be located on a depressed level 750mm lower than the highway. Besides, entrance gates are a present feature within the street scene as a number of the properties and fields within the vicinity of the proposal site have vehicular access gates built along the boundary with the highway; a condition which the proposed access gate is an improvement on, as it is considerably set back from the highway. 6.2.4 On the balance, the location for development is not considered to cause major harm to the character and appearance of the street scene and is deemed to be in keeping with the

107

character and appearance of the locality which comprises a mix of residential properties and open fields provided with access gates. Moreover, the new access and walkway would improve the appearance of the site boundary which was previously in poor form, and facilitate maintenance works on the boundary as there would be safe distance for maintenance works to be carried out on the wall, away from the highway, thus complying with GP 2 (b), (c), (f) and (g). 6.3 Impact on highway safety 6.3.1 The works to build a pedestrian walkway adjacent to the application site would improve pedestrian safety for those exiting the site and the surrounding properties on the southern section of Peel Road. This is hinged on the fact that the walkway will be paved and slightly elevated above the level of the highway, ensuring that there is sufficient segregation between vehicles and pedestrians as there would be a convenient means on crossing and passing along the road for pedestrians; thus improving safety for pedestrians on this section of the highway and conforming to GP2 (i and h) and Transport Policy 6 of the Strategic plan (2016). 6.3.2 Observations during the site visit revealed that the site could be accessed via a conventional field access located on the eastern side of the field through the existing track on the eastern boundary; where there would be limited impact on the existing trees and boundary treatment. However, it is not considered that using this track would be appropriate as visibility from the track onto the highway is significantly poor and would result in serious impacts on highway safety as the required visibility splays would not be achievable from this track. 6.4 Overall, it is considered that the level of development contained within the proposal is in keeping with the character of the site and the area, with suitably limited impact on the neighbouring properties. As such the proposal does not adversely affect public or private amenity or the Proposed Conservation Area and is therefore in accordance with the aforementioned policies. CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal would not unacceptably harm the characteristics of the existing site or the character of its surroundings and would not result in a significant adverse impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The proposal is therefore in accordance with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 35. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

108


Item 5.11 Proposal : Erection of a proposed replacement dwelling with attached

car port / workshop and garden store Site Address : Barrule Cottage

Bride Road Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 4AB

Applicant : Mr Daniel Gorin Application No. : Principal Planner :



______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area. C 3. The visibility splays of 2.4m x 120m in either direction shall be provided prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050 mm in height above adjoining carriageway level. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. C 4. No development shall take place until full details of soft and hard landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include details of new planting (including tree planting) showing, type, size and position of each. 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 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. Details of the hard landscaping works include footpaths and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.


109

C 5. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times. Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety. C 6. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces (including "Living wall System & Green Roof System"), including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) It is considered the proposal complies with HP14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, and the resulting development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape which is arguable the most important consideration and therefore it is also considered the proposal would be acceptable, complying with Environment Policy 1 & 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

______________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICATION COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Barrule Cottage, Bride Road, Ramsey located on the eastern side of the Bride Road, and south of the Dogmills. The site is access via an existing entrance off Bride Road along eastern boundary of the site. The site is characterised as a flat parcel of land with mature vegetation around all boundaries. The existing property (until recent (few months) as it has been demolished) was a two storey property which appears to have been extended a number of times over the years, from an original Manx traditional property, albeit that appearance had been lost. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for erection of a proposed replacement dwelling with attached car port / workshop and garden store. 2.2 The new dwelling would be two storeys in height and be of a Manx farmhouse design with three upper windows above a central doorway which is flanked either side by a single window. The rear elevation is made up of large section of glazing which all have seaward views. The main dwelling is finished in painted render, natural slate roof ad dark grey aluminium or uPVC windows/doors.

110

2.3 A side extension to the main part of the dwelling is also proposed to the southern gable end wall, this is flat roofed with vertical timber cladding finish. To the northern gable end wall it is proposed to have an attached/covered car port/workshop, which is single storey in height, with a flat roof which is made up of a "Green Roof System" while the roadside elevation is finished with a "Living wall system" while it rear is finished in vertical timber cladding. The existing access/driveway would run between the gable end of the main dwelling and the car port/workshop. The existing access is being retained and unaltered. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The previous application is considered relevant in the determination of this application: 3.2 Alterations, erection of extension and raising of roof level - 19/00197/B - APPROVED. With the exception of the carport/workshop, this previously approved application resulted in a very similar dwelling to what is proposed now, the main difference being the original fabric of the main dwelling house was being retained, albeit extended in a similar way to the proposed replacement dwelling under consideration now. 4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site is within an area recognised as being an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance under the IOM Development Plan Order 1982. Accordingly, the site is not designated for development. The site is not within a Conservation Area. 4.2 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 the planning application; 4.3 Environment Policy 1 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is 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." 4.4 Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential." 4.5 General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;

111

(d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage." 4.6 Housing Policy 14 states: "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area(1), which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building. Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact." 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Lezayre Parish Commissioners have recommended the application be approved (06.12.2019). 5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Services objected to the application on the following grounds (12.12.2019): "The development will create a car port that will reduce to some extent the turning and manoeuvrability within the parking area so that vehicles can enter and exit in a forward gear. Vehicle speeds on Bride Road passing the site ae considered to be high based on the road being subject to the national speed limit. Notwithstanding the available visibility of 2.4m x 120m there are concerns over the reduction in turning facilities within the site. In the absence of any swept paths showing a vehicle being able to within the proposed site, refusal is recommended due to the fact that the development reduces the existing facilities that are currently provided." 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 Under the provisions of General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 the erection of a replacement dwelling on a one for one basis is an accepted exception to the general presumption against development within the countryside. Whilst the existing dwelling has recently been demolished (understood to be just after this current application was submitted); and in strictest terms, it could be argued that this demolition without any approval in place for its replacement, could be considered unacceptable as there is no longer any dwelling to replace. In the interest of reasonableness and as this demolition has only been undertaken recently as part of implementing (perhaps badly) the previously approved application (19/00197/B), this application is taking account of the existing dwelling and this represents a replacement dwelling. Accordingly, the primary policy to assess the proposed development against is Housing Policy 14.

112

6.2 As can be seen, Housing Policy 14 raises a number of issues that need to be taken into account. In terms of siting the proposed replacement dwelling sits on the existing footprint and therefore complies with this aspect of the policy. 6.3 With regards to the size increase from the existing (155sqm) to the proposed dwelling (210sqm) the proposal equates to an approximate 35% increase of the existing, which is below the general permitted 50% threshold. The proposed car port/works shop is physically attached to the main dwelling (albeit sections are open to elements/not cavity walls). Accordingly, in some circumstances the calculation has included an attached garage as it has been considered this could be converted under Permitted Development in the future into additional living accommodation. In this case given the construction of the carport/workshop building and with appropriate worded conditions to removed Permitted Development Rights/plus required the parking areas within the car port are retained for such use; it is not considered this need to be calculated into the floor area. However for reference the carport/workshop building has an approximate floor area of 150sqm and if taken into account would represent a 132% increase. 6.4 Further, in support, Housing Policy 14 goes onto to state that consideration may be given to larger dwellings where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact. In this instance the existing dwelling is of very poor form, which appears to be due to a number of inappropriate extensions and alterations in the past. The traditional character has been lost. The new proposal from public views would reinstate the traditional styled dwelling. 6.5 Overall, the proposed dwelling would represent a significantly improve over the appearance of the existing property and results in a dwelling which appearance is far more Manx vernacular in design i.e. Manx farmhouse, which is potentially how it originally appeared or at least more appropriate now. Overall, this would create a more attractive, albeit larger dwelling. The rear aspects which include more glazing and of a more contemporary design would not be especially apparent, the main aspect of the proposal being the front elevation and it is considered the proposed scheme would visual be betterment in this area, compared to the existing. Accordingly, for these reasons it is considered the proposal does comply with HP14 from this respect. 6.6 The car port/workshop building is sizeable (similar footprint to dwelling) and there could have been a concern of the increase in the overall width of built development on the site. However, the applicants have proposed to have the floor level set down below road level (0.6m) to reduce its mass, added to this the proposal would have a flat roof but with as "Green Roof System" finish and include a "Living Wall System to the roadside elevations. These aspects, couples with additional landscaping would result in an interested design, which hopefully would not have a significant visual impact upon the site/countryside setting/landscape. 6.7 With regard to comments made from Highway Services, it is noted the existing access is not been altered and the visibility splays shown on the submitted drawings are what currently exists. Furthermore, concerns of turning and manoeuvrability are noted, albeit again this proposal results in a great level of such space than the existing situation. Accordingly, given these facts, it is considered difficult to warrant a refusal. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the reasons outlined within this report it is considered the proposal complies with HP14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, and the resulting development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape which is arguable the most important consideration and therefore it is also considered the proposal would be acceptable, complying with

113

Environment Policy 1 & 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. It is recommended that the application be approved. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

114


Item 5.12 Proposal : Additional use of one room within property as office (class 2) Site Address : Tethers End

12 River Walk Braddan Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 4TJ

Applicant : Mr John And Mrs Fereday Culley Application No. : Planning Officer :

19/01320/C- click to view Miss Lucy Kinrade


______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. The office use hereby approved shall only be by Mrs Fereday Culley and Mr John Culley as the permanent occupants of the property known as 'Tethers End', 12 River Walk and up to 1 other member of staff not living at the property only. Reason: In the interest of amenity and highway safety, and to reflect the specific circumstances of the application proposal. C 3. The driveway and parking area shown on drawing titled 'Parking Area/Driveway - 12 River Walk' date stamped and received 17/02/2020 shall be maintained free from obstruction and available for parking at all times when the office use hereby approved is in operation. Reason: In the interest of highway safety This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) While contrary to the development plan, the application has been considered on an exceptional circumstance minded that the location is on the outskirts of Douglas and will help to towards reducing carbon emissions through reduce vehicle movements. The small scale nature of the office use and operation of the business is not considered to result in such an intensification of the site as to cause harm to neighbouring amenity and the existing driveway and garage are sufficiently sized to accommodate both the existing residential use and the proposed office use.

______________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________


115


THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 12 River Walk, a single storey detached dwelling sited on the south western side of River Walk in Braddan. 1.2 To the front of the dwelling is an irregular shaped driveway forming an 'L' shape in front of the integral double garage the driveway measures approx. 15m deep and 4.8m wide nearest the cul-de-sac road and 7.9m nearest the garage, stretching across the front of the house the driveway measures 11.2m long and 3.4m wide. There is parking on the drive in tandem for up to 5 vehicles and further spaces within the garage. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the use of one existing bedroom to the front of the dwelling as an office for use by the householder, their husband as co-director and in the future potentially employing one part time book-keeper. 2.2 The applicant as part of their supporting information does not foresee anything other than occasional visits by customers only for infrequent meetings or for the signing of papers, and other than that most queries would be dealt with electronically or by phone or they would visit the customers in their own homes. 2.3 No external or physical works are proposed as part of the application. PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The property has been the subject of a number of previously approved applications for alterations and extensions, none of which are relevant to the consideration of the current application. PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area designated as predominantly residential under the Braddan Parish Plan 1991. The Strategic Plan outlines that 5.7% of the population worked in Braddan an area that is also identified as being close to major transport links. Locations such as Union Mills, Strang and Newtown are within Braddan and are identified as service villages. River Walk is not specifically identified within the plan although is located on the cusp of Douglas. Spatial Policy 5 requires that new development is to be located within the defined settlements and development will only be permitted outside of these areas in accordance with General Policy 3. 4.2 The Strategic Plan also recommends that whilst the growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island is encouraged, this should be through development which accords with the policies of the Strategic Plan (Business Policy 1) and later policies state that new office space should be located within town and village centres on land zoned for such purposes (BP7). Whilst exceptions are made on the basis of buildings of acknowledged historic or architectural interest which is not the case here. Paragraph 9.3.3 states that the support for offices within town and village centres relates to the accessibility of such locations, their presence adds to the vitality and success of the centres and the investment in

116

property can be used to renew the ageing fabric of the town centre buildings. Sustainability and reducing demand for private vehicle use also runs through the aims of the Strategic Plan. REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only. 5.1 Braddan Parish Commissioners - No objection (dated 21/01/2020). 5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do not oppose (09/12/2019) ASSESSMENT 6.1 The development is contrary to Spatial Policy 5 and Business Policy 7 which encourages office use to be located in existing settlements. The Strategic Plan is also committed to sustainable development and this, along with the Government's Climate Change Mitigation Strategy 2016-2020 which includes the following: "2.1 In line with international convention, it is in our own interest to aim for the most cost effective means to reduce emissions. This necessitates firstly seeking to eliminate emissions from energy consumption by eliminating demand for energy itself where possible. Eliminate energy demand i.e. design and construct buildings which don't require heating or cooling, use online services rather than travelling somewhere in person, walk or cycle instead of travelling by bus or car. Eliminating emissions - eliminating the need to travel 2.7.1 Emissions from vehicles and vessels can be eliminated where the need to travel can be avoided. The Island has a good telecommunications infrastructure which can enable people to work and shop from home thereby eliminating the need to travel." 6.2 It is clear that the applicant and their husband working from home would significantly reduce travelling and emissions. This would not require planning approval. Should they employ a part time staff member and they live closer to the site this too, would reduce travelling and emissions. Ideally the office would be located with the Douglas town centre, however given that the expected nature of this particular business operation which is mostly by the home owners it reduces the need for it to be in a sustainable location, and given that the use is not expected to attract a significant number of calling customers it is unlikely to have any adverse impacts on adjacent neighbouring amenity and given the size of the driveway is to be provided within a sufficient area of off road parking accommodating both the home owners, any potential employee and any client calling to the site without any detriment to local highway safety. CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed small scale additional use of one existing bedroom as an office is considered to be acceptable and not to result in any amenity or highway safety issues. It is appropriate to attach a condition to any approval which restricts the use of the office to the householder(s) and up to one further member of staff who does not live at the premises and a condition ensuring the driveway remains free and available for parking at all times.

117

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The Planning Committee 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

118


Item 5.13 Proposal : Change of use of former bank to Children's Soft and Sensory

Play Centre Site Address : Bank

Station Road Ballasalla Isle Of Man IM9 2DD

Applicant : Mama Bear's Ltd Application No. : Planning Officer :

19/01328/C- click to view Miss Lucy Kinrade


______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. Prior to occupation of the site for the use hereby approved the applicant shall provide in writing to the Department a travel plan that needs to provide details of how travel to the site for customers and staff will be managed with details of off site staff car parking provision. The travel plan shall be implemented in accordance with the details provided within it. Reason: to minimise on street car parking that could be detrimental to the operation of the highway and to encourage sustainable transport in accordance with the active travel strategy. C 3. The forecourt to the front of the building shall be for customer parking only, and shall be maintained free of obstruction for such use at all times when open for business. Reason: to minimise on-street car parking that could be detrimental to the operation of the highway. C 4. No customers shall be served or remain in the building outside the following hours: Monday - Saturday 0900 to 1730 hours Sunday 1000 to 1600 hours Reason: In the interests of public amenity. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) The proposal makes best use of an existing under used building within a service centre that can be easily accessed on foot or by public transport. The nature and operation of the proposed facility coupled with the existing building and site arrangement is as such that the activities at the site are to be contained within the building with no adverse harm expected on the amenity of the neighbours. Off road car parking spaces are available at the front of the building and are to be conditioned for customer use only in the interest of highway safety.


119

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE USE COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL. THE SITE 1.1 The site is the former Isle of Man bank premises situated on the western side of the A5 main road which runs between the roundabout in the centre of Ballasalla and the one at the entrance to Balthane industrial estate. The site accommodates a building - the former bank which closed in 2015 - with a hard surfaced forecourt in front (approx. 17m wide x 8m deep) used for car parking and which is partly occupied by a ramped access to the building. Double yellow lines run across the front of the site. At the rear of the site there is an enclosed yard around 5.5m by 6.5m. 1.2 The site has residential properties on three of its sides: Silverdene, a large, detached dwelling sits to the north; 2, Silverburn Drive sits immediately to the south with the rear garden of 5, Silverburn Drive lying to the rear of the site. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current application proposes the change of use of the building to a children's soft and sensory play centre for ages 0-6 years old, the facility is also to provide quiet sensory room for children with special educational needs or those receiving specialist therapy treatment. 2.2 The proposed hours of operation are Monday - Saturday 9.30am - 5pm and Sunday 10am - 4pm. The supporting information indicates 5 x 90min sessions each day with bespoke 2 hour autism sessions on Sundays with an average of 7 children in each class. 2 staff members Mon-Fri and 3 staff at the weekends. 2.3 Drawings for the application indicate 5 spaces (incl. 1 disabled) being provided on the hardstanding. Supporting information also indicates that management are looking at leasing car parking spaces nearby for staff to park off site. The information also indicating a disc zone public car park at the Commissioner's office and the site being located on the route of 4 bus services and near to the Steam Railway Station. Reference is also made to a recently approved application including the creation of a bypass which may reduce future traffic levels along Station Road. 2.4 There are no physical external works proposed to the building. PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The premises have been the subject of a number of applications most relevant in this case is PA 18/00896/B for alterations in connection with a change of use from bank to restaurant (class 3) and takeaway, including installation of flue from new extraction system. The use was proposed to operate 1100 until 2200hrs every day with home delivery service operating between 1700hrs and 2100hrs every day. There was to be 4 members of staff and two delivery drivers delivering food by motorbike or scooter and 5 car parking spaces at front

120

being available "entirely for customers' use". The application received significant objections including from the local Commissioners, Highway Services and 19 local residents, these concerns relating to the intensification of a restaurant and takeaway use for the hours proposed having a negative impact on Highways and neighbouring amenity. The application was refused on three grounds, two matters relating to highway safety including insufficient on-site parking to serve the proposal resulting in illegal on-street parking and a limited amount of space resulting in vehicles reversing in or out onto a busy main road, and the adverse effect on the living conditions of the neighbours by virtue of noise from the disposal of waste and the comings and goings of staff and customers later in the evening, and by virtue of the noise and smell from the operation of the flues. PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area designated as Residential on the Area Plan for the South 2013. Such designations do not preclude other uses where these are complimentary to a residential neighbourhood, for example local shops, light industry and employment opportunities can be acceptable (Strategic Plan paragraph 9.2.3 - definition of light industry, Business Policy 10, section 10.6). Excerpts from the Strategic Plan also highlight the importance of the civic and communities facilities within existing centres as to promote access for all and sustain community life. Ballasalla is recognised as being a Service Village (Spatial Policy 3). 4.2 There are no specific policies relating to the proposed sui generis use which could be likened to a mix between education, child and health care, therefore the assessment will draw on factors from the below policies in reaching a conclusion on the matter: 4.3 Strategic Policy 1: "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 reusing 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." 4.4 Strategic Policy 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." 4.5 Strategic Policy 10: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement" 4.6 General Policy 2: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

121

(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; (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; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan and (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them". 4.7 Business Policy 1: "The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan. 4.8 Community Policy 2: New community facilities should be located to serve the local population and be accessible to non-car users, and should where possible re-use existing vacant or underused buildings. 4.9 Community Policy 3: "Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which results in the loss of a local community facility (other than shops and public houses) will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that it is no longer practical or desirable to use the facility for its existing use or another use likely to benefit the local community." 4.10 Paragraph under 10.5 Civic and Community Facilities 10.5.1 Community facilities are those services or facilities that provide for the needs of the Island population. As such, they should be appropriate to the needs of the Island's population and be located as to be easily accessible. Community facilities include community centres, medical facilities, places of worship, schools, nurseries, library services and premises which provide an element of care for those sectors of the community that are in need of this. 10.5.2 It is not for the Strategic Plan to address or determine the needs for community facilities, but to address the land use issues arising from such proposals. Where there are known site requirements these will be safeguarded in the relevant Area Plans for that area. Proposals for such uses will therefore be assessed against general criteria based policies. 10.5.3 It is one of Government's general policies to promote equity and equality of access to education, health, community and recreation facilities, services and the wider environment for all sectors of the community. 4.11 Paragraphs under 10.6 Neighbourhood Centres "10.6.1 The provision within residential areas of small shops, often combined with sub-post offices and off-licence facilities, occupies an important place in the range of shopping facilities available. Many people are dependent on such shops, these being the only shops to which access can be gained easily on foot, without relying on public or private transport. In addition, such a facility may not only be considered a desirable service, but may also serve as a focus of community life and help sustain a small community.

122

10.6.2 Local shopping/neighbourhood centres, typically described as local centres, usually comprise a newsagent, a general grocery store, a sub-post office and occasionally a pharmacy, a hairdresser and other small shops of a local nature. Allied to this may also be a community centre/meeting place to serve the immediate local community. With the increased focus on recycling, local centres are ideal sites for local recycling facilities. 10.6.3 In requesting community facilities within new and expanding developments, account needs to be taken of the size, type and particular needs of the new resident population. However, account must also be taken of availability and proximity of existing community facilities. Community benefit in this context is defined as one or more of the following: sub postoffice/general store, doctor's surgery and community meeting centres. 10.6.4 The following policy is therefore adopted to ensure the provision of appropriate facilities within new residential developments." 4.12 Transport Policy 7: 'The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards'. Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan requires Assembly and leisure use to have 1 parking space per 15sq m gross floor space. REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. 5.1 Malew Parish Commissioners - no objection (08/01/20). 5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services (DOI)- Do not oppose subject to condition (06/02/2020). - The key highway issue relates to on site car parking. There was initial concern that 5 spaces would not be sufficient for staff and users of the proposed facility. Prior to the application being formally submitted the applicant contacted DOI to discuss the issue of on-site car parking and subsequently provided an email stating that the on-site car parking would be just for the use of customers and no staff parking onsite. The applicant was seeking to lease nearby offsite car parking for staff. - It was considered that the situation could be viable but there would need to be some means to control the management of the car parking as to minimise on-street car parking that could be detrimental to the operation of the highway and promote sustainable travel. This could be imposed via two planning conditions one for customer parking only at the site and the other requiring the provision of a Travel Plan for the facility. The plans indicate space available for cycle parking and this option should be considered as part of the Travel Plan initiatives. ASSESSMENT 6.1 Planning history evidences the unacceptability of a restaurant and takeaway use at the site due to the level of operation proposed and it's potential to adversely impact highway safety and neighbouring living conditions. In light of these issues, the key matters to consider as part of this application are whether or not the i) principle of the development is acceptable, ii) whether its operation would have any detrimental impact on highway safety, and whether or not there would be any harm to neighbouring amenity.

123

i) PRINCIPLE 6.2 Community Policy 3 seeks to avoid the loss of local community facilities unless it can be demonstrated that it is no longer practicable or desirable. While the bank was perhaps not a community facility per se, the building did provide a local service to those in the area or passing through Ballasalla. The bank ceased operation in 2015 and the building has sat vacant since. The policies of the Strategic Plan do not protect this bank use and therefore its replacement with another 'community like' facility would make best use of an existing unoccupied building located within an existing service village, utilising existing infrastructure and positively contributing to the range of services available in the local community. ii) HIGHWAYS 6.3 The site sits at the heart of Ballasalla and on an arterial route between the south of the Island and the capital Douglas. Public transport passes frequently here with many of the buses servicing Ronaldsway Airport 1 mile south of the site. During the summer season the Steam Railway Services also provides an alternative transport connection between Ballasalla, Douglas and the south. The core location of the site makes it accessible to non-car users. 6.4 The operation of the business indicates an average of 5 sessions per day lasting around 1.5 hours with specialist 2 hour sessions at the weekend. The nature of the business could be best likened to an assembly/leisure use requiring the provision of 1 car parking space per 15sq m of gross floor area, however there are no set specific car parking figures for the proposed use. Measuring at 132sq m the building at 1 per 15sq m would require 8.8 car parking spaces. 6.5 Plans submitted for the application show the ability to achieve 5 off road parking spaces 1 of which a disabled space and all complying with the space size standards of the Manual for Manx Roads. Given the 10m depth of the hardstanding to one side, a restructure of the layout could accommodate two vehicles in tandem which could increase the provision to 6 spaces, although its usability may be restricted and likely reliant on on-site management. Nonetheless the parking provision numerically falls short of the required 8.8 spaces. 6.6 Supporting information for the application states that the management team for the business are seeking to lease car parking spaces in the nearby vicinity for staff to park off site so as to maintain the forecourt to the front of the building for customer parking only, an arrangement that would likely ease customer use at the benefit of the owners business model and success of the operation. 6.7 Highway Services initially expressed concern for parking at the site being insufficient for both staff and customer use, however on receipt of additional information from the applicant coupled with assigning two conditions restricting the parking to customer use only and the supply of a travel plan that the situation could be viable and the proposal acceptable. iii) NEIGHBOURING AMENITY 6.8 The previous takeaway and restaurant application was considered to adversely impact neighbouring amenity through late opening hours and the noise of customers coming and going, noise of the operation during that time including closing up and dealing with rubbish, the emission of smells and odours and the operation and appearance of the flues. 6.9 The application now is to operate during the day time hours only, activities mostly contained within the building and also expected to have less coming and goings of customers. The nature of the business is likely to be quieter than a takeaway restaurant use although some children's play noises or crying could be anticipated however not considered to be unacceptable.

124

CONCLUSION 7.1 While falling short of the closest likened parking requirement, there is potential to achieve 6 spaces off the road and a condition can be added to restrict these spaces for customers use only, a solution which has been accepted by Highway Services. The proposal also makes use of a redundant building within the centre of a service village that can be easily accessed on foot or by public transport. The application has not received any objections from local residents or the local commissioners. 7.2 The application does not indicate that the small concrete yard to the rear is to be utilised for childrens play, however the nature of the business and relatively small scale of the operation it is not considered that its use would cause such adverse harm or unacceptable impact to neighbouring amenity. Given the arrangement of the site and the scale of probability that activities will be contained within the building it is not considered necessary to control the number of children at the facility at any one time. The proposed development is considered to be acceptable on highway safety grounds and neighbouring amenity subject to two conditions relating to the customer parking and provision of an active travel plan and operation hours. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The Planning Committee 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

125


Item 5.14 Proposal : Removal of condition 11 of PA 38876, Conversion of barn to

farm dwelling, regarding agricultural workers occupancy Site Address : Rhenny Mooar Farm

Rhenny Mooar Lane Greeba Isle Of Man IM4 2DT

Applicant : Mr & Mrs W Bennett Application No. : Planning Officer :



______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. The dwelling may be used only as a private residential property. Reason: To clarify the intention of the decision. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) Overall, it is considered that there is no longer a need for the agricultural tie on this property as has been demonstrated by the marketing of the property, with the agricultural occupancy condition clearly visible, at a price which reflects this restriction and also given the nature of the property and its available land.

______________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR DETERMINATION BECAUSE THE APPLICATION IS FOR THE REMOVAL OF AN AGRICULTURAL OCCUPANCY CONDITION. THE SITE 1.1 The application site represents the curtilage of Rhenny Mooar Farm, Rhenny Mooar Lane, Greeba. The site is located at the end of Rhenny Mooar Lane and is occupied by a detached dwelling, a modern agricultural barn and a stone farm building. The dwelling is part of a farmland which totals 26 acres of which 6 acres are classified as semi-natural, which


126

cannot be intensively farmed. The remaining 20 acres are permanent pasture suitable for grazing with sheep. 1.2 The dwelling currently has an agricultural occupancy condition attached which restricts the occupancy of the property to those whose employment is in agriculture, which restrict the sale of the property to non-agricultural occupants, despite the fact that the farm has not been agriculturally productive in recent years. 1.3 To the north east of the site are Rhenny Mooar Bungalow, Villa Rhenny Greeba, and Rhennybeg which are residential dwellings without restrictions to occupancy within an area devoted to agriculture. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the removal of condition 11 of PA 38876, Conversion of barn to farm dwelling, regarding agricultural workers occupancy, this condition states: C11. "The dwelling must be occupied by a farm worker or a person engaged in agriculture and such tenancy must be subject at all times to enquiry and approval by the Planning Committee" 2.2 The application includes letters from Manxmove Estate Agents, intended buyers, as well as Memorandum of Sale from Cowley Groves which indicate that there have been offers for the property; however these have not come to fruition due to the agricultural tie which has limited buyers who have not been able to obtain loans from banks to facilitate purchase. The additional information provided by the applicant has also shown that the applicants were willing to accept a reduced offer in the region of £750,000 (£200,000 pounds lower than their asking price, but were unable to sell the property as the intended buyer asked for a condition that the applicants provide a loan of £460,000 payable over 19 years to enable them purchase the property since they were unable to secure a mortgage for the property with the agricultural condition; a condition that as accepted by the applicant, although they were unable to provide the loan to the purchaser. 2.3 The applicants explain that they wrote to several local farmers in August 2019 with the aim of selling the farm to those engaged in agriculture within the vicinity of the farm, but received only two responses despite enclosing stamped addressed envelopes. The response from one of the respondents stated thus: 'The property would be unsuitable for any of their agricultural workers as the road access is impractical for any modern tractors or equipment, which the workers would be required at times to take home overnight'; a condition which further impedes the ability to sell the farm to agricultural workers, since the applicants do not own most of the road and as such the possibility of widening or straightening the access road is severely constrained. 2.4 From the details provided by the applicants, the original farm which supported the farm dwelling, operated on the basis of 20 acres which they farmed for 20 years, but due to the farm size soil type and climate, was no longer profitable; a condition which necessitated the Income Tax Office to decide that the farm was not a commercial business. As such, they have since moved to another in Union Mills and put the property up for sale with the agricultural tie clearly included in the marketing information, as they could no longer support the farm operations with their dwindling income, as they have also retired from any remunerated employment. 2.5 Additionally, the information provided regarding the previous occupants of the property has shown that since 1975, the property has been occupied by farmers and non-

127

farmers, with the property being occupied by a lawyer and those engaged in the finance sector for long periods. PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 The application site is within an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance identified on the 1982 Development Plan. Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider Environment Policy 1, General Policy 3, Housing Policy 8 and Paragraph 8.9.4 of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. 3.2 Environment Policy 1 The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is 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. 3.3 General Policy 3 Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: a) Essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); b) Conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); c) Previously developed land¹ which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment ; d) The replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); e) Location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; f) Building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; g) Development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and h) Buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage. 3.4 Housing Policy 8 Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, a condition will be attached restricting the occupation to a person engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture; or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants. 3.4.1 Paragraph 8.9.4 Such a condition will not usually be removed on subsequent applications unless it is shown that the long-term need for dwellings for agricultural workers, both on the particular farm and in the locality, no longer warrants reserving the dwelling for that purpose. 3.5 Section 7.13. Agriculture 7.13.1. Agriculture is an integral and vital part of the rural economy and rural society and to a great degree is responsible for the appearance and stewardship of the countryside. The Island's farms not only provide the community with a healthy proportion of meat and vegetable produce but also provide employment opportunities. It is important to sustain agricultural industry by safeguarding its prime resources, by allowing appropriately designed and sited new buildings (where need is established) and by encouraging conservation-based

128

land management regimes (including appropriate tree and shrub planting). However, this must not be at the expense of the appearance and character or openness of the landscape, or result in the loss of traditional hedgerows and field boundaries or the loss of limited areas of good quality agricultural land. A recent study on agricultural soils on the Isle of Man(1) revealed that the majority of the agricultural land on the Island (80.26%) fell within Class 3, based on the land use capability class system in England and Wales (classes range from Class 1 to 5, with Class 1 being the most versatile land). Class 3 land characteristics can be summarised as land with moderate limitations which restrict the choice of crops and/or demand careful management. Only 4.87% of agricultural land falls within Classes 1 and 2. According to the agricultural land use capability map (figure 4 of the study), all of the Class 1/2 land of which Class 1 is the dominant class can be found in the south of the Island to the east of Ballasalla. New Area Plans will include a general presumption against the release of Class 1 and 2 agricultural land for development. The highest level of protection will apply to the highest graded quality of land with Classes 1 and 2 soils being afforded most protection from development and being taken out of agricultural use. Where there is a proposal to develop land which is categorised in the Agricultural Soils of the Isle of Man report as being mixed Classes 2 and 3, those wishing to develop the land should ascertain which parts of the site represent higher grade of soil with these parts being avoided for development purposes. 7.13.2 One of the prime considerations in the determination of development proposals in the countryside will continue to be the conservation and enhancement of the landscape. In terms of the diversification of farms and farm buildings, there may be some circumstances where this may be appropriate and it is acknowledged that small scale enterprises can promote healthy economic activity in rural areas whether this be for commercial, industrial, tourism, sport or recreation uses. There is, however, a general presumption against the introduction of new uses into the countryside (including industrial or office uses): (a) for which there is no local need; (b) which would materially effect the rural character of an area; (c) which would necessitate the creation of new buildings; and (d) which would be more appropriate in industrial zones, business parks or within urban centres. 7.13.3 In recent years there has been increasing demand for new development and buildings in the countryside, particularly for new modern agricultural buildings. Such buildings can have, and in a number of areas already have had an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the landscape, particularly when sited in exposed locations away from building groups and on elevated land. It is important that new development should be compatible with the character of the surrounding area, and the need for new buildings in the countryside will be balanced against the harm that development may have on the particular environment within which it is proposed. In terms of new agricultural dwellings, permission will not be granted unless real agricultural need is demonstrated and will in every case be assessed in terms of need, sensitive siting, design, and size, and be subject to an agricultural occupancy condition. 7.13.4 It is recognised that there have been considerable changes in the economy in the last twenty years. The number of people in full time agricultural employment has reduced for a number of reasons including increased mechanisation, reductions in the number of farms; and increases in the size of farm holdings. In many cases smaller farms have been amalgamated into larger units to increase economic viability. This has often been accompanied by the sale of former farmhouses and cottages to those who do not earn their employment in agriculture. At the same time there has been an increase in part time involvement in farming either where the income from agriculture is supplemented by other employment or where the person's main employment is not in agriculture but they farm on a

129

part time basis. In considering the applications for new houses in the countryside the Department will give careful consideration to agriculture justification based on full time employment in agriculture. See also Section 8.9 in Chapter 8 - Housing. 3.6 Environment Policy 14: Development which would result in the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2) will not be permitted except where there is an overriding need for the development, and land of a lower quality is not available and other policies in this plan are complied with. This policy will be applied to (a) land annotated as Classes 1/2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map; and (b) Class 2 soils falling within areas annotated as Class 2/3 and Class 3/2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 In addition to PA 38876, the following previous planning applications are considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application: PA 02/00697/B Erection of conservatory - approved PA 08/01387/B Conversion of farm building into ancillary accommodation - approved Note: These applications were approved to facilitate the residential use of the property to support the applicants of the dwelling. The applications are similar to other applications reinforcing residential use of dwellings within the vicinity of the application site, which were carried out without reference to agricultural use of the properties as the delimitation of the property boundaries for these applications showed the works to be within residential curtilage. The applications are; PA 12/00586/B for Installation of replacement windows and door to front elevation (Rhennybeg) - Approved PA 10/00743/B for Erection of a detached garage with storage above (retrospective) Rhenny Mooar Bungalow - Approved PA 05/00186/B for Alterations and erection of single storey extensions to the north and south elevations to provide additional living accommodation, re-roofing with plain reconstituted slate and installation of dormer and rooflight windows, (Rhenny Mooar Bungalow) - Approved REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. 5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that that they 'Do no oppose' in a letter dated 18 December 2019. 5.2 German Commissioners have stated that they have no objection to the application in a letter dated 29 January 2020. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The application seeks approval for the removal of the agricultural occupancy condition. 6.2 The countryside is protected for its own sake as set out in Environment Policy 1 and only exceptionally will permission be granted outside of areas zoned for development. One of these exceptions is a) set out under General Policy 3 which is essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work. Agricultural workers

130

dwellings are only approved when there is sufficient justification to override the presumption against development in the countryside. 6.3 As Paragraph 8.8.4 of the Strategic Plan indicates, such a condition will not usually be removed on subsequent applications unless it is shown that the long-term need for dwellings for agricultural workers, both on the particular farm and in the locality, no longer warrants reserving the dwelling for that purpose. Given that the applicant has stated that the farm has been unprofitable, with the Income Tax Office declaring the farm was not a commercial business due to the poor turnover in 2009 (which was the best year when the loss before capital allowances was only £138); it is considered that the retention of the agricultural condition was no longer reasonable. This is also reinforced by the fact that attempts to sell the property to local farmers have proved to be a failure consequent on the state of the site access (the limited width of the lane would limit the amount of agricultural traffic which could access the site) and the nature of the land (weather, soil type and topography) which has prompted farmers to purse intensification of their existing farm holdings without the need to acquire additional farm land. 6.4 Likewise, the farm originally had a limited acreage and arguably not one which would nowadays be considered sufficient to justify a productive farm holding, particularly given the poor access and the state of the land with soils in the capability class of 3 and 3/4. Considering Class 3 land characteristics can be summarised as land with moderate limitations which restrict the choice of crops and/or demand careful management, while Class 4 are poor quality agricultural land with severe limitations which significantly restrict the range of crops and/or level of yields, the re-sale of the land for agricultural purposes has been significantly impeded, with the applicants having no other option but to sell to non-agriculture occupants who would only be able to acquire the land if the agricultural tie is removed, as mortgage finance has been difficult to obtain due to the agricultural tie on the land. 6.5 Based on the foregoing, it is noted that the removal of the agricultural tie would facilitate the sale of the property and ensure that it is put into productive use without the property falling into dereliction as it is currently unoccupied. CONCLUSION 7.1 The application to removal condition 11 is considered to be acceptable and recommended for approval. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

131

8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

132


Item 5.15 Proposal : Erection of a detached agricultural / industrial storage

building Site Address : Corlett Sons And Cowley Yard

Main Road Union Mills Isle Of Man IM4 4AD

Applicant : Corlett Sons & Cowley Application No. : Planning Officer :

19/01333/B- click to view Mrs Vanessa Porter


______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. Prior to the coming into use of the building hereby approved, the parking spaces as shown on drawing referenced Appendix 2 date stamped 04/02/2020 shall be laid out and be available for parking at all times. Reason: In the interest of suitable parking provision and highway safety. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) Although contrary to the land use designation of the Braddan Local Plan, the site has a long established use for industrial purposes. The proposal for a new industrial unit is considered to be in keeping with this established use, and to have an acceptable visual impact. The proposal is not to result in any new amenity impacts beyond the existing industrial uses and while occupying an existing hardstanding area, the unit is to be provided with a sufficient number of parking spaces and is not to result in any net changes or negative impact to parking provision for the wider industrial area and no new highway safety or parking issues are expected.

______________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE A DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, HIGHWAY SERVICES HAVE OBJECTED AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.


133

1.0 SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of the Corlett Sons & Cowley Depot on Main Road, Union Mills. The site is an industrial grain store with a number of large warehouses and sheds on the site. To the south west of the site adjoining the boundary is Burnside Cottage, a traditional stone cottage. There are a number of residential dwellings to the west and open fields to the north. The chapel to the south of the site and sitting along the Main Road is also owned by the applicant and approved for use as a nursery. 1.2 The area of the site is mainly concrete hard standing used as an area for car parking. To the west of the hardstanding and adjacent to the large steel fence and gate access from Maitland Terrace Lane is a timber cabin recently approved under PA 18/01248/B for use as an office in association with the wider site. 2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a detached steel framed and sheet clad building on the area of hardstanding and along the northern boundary with the agricultural field. The proposed building is to be 14.7m long x 7.7m wide and 3.5m high to eaves and 4.5m to ridge. Two large 3m x 3m roller doors are proposed on the front elevation facing and two smaller pedestrian doors. 2.2 The proposed building is to be mixed use agricultural and industrial storage building. 2.3 Additional information submitted for the application date stamped 04/02/2020 outlines 9 car parking spaces are to be provide within the red line site; 5 for the new building, 1 for the small timber office and 3 for the adjacent nursery use. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has been subject to a number of planning applications over the past years. Permission has been granted for the installation of a grain drier adjacent to the grain store (87/04038/B), a 5000 gallon oil storage tank/storage compound (88/01916/B), the provision of toilet facilities (90/00176/B), Approval in Principle for the extension of a warehouse (99/00326/A), the erection of An agricultural shed (04/02530/B) and most recently the timber office building approved under P 18/01248/B. 3.2 Also under ownership of the applicant is The Old Chapel situated on the main, this was recently approved under 17/00481/B for an increased number of children attending the approved nursery use subject to a condition relating to parking for the use including the need for 3 spaces being available within the industrial yard and near to the main gated entrance. This condition specifically stated: "C2. The vehicle parking at the front and south of the building and the three parking spaces to the north of the building, as shown on the approved plan TB 6 date stamped received 28 April 2017, shall not be used other than for the parking of vehicles in connection with the use of the building hereby approved, and shall be kept free of obstruction for such use at all times. Reason: In the interests of highway safety." 4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The Braddan Local Plan 1991 designates the site as within an area zoned for Predominantly Residential use. The draft area plan for the East also continues to designate

134

the site as residential on Map 8. The land has a planning history supporting its established use as an agricultural supplies and industrial related business, being mindful of this and the current proposal it is perhaps most relevant in the assessment of the current application to use the general standards towards development set out in GP2 and the car parking standards set out in Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan: 4.2 General Policy 2: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (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; (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." 4.4 Appendix 7 of the IOMSP set the following standards for the following uses: Light industrial = 1 space per 30sq m; General industrial = 1 space per 50sq m; Storage and distribution = 1 space per 100sq m. There are no parking standards for agricultural use. 14.7m x 7.7m =113.19sq m @1space per 30sq m (lowest standard)= 3.77 spaces 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only. 5.1 Braddan Commissioners have no objections to the application (21/01/2020). 5.2 Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highway Services - Objection (15/01/2020) - The proposed building appears to be located on an area where the car parking for the existing premises are located and it's not clear if the relocated car parking is for the existing or proposed use, minded that the application form states 10 existing spaces although it's not clear where these are. The car parking provision fails to meet the standards for a B2/B8 usage. 5..2.1 No new comments have been received from DOI since receipt and circulation of the additional information addressing their concerns. 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this application are the principle of the development, whether there would be any visual or amenity impact on the neighbours or streetscape and if there is suitable and sufficient parking provision to accommodate both the proposed and existing buildings at the site.

135

6.2 The principle of the development 6.2.1 The site, whilst zoned in the Braddan Local Plan as predominantly residential, has an established industrial nature and features a large number of warehouses, sheds and associated equipment and structures, and the further addition of a relatively small industrial style building would therefore not be out of keeping with the established and general use of the site. 6.3 The impact on visual and residential amenity 6.3.1 The building proposed would be set back from the main road and within the cluster of building and within a site already used for industrial and commercial purposes where visual impact would be limited. There is an existing impact in terms of general noise and activity through machinery and vehicles entering and leaving the site and it is not expected that there will be any new activity above or beyond the existing use as to result in any significant increase of noise beyond that of the existing to harm the amenities of the neighbours. 6.4 Parking provision and highway safety 6.4.1 There was a lack of detail provided within the original submission as to fully understand the extent of the landownership and existing parking arrangements. While 4 parking spaces would be provided for the new building, the area of hardstanding on which it would sit appeared to reduce the parking area available or other units and one which had already been reduced somewhat through the introduction of the small timber office unit, and a further reduction to the hardstanding area potentially having an impact on highway safety through an increased demand for on-street parking adjacent to the site. 6.4.2 Concerns were expressed to the agent in respect of the potential negative nett change to the parking at the site. In response the applicant sought to provide a supporting statement and up-to-date site plans on which they clarified the red and blue lines for the site and land ownership, the access road markings and the parking for the site. 6.4.3 The supporting statement indicates that the applicant owns the majority of the area with exception to three units towards the back of the site. Recently the applicant has undertaken clearance and housekeeping works in trying to tidy the area and outline the extent of the access road and the boundaries of ownership as to lay-down and make clear who has control and use of what area. 6.4.4 The up-to-date parking plan and supporting statement make clear the area of 4 spaces nearest the existing office unit, 1 for the office and 3 for the children's nursery as per the parking condition of PA 17/00481/B, to the front of the proposed industrial building 5 parking spaces can be achieved, this parking arrangement within the red line of the site is both acceptable and sufficient enough to meet with the parking needs of the new building and without jeopardy to the office or the nursery use. 6.4.5 Outside of the red line, the industrial area comprises large hardstanding areas, including the units under separate ownership having approx. 5m to their frontages for personal use and parking. This fairly extensive area is considered to be sufficient enough as to meet the needs of the mixed use of the existing industrial and storage units without any new highway issues in the area. It's also likely that a continued onsite management by the applicant will be in their best interest for efficient use of their site and at the benefit of their customers renting units. 6.4.6 Following the submission of additional information clarifying the extent of the site and the land ownership and the existing and proposed parking and access arrangements it is considered that the development of the industrial unit at proposed would not result in any

136

adverse or negative nett change to the parking at the site and is not expected to result in any new highway safety issues. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Although contrary to the land use designation of the Braddan Local Plan, the site has a long established industrial use and the installation of the proposed building here would be in-keeping with this established use. The proposal is considered to have an acceptable visual impact, not to result in any new amenity impacts beyond the existing industrial use and while occupying an existing hardstanding area and DOI Highway Services are currently objecting to the application it has been considered that the new information submitted demonstrated that the unit is to be provided with a sufficient number of parking spaces, and its positioning not to result in any negative nett changes to parking provision for the wider industrial area within the site and no new highway safety or parking issues are to be expected and is therefore recommended for approval. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

137


Item 5.16 Proposal : Additional use of warehouse as a gym Site Address : Kennaa Farm

Kennaa Road St Johns Isle Of Man IM4 3LW

Applicant : Mr James William Cubbon Application No. : Planning Officer :

19/01338/C- click to view Mr Paul Visigah


______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. The proposed gymnasium may be operational only within the following times: Monday: 10.00 - 11.00 17.30 - 19.30 Tuesday: 6.30 - 7.30 10.00 - 11.00 17.30 - 19.30 Wednesday: 17.30 - 19.30 Thursday: 6.30 - 7.30 10.00 - 11.00 17.30 - 19.30 Friday: 6.30 - 7.30 10.00 - 11.00 17.30 - 19.30 Saturday: 8.00 - 11.00 Reason: to clarify the extent of the proposal as submitted and to control the impact of the development on the surrounding area. C 3. The gym hereby approved shall be used at any one time by no more than six customers excluding any trainers/coaches/staff. Reason: To ensure that there is sufficient car parking to accommodate the users of the site and reflecting the information provided in the application. C 4. The gym hereby approved shall be used at any one time as a gymnasium with additional use as warehouse, with only one approved use to be active at any period of time, but never both. The use of smaller gymnasium (current gymnasium PA Ref 18/01338/C) within the curtilage of the application property will be as a warehouse, with additional use as a gymnasium, with only one approved use to be active at any period of time. Only one unit may be used as a gym at any time. Reason: The Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the specific use and any alternative uses within the same Use Class will require further consideration.


138

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) Overall, it is concluded that the proposed change of use is considered to accord with the provisions set out in Strategic Policy 2, 10 and Transport Policy 1 and 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

______________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL THE SITE 1.1 The site is the footprint of an existing industrial style building which is within the estate of Kennaa Stables which sits alongside Kennaa Farm which is not in the same ownership. Kennaa Stables is a holding which has historically been used and developed in association with the keeping of horses with stables and horse exercising facilities as well as a number of residential properties, within the site. The site of this application sits to the south of the main group. 1.2 The building which is the subject of this application is part of a row of three units which all appear as industrial units with large roller shutter doors within buildings which are part rendered and part clad in finish. There is parking for about 30 vehicles on the site. 1.3 The building is approximately 600m from the A3 and accessed via a relatively narrow lane with high grassed hedges on each side. There are intermittent gate entrances and places where pedestrians and oncoming vehicles may pull over. There is also access from the A1 via a longer route in from Harold's Cottage near Cronk Breck Farm on the TT Course (A1). THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the additional use of warehouse as a gym. No external alterations are proposed. 2.2 The applicant has stated that the application seeks to allow the unit to be used as a gymnasium, as an additional use, retaining the existing approval for use as a warehouse; with only one approved use to be active at any period of time, but never both. 2.2 The supporting information states that the building has been used as a warehouse and has no toilet facilities. The toilet and other welfare facilities for use of this small group of built units are located in an adjacent building, including office, kitchen and lounge. Additionally, the proposal to include this building as a gymnasium will enable the V2 GYM to be moved into the larger premises and continued use of the welfare facilities will not be affected in any way. 2.3 Additional Information The provided additional information stipulates that; 2.3.1 The current membership of the V2 GYM have frequently requested additional exercise sessions, but the space restrictions within the currently used building (175sq.m) has limited this from happening.

139

2.3.2 Recently, the adjacent double warehouse (400 sq.m) has become available which, subject to planning consent being obtained, could enable additional sessions to be provided for the members. This would enable better placement of the gym equipment, making it easier to manage. The current building would be vacated. 2.3.3 This move would enable an indoor 'warm-up' running track to be created, so far not available. Currently, members have to 'warm-up' by either running along the road or around the car park - both weather dependent and less than ideal. 2.3.4 This private gymnasium is not open to the general public, but only to registered paid-up members who have been allocated class times for their instructor-led work-outd. When the gym classes are over, the premises are closed. 2.3.5 The operating hours are as follows: Monday: 10.00 - 11.00 17.30 - 19.30 Tuesday: 6.30 - 7.30 10.00 - 11.00 17.30 - 19.30 Wednesday: 17.30 - 19.30 Thursday: 6.30 - 7.30 10.00 - 11.00 17.30 - 19.30 Friday: 6.30 - 7.30 10.00 - 11.00 17.30 - 19.30 Saturday: 8.00 - 11.00 2.3.6 Of the current membership of 70, 11 car share, 10 cycle to the gym, 5 run to the gym and 2 live nearby. V2 GYM has not received any complaints from nearby Kennaa Equestrian centre or other residents using Kennaa Road. All members are made aware that they need to be considerate of other users of the road. Noise from the gymnasium is minimal. There is ample off-road car parking adjacent to the gym building - approximately 30 car spaces - so no members' cars are ever parked on Kennaa Road. The applicant has also stated that the existing V2 GYM will be vacated with the entire activity relocated to the proposed gym. 2.4 Information obtained from the previous application (PA 18/01338/C) for a gym on the site, which will be transferred to the current facility indicated that the gym operates on the basis of 6 to 10 registered members per class with a maximum of 30 persons per day. Most clients are residents of St. John's, The Hope and Foxdale. Classes are between 1000hrs and 1930hrs Monday to Friday and on Saturdays 0900 - 1000hrs. Not all classes are fully subscribed with usually the 1730hs Wednesday class attracting the most clientele. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 as within or very close to an area of Woodland and within a wider area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. As such, there is a presumption against development as set out in Environment Policies 1 and 2 and General Policy 3. Development can be acceptable where it is justified for agricultural purposes, which presumably was the case when the original approvals were granted for the application building and its neighbours. There is no provision within the Strategic Plan for the conversion to or change of use from such modern buildings to non-agricultural purposes such as is proposed here. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The building was built under 07/02364/B as an extension to the main building, which itself was approved under 01/00885/B - both for agricultural purposes and with a specific reference to the storage of farm machinery. These applications did not include within their sites, the main equestrian facilities on the other side of Kennaa Road. 4.2 Approval was also granted in May 2019 for change of use of storage building within the site as gym in PA 18/01338/C. It is noted that this storage facility which forms a part of a

140

row of three industrial style units is currently being used as a gym. What is proposed would relocate the existing gym use to a larger facility. REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. 5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they 'Do not oppose' in a letter dated 18 December 2019. 5.2 German Parish Commissioners have stated that they have no objection to the application in a letter dated 29 January 2020. ASSESSMENT 6.1 There are two fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application, i) whether there would be sufficient justification to allow the development considering it is not an agricultural use and (ii) whether there would be adverse impacts on highway safety. 6.2 Justification for the development 6.2.1 The proposal does not comply with the provisions of the development plan. However, if the building is redundant for agricultural or equestrian purposes, there could be a justification for a non-agricultural use where this results in no adverse environmental harm and included in this is consideration of whether an existing town or village centre would be adversely affected by the location of such a facility here, rather than where the facility would be more easily accessible by public transport. 6.2.2 Similarly, the building in which the gym would be located is industrial in appearance, like its neighbours. However, this would not be an appropriate location for industrial uses due to the narrowness of the lane and adjacent agricultural and equestrian uses. The proposed use and the nature of comings and goings as associated with the current use of part of the property as a gym is unlikely to result in significant levels of traffic and it is considered that the applicant has explained why the building is no longer required for its original purpose in the preceding application for use of the property as a gym (18/01338/C). 6.3 Impact on Highway safety 6.3.1 The site lies within a group of buildings for a mix of uses - tourist accommodation, residential, equestrian and agricultural and along an adopted highway which has perhaps a surprising amount of buildings, much of which is associated with Kennaa Farm or Kennaa Stables. Whilst the traffic associated with the gym, added to the already existing traffic associated with this lane and group of buildings would be significant when assessed in respect of the size of the highway serving the area; which is a farm or rural road, it is noted that the gym is already in operation and as such it is not considered that it would generate additional traffic beyond the current trends. 6.3.2 Likewise, it is considered that there is sufficient parking alongside which will accommodate the vehicles which would be generated by the use as proposed. It is also noted that there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant would increase the number of customers per class beyond what is currently served by the existing gym to be relocated to this facility; which could and should be limited to a maximum of 6 customers per class. As such, the amount of vehicle parking available alongside and not in front of or associated with any other buildings on the site which will have their own requirement for parking spaces and access would be sufficient for the proposed use. 6.4 It is not considered necessary to attach any conditions which control the hours of usage: the site is owned by those who operate the equestrian facilities and if there were to

141

be conflict then the owners of the site could address this. Also, it is not considered that there are particular times of the day when the gym use would be unacceptable and again, it would be for the owner of the overall site to ensure that the operation was not harmful to the equestrian use of the site. CONCLUSION 7.1 Whilst the development is contrary to the development plan, the application is supported as the building is considered to be redundant for its original purpose and the use proposed does not result in any adverse impact on the environment. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

142


Item 5.17 Proposal : Erection of a replacement dwelling with associated curtilage

and vehicular access Site Address : Hillside Cottage

Ballaoates Road Castleward Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 5EJ

Applicant : Mr Alf Caine Application No. : Principal Planner :



______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. Prior to the commencement of any development a Topography survey plan to demonstrate the 2.4m x 75m visibility splays can be adequately achieved and maintained and shows which existing sections of Hawthorne hedge are to be retained and those to be repositioned shall all be submitted to and approved by the Department. This approved plan is required to be fully adhered to and the 2.4m x 75m visibility splays in both directions shall be provided prior to the occupation of the dwelling hereby approved and retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interest of highway safety and visual amenities of the area. C 3. No development shall take place until full details of soft and hard landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include details of new planting (including Rowan/Hawthorn planting to roadside boundary in conjunction with details for Condition 2) showing, type, size and position of each. 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 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. Details of the hard landscaping works include footpaths and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.


143

C 4. The roof of the dwelling hereby approved shall be finished in a natural grey slate. Reason: In the interests of the residential amenities of the area. C 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area. C 6. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times. Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) It is considered that there are some aspects of the proposal are potentially contrary to Housing Policy 12 (principle of demolition and replacement) and Housing Policy 14 (greater than the generally permitted 50% threshold). However, the scheme also provides overall environmental benefits and the overall development is modest and sympathetic with the surrounding landscape/countryside setting. Therefore, on balance the proposal is considered to be acceptable.

______________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL. 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Hillside Cottage Ballaoates Road, Castleward, Douglas located on the eastern side of the Ballaoates Road. The site has a pedestrian access only onto Ballaoates Road. 1.2 Within the site there is a single storey Manx Cottage, traditional in form and appearance with gable end chimneys, white render/white wash walls and a slate roof. The property does not appear to be habitable and is in a state of disrepair. The property does not appear to have its own residential curtilage, with the four walls of the cottage mainly making up the boundaries of the site. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal comprises the erection of a replacement dwelling with associated curtilage and vehicular access.

144

2.2 The proposed replacement dwelling is a single storey traditional cottage style dwelling, with a central doorway which is flanked by a small pair of windows either side at ground floor level. The basic footprint of the proposed dwelling measures 7 metres by 10.7 metres (floor area of 81sqm -inc porch), it has an eaves height of 2.8 metres and a ridge height of 5.8 metres. The proposed dwelling would be finished in painted render (timber cladding to porch), a grey roof tiles/slate and timber windows painted grey. The proposed dwelling would be sited partially on the existing footprint of the existing cottage, while the remainder and the majority would be further to the east. 2.3 For reference, the existing traditional property is single storey property, measuring 4.5 metres by 7.5 metres approximately and a floor area of approximately 35sqm. 2.4 The proposal includes the extension of the residential curtilage, mainly to accommodate the new access, driveway, parking area and modest garden. The applicant also has advised that the existing property did have a larger curtilage compared to the existing situation, but this was removed and incorporated into the adjacent field and to secure the property better. 2.5 The applicant explains that due to their age the running of the farm (Castleward Farm) is getting more difficult and their daughter and fiancé have decided to take up the reins and run the farm, living in the old farmhouse. The proposal would enable the applicants to live on the farm and still assist his family running the farm. Castleward Farm House is located approximately 500m to the south east of the site. The applicant seeks a small "ECO dwelling" while also becoming more energy efficient. The applicant considered the conversion/extension of the existing property; however to meet building control requirements and meet his aims it would be very difficult. 2.6 A recent planning application (19/00360/B) was refused for four reasons (within History Section of this report). Following these refusal reasons pre-application advice has been undertaken where it is hoped the currently scheme overcomes previous concerns/better explains the needs. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The previous planning applications are considered relevant in the determination of this application: 3.2 Erection of a replacement dwelling with associated curtilage and vehicular access - 19/00360/B - REFUSED on the following grounds: "R 1. The existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment and therefore the principle of its replacement fails to meet Housing Policy 12. R 2. While the new dwelling in terms of its size and design would meet the requirements of Housing Policy 14, by virtue of its siting this would have a significantly greater impact than the existing cottage, on the character and appearance of the surrounding area which is identified and appears as being of open space within the countryside and therefore contrary to the provisions and objectives of Housing Policy 14. R 3. It is considered that the significant increase in the residential curtilage and corresponding increase in the visual impact of the residential development and use of this enlarged site for domestic purposes would be harmful to the character and appearance of this part of the open countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1. R 4. The creation of the proposed new access and associated visibility splays would result in the loss of a significant amount of hedgerows/sod grass bank and result in an adverse visual

145

impact upon the character and appearance of the countryside contrary to Environment Policy 1." 3.3 Erection of a replacement dwelling - 07/02178/B - REFUSED at APPEAL on the following grounds: "R 1. Whilst the principle of replacing the building with a dwelling is considered to be acceptable, the floor area of the proposed building would represent a substantial increase from that of the existing structure significantly in excess of the 50% increase referred to within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 and as such, the resultant dwelling, by reason of its scale and massing would detract from the character and appearance of the area by reason of increased visual impact. R 2. Irrespective of the issue of size, the form and design of the proposed dwelling fails to accord with the provisions of Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007. Specifically, the proportions of the proposed dwelling and the fenestration of the building are inappropriate. R 3. The curtilage of the new dwelling as shown would be excessive for the size and character of property proposed and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in the vicinity of the site." 3.4 Erection of a replacement dwelling - 07/01233/B - REFUSED on the grounds: "R 1. Whilst the principle of replacing the building with a dwelling is considered to be acceptable, the floor area of the existing building would represent a substantial increase from that of the existing structure and as such, the resultant dwelling, by reason of its scale and massing would detract from the character and appearance of the area by reason of increased visual impact." 4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is located within an area identified within a blanket zoning of Open Space (Recreation, Tourism & Leisure) under the Braddan Parish District Local Plan and not designated for any site specific purpose. There are no policies with Planning Circular 6/91, the written statement that accompanies the local plan, which are considered specifically material to the assessment of the planning application. 4.2 Under the Draft Area Plan for the East the site is not designated for development or within a settlement boundary. 4.3 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 the planning application: 4.3 Environment Policy 1 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is 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." 4.4 General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);

146

(b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14); (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage." 4.5 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." 4.6 Housing Policy 9 states: "Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, the dwelling must be sited such that; (a) it is within or immediately adjoining the main group of farm buildings or a group of farm buildings associated with that farm, (b) it is well set back from any public highway, and (c) it is approached via the existing farm access." "8.9.3 In judging whether the need is sufficient to over-ride other policies, particular regard will be had to:- (a) the previous or proposed severance of land and buildings; (b) the agricultural justification for sub-division of a farm; (c) the long-term viability of new or unproven agricultural enterprises such as small-holdings, market gardens, or horticulture; (d) the extent to which the applicant's employment in agriculture is only part-time; and (e) in the case of a retiring farmer, whether the proposal would result in vacation of an existing farm dwelling for agricultural use, and whether the applicant would continue to assist in the operation of the farm." 4.7 Housing Policy 12 states: "The replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless: (a) the existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment; or (b) the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation. In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status(1) by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria: (i) the structural condition of the building; (ii) the period of non-residential use(2) or non-use in excess of ten years; (iii) evidence of intervening use; and (iv) evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon."

147

4.8 Housing Policy 13 states: "In the case of those rural dwellings which have lost their former residential use by abandonment, consideration will be given in the following circumstances to the formation of a dwelling by use of the remaining fabric and the addition of new fabric to replace that which has been lost. Where: a) the building is substantially intact; this will involve there being at least three of the walls, standing up to eaves level and structurally capable of being retained; and b) there is an existing, usable track from the highway; and where c) a supply of fresh potable water and of electricity can be made available from existing services within the highway. This policy will not apply in National Heritage Areas (see Environment Policy 6). Permission will not be given for the use of buildings more ruinous than those in (a) above, or for the erection of replacement buildings. Extensions of dwellings formed in accordance with the above may be permitted if the extension is clearly subordinate to the original building (i.e. in terms of floor space(3) measured externally, the extension measures less than 50% of that of the original)." 4.9 Housing Policy 14 states: "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area, which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality, and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building. Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact." 4.10 Planning Circular 3/91 - Guide to the design of residential development in the countryside. 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Braddan Commissioner's raise no objection (21.01.2020). 5.2 The Department of Infrastructure Highways Services do not opposes, but seek a condition be attached which provides a more detailed plan to demonstrate the 2.4m x 75m visibility splays can be adequately achieved and maintained, which could be via an accurate topography survey plan and the first 10m of the driveway be surfaced and sealed and drained (22.01.2020). 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 There are a number of considerations with this application; firstly, the principal of the demolition of the existing dwelling; second the visual impact upon the site/countryside of the proposed dwelling; and thirdly highway safety. The principal of the demolition of the existing dwelling 6.2 Under the provisions of General Policy 3 and Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the erection of a replacement dwelling on a one for one basis is an accepted exception to the general presumption against development within the countryside.

148

However, in this case the existing cottage has been abandoned and has lost its residential status i.e. contrary to HP12. This was confirmed in 2007 when the then planning officer commented that; "…it is considered that the building, which has lost its residential status by abandonment.". However, the two planning officers who considered the two applications in 2007 both stated: "Whilst the principle of replacing the building with a dwelling is considered to be acceptable….". The IOMSP was adopted when these applications where considered (i.e. HP12). Accordingly, it was considered whilst contrary to HP12, the application from a principle point of view was acceptable. 6.3 Further HP12 also indicates that the replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless: "architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation." The existing property is quaint and a fairly prominent feature in the landscape. As this application is proposing to replace the existing it cannot meet Housing Policy 12. Therefore the application could be refused on this ground, and this was one of the main reasons for its more recent refusal. 6.4 However, there could be "other material" planning considerations including the fact the new dwelling would potentially have a high level of energy efficiency, which could be argued to fall in line with the Climate Challenge Mitigation Strategy was also agreed by Tynwald in 2016. This Strategy describes the sectors which greenhouse gas emissions can be most significantly reduced between now and 2050 in order to meet Tynwald's 2050 target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions per person by 80%, compared to 1990 levels. Also, The Climate Challenge Mitigation Strategy for the Isle of Man 2016 - 2020 June 2016 - stated that; "In 2013 heating appliances alone accounted for approximately 30% of the Island's greenhouse gas emissions". This is the Island greatest greenhouse gas emissions generator (power generation 28% and transport 18% etc). Accordingly, to meet the aims of the Government on Climate Change issues, the Department in July Tynwald, received approval for amendments to the Building Regulations and an updated Approved Documents Order was also laid before the court. Those amendments require new residential buildings to meet statutory targets for energy efficiency. This is to be achieved through the introduction of a requirement for such properties to undergo an energy efficiency assessment known as the Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP), which is used to assess the energy efficiency of a newly constructed residential building to confirm that it complies with Part L1 of the Building Regulations. The SAP rating is a way of comparing dwellings, 1 being the lowest (like a tent), and 100+ being the best (Zero Carbon). Currently, it is proposed that by 2027 a new build dwelling would meet a 97 (out of 100) SAP rating. Currently, this rating would be described as a carbon natural dwelling. For context most new builds today under current Building Regulation Standards have a SAP rating of 82. For the next few years up to 2027, the SAP ratings increase from 80 (2019), 88 (2021), 93 (2024) to 97 (2027). It should also be noted that to increase from a rating of 80 to 85 for example is easier than increasing a rating of 90 to 95. Essentially, it becomes more difficult to improve upon the higher the scale of the rating. 6.5 As stated previously, the applicant is very keen to ensure this new dwelling has eco standards. The proposal dwelling has been designed by "Scotframe" which company states: "At Scotframe, we believe in a 'fabric first' approach to construction. In simple terms, that means we design homes with long-term efficiency measures built in from the start. Fabric First prioritises the insulation and airtightness of the building, using insulation and high performance doors and windows to create airtight structures that prevent drafts and retain heat. This reduces the need for costly 'add-ons' such as renewable energy or heating systems as the building does all the hard the work for you.

149

The key to this approach lies in our unique Val-U-Therm PLUS® wall, roof and floor panels - designed to last for the life of the building and durable for a minimum 60 years. The Val-U-Therm PLUS® system offers warm, draught-proof homes with a high comfort factor. Benefits include: o Improved Thermal Performance o Improved Buildability o Improved Environmental Credentials o Better Detailing Val-U-Therm PLUS® offers proven benefits whatever specification you require, be it 'A' rated Energy Performance Certificates, the highest levels of the Code for Sustainable Homes or PassivHaus. As always, with Scotframe, you decide what is best for you. Val-U-Therm PLUS® offers a practical cost-effective solution to meet and exceed existing building regulations. The system is suitable for all types of domestic and commercial architecture, design, external treatment and internal finish." 6.6 Accordingly, it could be considered whilst the proposal does not meet the aims of HP 12 or 13, to meet the aims associated with climate change and given the property proposed to be demolished isn't of a very high standard in terms of architectural or historical interest (albeit at a level that the principle would like be accepted to be converted if asked); that the proposal may be acceptable on this basis. 6.7 Within the applicants supporting statement a brief reference is made that the dwelling would enable them to move out of the main farmhouse at Castleward Farm and their daughter and her family to move into it, to enable to run the farm. Whilst Housing Policy 9 can allow such provision "retiring farmer", the requirements of Housing Policy 9 are required to be met. It should also be noted that the description of the development is not for an "agricultural dwelling for a retiring farmworkers", but rather "Proposed erection of a replacement dwelling with vehicular access". However, it is useful to understand additional benefits of the proposed new dwelling. 6.8 Overall, the principle of the application is finely balanced. The previously application which was refused, including on the grounds of being contrary to HP13, acknowledging that the principle of replacing the original cottage was accepted in 2007 and 2008 applications by the Department. However, it was considered given the time since these decisions (11+ years) and it is presumed the state of repair of the building has worsened; it would be now difficult to argue that the principle is acceptable now. Further, no explanation was included to why the Department should consider the proposal acceptable in terms of these policies now. Since the original appellation, the applicant has been in pre-application discussion with the Department and has provided additional reasoning for the proposal. 6.9 Overall, in terms of the principle of the development proposed, it is considered contrary to Housing Policy 12; albeit the environmental benefits of the proposal, and also have some benefit the operation of the nearby farm, are considered on balance in favour of the principle of the proposal. Visual impact upon the site/countryside of the proposed dwelling 6.10 Putting aside the principle of the replacing the existing dwelling; and purely considering the visual impact of the development, as can be seen, Housing Policy 14 raises a number of issues that need to be taken into account. The first relates to the replacements dwellings siting. The proposal does partially sit on the existing footprint, and although, given its larger size does project further into the rear existing field (issue of curtilage extension will be discussed later in this report), it is not considered unacceptable. The proposed dwelling will be more apparent than the existing building; albeit given its poor state of repair, it cannot

150

be said that it results in a pleasant sight in the countryside setting and in fact has a negative adverse feature. 6.11 The site is in fairly prominent position in these sections of the Ballaoates Road and from the junction with East Baldwin Road to the north of the site. The previous scheme proposed a similar sized property, albeit it sat further into the neighbouring field and did not sit on any part of the existing footprint. Overall, it is considered the siting of the new dwelling is acceptable. 6.12 The second aspect of HP14 to consider relates to the size of the new dwelling. This proposal would equate to a 130% increase (proposed floor area 81sqm & existing floor area 35sqm) and therefore comply with this section of Housing Policy 14. Further in terms of Planning Circular 3/91 the roof pitched (30 degrees), design, form and finishes are all considered acceptable. Accordingly, whilst the proposal is well above the generally 50% threshold, it perhaps needs to be acknowledged that the new dwelling is still fairly modest in size, having two bedrooms, bathroom and an open plan kitchen/diner/lounge. 6.13 Overall, whilst the size of the dwelling is larger than the normally permitted 50% threshold, the design, proportion, scale and finish of the dwelling is considered to meet the relevant aims of HP14 & PC 3/91 and overall and on balance; for the reasons indicated, it is considered the proposal would be acceptable in this respect. 6.14 In relation to the increase in the residential curtilage. As mentioned the existing curtilage is very small, and is essential made up of the walls of the dwelling and a small section of grass to the south and west of the dwelling. The applicant also has advised that the existing property did have a larger curtilage compared to the existing situation, but this was removed in the past and incorporated into the adjacent field to secure the property better. The previous application included a large curtilage than what is proposed now which raised concern. It was rectangular in shape and that would have also appeared more prominent and took no account of the landscape, appearing very artificial, even with landscaping proposed. The new proposal is smaller (albeit still much larger than the existing); but appears more fitting for the site. Furthermore, the curtilage does not include vast gardens, but rather a most garden which is a good representation of the size of the new dwelling, but the curtilage extension is in the main to provide the driveway from the new house to the new access. The access is in its position to create the best visibility splay (report will consider this further). A septic tank/soak way is also accommodated in part of the garden of the property. Environment Policy 1 requires the countryside being protected for its own sake and that development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted. Overall, whilst the proposal is much larger than the existing very small curtilage, it is not considered represents an excessive proposal, and essentially is considered a size which is justified to provides the needs of any occupant in terms of amenity space, highway safety and function needs. The application proposed new Rowan/Hawthorn hedgerows along the boundaries of the site, which in future will further reduce the visual appearance of the site in an appropriate way. A post and wire fence is also proposed along the field boundaries of the site. Highway safety 6.15 As with the previous application Highway Services have considered the new access and appear to have no objection to the proposals as shown, albeit this latest comments Highways have sought an additional plan to demonstrate the accuracy of the visibility splays through a Topographical Survey. It is considered such requested could be undertaken via a condition. The 6.16 The proposal can accommodate two off road parking spaces and therefore accords with the Parking standards of the IOMSP. Turing provision is also provided within the site.

151

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the reasons it is considered while there are some aspects of the proposal which are potentially contrary to HP 12 (principle of demolition and replacement) & HP14 (greater than the generally permitted 50% threshold); it is considered that given the overall environmental benefits and given the overall development is modest and sympathetic with the surrounding landscape/countryside setting; on balance the proposal is considered to be acceptable. Therefore the application is recommended for an approval. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

152


Item 5.18 Proposal : Removal of two shipping containers (retrospective) and

erection of a detached maintenance building to store equipment, materials and animal food stuffs

Site Address : Field 314107 Land At Ballanayre Ramsey Road Peel Isle Of Man

Applicant : Mr Richard Barker Application No. : Planning Officer :



______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. The agricultural building hereby approved shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition in the event that it is no longer used or required for agricultural purposes. Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved solely to meet agricultural need and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside. C 3. The building may only be used as a maintenance shed to store and maintain vehicle and machinery associated with the farm operations on the site. Reason: The countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of a maintenance shed need only. As such the building may only be used for the purposes for which it is approved. C 4. No development shall be commenced on site until a scheme for the fenced boundary to the meadow which shall be replaced by a scrub screen composed of, for example, hawthorns and blackthorns, or both a fence and a scrub screen has been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such. Reason: To reduce the disturbance to birds on the pond from the movement of vehicles along the track and also to provide shelter and nest for other birds and a nectar source for insects. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) The proposed maintenance shed, together with the removal of all other temporary structures (shipping containers) on site, is considered to accord with GP3, EP2 and EP15 with the appropriate conditions.


153


_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE THE SITE 1.1 The application site represents the curtilage of Field 314107 which is a parcel of land, triangular in shape, located to the eastern side of the Ramsey Road, and north east of Knocksharry. The site is accessed via a private farm track which runs from the Ramsey Road in a north-easterly direction for approximately 0.4 miles (680 metres). 1.2 There have been a number of engineering works on the site and therefore it is difficult to fully ascertain what the ground levels were originally. However, given the topography of the land in the surrounding area, it is considered the site originally was also sloping in nature and made up of scrub/gorse. 1.3 Currently, the site's character is less natural in appearance, but still mainly sloping in nature, running downwards from the private track. There are however two areas of the site, referred as the upper and lower sections, which are fairly flat in nature. Within the upper section there are two shipping containers (neither have planning approval). The lower section of the site is larger in area, where a newly constructed pond can be found as well as a detached timber framed building (This was approved in April 2016). Connecting the upper and lower sections of a site is a newly created stone track which is circular in shape and located in the centre of the site. A track also runs around the newly created pond. 1.4 The southern boundary of the site adjoins the farm track and this boundary comprises of a 1.5 to 2 metre high grass bank. A pair of field gates forms the entrance to the site, which is accessed of the private track. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 This application seeks approval for the erection of a detached pitch roofed maintenance building that would measure 9.14m x 12.19m. The building will have a maximum height 6m on the front elevation and 7.2m on the rear which has a level 1.2m lower than the front elevation. The shed will be constructed of timber frame with 0.7mm anti condensation single skin steel roof finish. The entrance doors will comprise of pedestrian entrance doors 2.1m x 900mm on the front and rear elevations, while a roller shutter door 4m x 4m will be installed right of the pedestrian access door on the front elevation. 2.2 The applicant has provided information to state that the Maintenance shed would enable him remove the shipping containers on site which are currently used to house a wide range of tools required to assist him with the upkeep and maintenance of the land. He further stated that the maintenance shed would be used to house larger equipment required to maintain the access road, together with assisting the farmer of the surrounding land with certain contracted works which includes the maintenance of the track serving the farm. 2.3 The Resident Tenant Farmer of the surrounding 500 acres of land has provided additional information in support of the application. He stated that the success of the application would provide shelter for his tractor

154

PLANNING STATUS 3.1 The application site is designated within an area of "High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance" under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. 3.2 Within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered relevant: 3.3 Environment Policy 1 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is 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." 3.4 Environment Policy 2 states: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential." 3.5 Environment Policy 15 states: "Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part. Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The nature and materials of construction must also be appropriate to the purposes for which it is intended. Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape." 3.6 General Policy 3, which states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);

155

(e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage." PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The following planning application is considered to be most relevant in the assessment and determination of this application: 4.2 Erection of a detached lean to chicken shed / wood store (retrospective) - 15/00710/B - APPROVED REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. 5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that there is 'No Highways Interest' in a letter dated 23 December 2019. 5.2 DEFA's Senior Biodiversity Officer has made the following comments regarding the application dated 13 January 2019: The Ecosystem Team would request that a preliminary ecological assessment is carried out of the area where the building is to be sited as it is semi-natural habitat (recorded as marshy grassland) and a check for protected species needs to be made before determination of the application. 5.2.1 DEFA's Senior Biodiversity Officer has sent in a second representation dated 3 February 2020 regarding the application. The comments: An officer of the Ecosystem Team has visited the site and as such a Preliminary Ecological Assessment is now not required. The area where the building is to be sited is covered in coarse grass, gorse and thistles. Ti is no longer marshy grasslands as previously recorded. In order to benefit wildlife we recommend that the proposed fenced boundary to the meadow is replaced by a scrub screen composed of, for example, hawthorns and blackthorns, or both a fence and a scrub screen is built. This would reduce the disturbance to birds on the pond from the movement of vehicles along the track and also provide shelter and nest for other birds and a nectar source for insects. 5.3 German Parish Commissioners have stated that they object to the application as they feel that the acreage does not warrant such a large building, when the size of the allotment is compared to the size of the requested building it seems inappropriate. The siting of the shed also seems to be on higher ground than the present containers which the commissioners were not happy with. These comments were contained in a letter dated 30 January 2020. 5.3.1 In response, the applicant has written in with the following comments dated 2 February 2020: I am writing further to the written comments received from the clerk to the German Parish Commissioners.

156

May I respectfully comment that the proposed location of the maintenance shed is situated on ground much lower to that of the existing containers and not on higher ground as incorrectly stated by the Clerk. May I also respectfully comment that the maintenance shed and the equipment within is not only to upkeep our land, but also the one mile track leading up to it, that requires regular maintenance, together with the machinery required for contractual work on the surrounding farmers land. Therefore when considering the comments made by the commissioners in respect to the proposed size of the shed, may I ask that the planners look beyond that of just the acreage of the said land. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; (i) the principle of the development; and (ii) the visual impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the countryside and surrounding landscape in terms of siting, design, size and finish. 6.2 THE PRINCIPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT 6.2.1 The aforementioned policies would indicate there is a general presumption against new development in the countryside, as set out in Environment Policy 1 and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, however there are exceptions to this with respect to agricultural buildings GP3(f). 6.2.2 As previously identified EP 15 the Department needs to be satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building to sufficiently outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside. In the case of this application there has been extensive supporting information submitted demonstrating the need for the new building not only to serve as replacement for the shipping containers which are currently on site (the subject of enforcement action) but also to help improve the farm operations on the site and the neighbouring farm. 6.2.3 The current farm is occupied by both the applicant who currently works the field. The planning history for the site evidences the established agricultural nature of the site. The list of items currently held in the shipping containers on site and those within the ownership of the applicant clearly indicates a need for the maintenance shed which would ensure the continuous operation of the field. The external footprint of the building which equates to 111sq.m will contribute to the expansion of the business, with the proposed location also being in significantly close proximity to the other fields who will require the services of the machines to be stored in maintaining their farm tracks and access, especially during the wet months, considering the farm access to the application site and surrounding fields are in poor form. 6.2.4 Given the extensive information provided within the application it is considered that the principle of the proposal is acceptable and will help to support the continued growth of a farming business which contributes to the Islands economy, working towards the aims of the DEFA Food Matters Strategy in growing the economic contribution of the Isle of Man food and drink from 2015 - 2025. 6.2.5 Whilst the German Parish Commissioners have stated that the acreage on the farm does not justify the size of the shed proposed to be built. The track serving the site and the surrounding farm, which is in a very poor state will benefit from the facility which will ensure that the machines aiding the maintenance of the track is in close proximity to the farms. As such, it is considered that the proposed is an acceptable development when considered in the context of the surrounding area. As well, the assertion that the proposed site is on an

157

elevated area is a variation from what was observed during the site visit as the work area is on a lower site level when compared to the position of the shipping containers on site. 6.3 THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL 6.3.1 The proposed building is fairly typical in its size and comparable to those large agricultural buildings in the surrounding area. It is also noted that the site is very well screened from public views given the topography of the land and substantial landscaping between this site and public highways in the area. Even when viewing the site from the private track either to the east, south or west of the site, the proposed building will be considerably screened. This is not an automatic reason to allow such development as there are other considerations to take into account. However, in terms of impacts upon public views the pitch roofed shed would have very little impacts upon the visual amenities countryside. 6.3.2 Likewise, the works within the site are considered to be appropriate and in keeping with the setting of the countryside. The timber construction of the external walls, as well as the undulating nature of the terrain, will help to blend the building into the surrounding landscape. As well, the modest height and size of the building will also ensure that the building does not become a prominent feature, even when viewed from the surrounding landscape. Accordingly, whilst the new building would be in an isolated cluster (with only the existing chicken shed / wood store in close proximity, the building is considered to be appropriate in terms of design, finish and siting and in keeping with the nature of development within the surrounding countryside. CONCLUSION 7.1 For the reasons set out in this report, it is considered that the proposal would comply with the relevant planning policies of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016). As such, it is recommended that the application be approved, subject to the conditions recommended. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

158


Item 5.19 Proposal : Erection of an agricultural barn Site Address : Trollaby Farm

Trollaby Lane Union Mills Isle Of Man IM4 4AW

Applicant : Mr Brian Lee Cain Application No. : Principal Planner :



______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. The building hereby approved may only be used for agricultural purposes. Reason: The countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of agricultural need. As such the building must be used for the purposes for which it is approved. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) The development is considered to accord with Environment Policy 15 and General Policy 3.

______________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THERE IS AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL THE SITE 1.1 The site is a small parcel of land within a much larger holding which stretches from close to the A23 Crosby Top Road to part way down Trollaby Lane which is a public footpath. The applicant is intending to purchase the blue land within which there is a farm yard which comprises some old stone barns and more modern outbuildings. There is no dwelling on the


159

site, the original farmhouse having been demolished around the 1960s-70s. One of the stone buildings is partially collapsed. 1.2 It is understood that the applicant has rented the farm buildings and land for some time and now has the opportunity to purchase them and is in the process of doing so. 1.3 At the time of the site visit the modern barns were occupied by cattle and feed and the applicant has provided photographs of this. 1.4 A public footpath runs through the site linking the A23 and the A1. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a new barn to the north of an existing modern barn, opposite the large stone building which has other modern buildings to the north. The proposed building will have a footprint of 15m by 6m and will be 3.5m high finished in 1m high concrete walling with green sheeting above to match the other existing modern buildings around. Four trees will need to be removed to facilitate the development and the applicant has discussed this with DEFA Arboricultural Office prior to the submission of the application. The trees are self seeded and some of many around the existing buildings. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area not designated for a particular purpose on the draft Area Plan for the East and the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 where the latter also designates this area as of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. The site also lies within an area of Broad Lowland Valley in the draft Landscape Character Appraisal where the following policies are relevant: Landscape Strategy The overall strategy should be to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the well-treed valley with some scattered and nucleated settlements. 3.2 Specifically within the draft Area Plan for the East there is the following advice specifically for this area of Broad Lowland Valley: Union Mills, Glen Vine & Crosby (C3) Landscape Strategy - Conserve and enhance a) the character, quality and distinctiveness of the well treed valley with some scattered and nucleated settlements. Key Views Open views up to the Northern Uplands and the upper slopes of Foxdale in places. Glimpsed views in the east towards the urban edge of Douglas. 3.3 The Strategic Plan has policies which support agricultural development - General Policy 3f (buildings which are essential for the conduct of agriculture) and Environment Policy 15: "Environment Policy 15: Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments aresympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part.

160

Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The nature and materials of construction must also be appropriate to the purposes for which it is intended. Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape." PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Planning approval was most recently granted to this same applicant for a new modern agricultural building at the north western end of the existing line of buildings opposite the current application site. This has been constructed (16/00116/B). Prior to that, planning approval was granted to the other modern agricultural buildings under 01/01148/B and 96/01090/B again, all submitted by the current applicant. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services have no objection (10.01.20). 5.2 Marown Parish Commissioners cannot support the application without further information which demonstrates to them the agricultural need for the building, noting that the application states only that the building would be useful for food and equipment (16.01.20). 5.3 The Arboricultural Officer of DEFA confirms that the trees are of very poor quality and have multiple defects and he has no objection to the removal of these trees (31.01.20). ASSESSMENT 6.1 The site is not designated for development but as noted above, there are policies within the Strategic Plan which allow development in such areas where it is justified by agricultural need and can comply with the other policies in the Plan. The applicant has clearly farmed this land as a tenant since at least 2001 and the evidence on site is that the existing buildings and land are used for agricultural purposes. The siting is adjacent to existing agricultural buildings and complies with EP15 in this respect. 6.2 The local authority did not consider that there was sufficient justification for another agricultural building as proposed and despite the applicant providing photographs of the existing buildings being used for the storage of feed and livestock, remain of this view. Having visited the site, it is clear that this is a working farm and that the existing buildings are all used for agricultural purposes. The applicant has explained that there are older, stone buildings on the site which are not fit for use due to their condition and that he hopes to develop a dairy unit in this part of the site so would not wish this currently proposed building to jeopardise these future plans. 6.3 The building will be similar to others alongside and opposite and those using the footpath will not be adversely affected by the proposal. CONCLUSION 7.1 The development is considered to accord with EP15 and GP3 and is supported. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;

161

(b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 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 in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

162


Item 5.20 Proposal : Change of use from office to residential dwelling Site Address : 3 Myrtle Street

Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 1ED

Applicant : Mr Douglas Macintosh Application No. : Planning Officer:

20/00027/C- click to view Mrs Vanessa Porter


______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) The proposed change of use is considered not to conflict with Strategic Policy 2, 10 and Housing Policy 4 while according with the provisions set out in Housing Policy 14 and Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 by providing suitable amenity standards.

______________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT DESIGNATED FOR AN APPROVAL THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of 3 Myrtle Street, Douglas which is currently being used as an office. 3 Myrtle Street is situated to the west of Myrtle Street opposite St Marys Church. The property has one on site car parking space. 1.2 The property currently consists of office space, reception and kitchen to ground floor level, boardroom, office, kitchen and WC on the first floor level and two offices with storage room to the second floor level.


163

THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current planning application seeks approval to change the use from office to residential. No external alterations are proposed. 2.2 The new floor plan proposed is lounge, kitchen and dining room to ground floor level, two bedrooms, bathroom and utility to first floor level and two bedrooms and a spare room to the second floor level. PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There are several applications on the site of which the car parking space to the rear was approved under PA85/00899/B. PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Offices on the Douglas Local Plan 1998, Map 1, this zoning encompasses the whole block of offices within Myrtle Street and the block to the rear of Myrtle Street along Circular Road, as such the site is not designated for the proposed use. 4.2 The site lies within an area zoned as a "Mixed Use" on the Area Plan for the East, Map 5, Douglas Central. 4.3 The Douglas Local Plan 1998 has a policy which is relevant to this assessment, Policy D/TLR/P1 states "5.4 Any change of use, it should be made clear, is just that. There is no implication or intent that any building could be demolished and rebuilt for alternative purposes nor that any alteration should be made to facades. The intent is to preserve, protect, and encourage re-investment in the buildings themselves. Change of use to residential purposes will be supported and may include; i) apartments or maisonettes ii) town houses iii) sheltered housing 4.4 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider Strategic Policy 2 & 10, Spatial Policy 1, Housing Policy 4 and Transport Policy 1 & 7. 4.5 Strategic Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states, "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3" 4.6 Strategic Policy 10 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states, "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement" 4.7 Spatial Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states, "The Douglas urban area will remain the main employment and services centre for the Island." 4.8 Housing Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 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:

164

(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." 4.9 Transport Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states, "New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes." 4.10 Transport policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards." 4.11 Whilst the property is not to create flats the general basis of Housing Policy 17 should be taken into account. Housing Policy 17 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states, "The conversion of buildings into flats will generally be permitted in residential areas provided that: (a) adequate space can be provided for clothes-drying, refuse storage, general amenity, and, if practical, car-parking; (b) the flats created will have a pleasant clear outlook, particularly from the principal rooms and (c) if possible, this involves the creation of parking on site or as part of an overall traffic management strategy for the area. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services have No Highways Interest in this application (28.01.2019). 5.2 Douglas Corporation have considered the proposal and have no objection (31.01.20). ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key issue to consider in the assessment of this planning application is the potential impacts of the change of use on the property in question and whether the proposed use of the building as a dwelling house would be satisfactory for this location. 6.2 Parking 6.2.1 Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Policy states that with any new development the parking provisions must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. For the proposed development of a 4 bedroomed terraced property the parking provisions are "2 spaces per unit, if not within curtilage then located as close to units as possible without compromising residential amenity." With this in mind the property has one space provided to the rear that measures 3.6m by 6m which would meet the size required in the Manual for Manx Roads. 6.2.2 Whilst the property does not provide a second car parking space there is Pay and Display parking directly outside the property and the property is close by to all major travel routes. Both of these options would be used the same irrespective on whether the property is used as residential or as office. The only main difference would be when the parking would be used, it is likely that an office would use the space to the rear and the pay and display parking during the general office hours of 9am to 5pm whereas as a residential property the parking would likely to be used between 5pm and 9am.

165

6.3 Location 6.3.1 The property itself is in an area which is zoned as Predominately Office the property is suitably close to areas zoned as Predominately Residential with the nearest properties on the corner of where Circular Road and Upper Church Street meet. On this basis it is likely that the change of use from office to residential will not have a detrimental effect on the property itself or the general streetscene as a whole. 6.3.2 Another aspect when looking at the location of the proposal is the Central Douglas Master Plan 2014 which states, "A mix of uses throughout the town will increase the attraction of the Centre, retaining and increasing footfall and movement across all periods of the day and into the early evening ." This statement would indicate a need to attract more uses to the Douglas town centre and to encourage residential back into the town centre while utilising possible redundant offices which could add to the vibrancy and to out of hours use. 6.4 General Amenity 6.4.1 In proposals such as these, concern can lie with the potential to cause disruptions to the immediate and adjoining neighbouring properties. In terms of differentiating an office from residential it is often difficult to define how each would behave. Generally office hours are between the times of 9am to 5pm with the occasional office working out of these hours due to the service they provide. Offices are generally quiet with the potential to not be disruptive. When a property is someone's home they have the potential to be home more, could invite friends or family around and have parties which have the potential to be noisy. In general the majority of people tend to behave well and raise no concerns, although there will always be a percentage that may not behave. 6.4.2 When looking at whether the dwelling would provide suitable amenity standards the proposal does not provide any details of a garden area or outdoor amenity space with the rear area being used as a car parking space. The property provides a suitable standard of space internally and given its location within a town centre and with the property being in close walking distance to Douglas Promenade which has suitable garden area with regards to the Villa Marina and the beach, the lack of garden space which is a common feature among residential properties within the town centre would not be significant enough to warrant a reason for refusal. 6.4.3 Another aspect of the amenity would be whether the proposal has a clear pleasant outlook from the main principal rooms. The Lounge and the two bedrooms above would have a clear view outside the property, whilst the view is off the main parking along this street and the stone wall of St Marys Church this view is a likely view to be had within a town centre. The property is situated at such a point along the street that the large office building to the front does not obstruct the sunlight available. It is considered that the views from the principal rooms, lounge and main bedrooms would have a pleasant outlook and all other rooms would have windows to provide natural light. 6.5 It is considered that the conversion of the building to provide a dwelling house would provide in most regards adequate living conditions and as such is considered acceptable in this regard. CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons the proposal does not conflict with Strategic Policy 2, 10 and Housing Policy 4 while according with the provisions set out in Housing Policy 14 and Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

166

INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 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. 8.2 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

167


Item 5.21 Proposal : Erection of replacement dwelling, detached triple garage and

extension to existing tholtan Site Address : Dreemlang

Staarvey Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 2AJ

Applicant : Mr Derek Clarkson Application No. : Principal Planner :



______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the 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. Prior to the demolition of any buildings on the site, an assessment of these building for the presence of bats, breeding birds and lizards must be undertaken by a suitably qualified person and measures for appropriate mitigation. The development must be undertaken in accordance with this assessment and recommended mitigation. Note; the applicant should note that it is an offence under the Wildlife Act to undertake work which would adversely affect protected species or habitat. Reason: to accord with Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan. C 3. Within one month of the occupation of the new house hereby approved, the existing dwelling must be demolished other than the original cottage shown in drawings 670_PL_210_FE, 670_PL_211_RE and 670_PL_213_SE2. Thereafter the remaining cottage may be used only as accommodation ancillary to that of the main, new house and may not be let or sold off separately. Reason: the site is not designated for development and the new dwelling is only being approved as a replacement for the existing dwelling. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) The proposed new dwelling and garage, together with the retention of the original cottage but the removal of all other structures on site, is considered to accord with HP 14, EP's 1 and 2 and EP 4 with the appropriate condition.

______________________________________________________________



168

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONTRARY TO HOUSING POLICY 14 AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL THE SITE 1.1 The site is the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling which sits on the eastern side of the Staarvey Road. The existing dwelling has an original, old core in the form of a modest single storey cottage, which has had modern windows installed in both main elevations and which has been extended to the southern side and the roadside. All of the extensions are of more modern form and the roadside extension is particularly striking, having a mansard style roof which is at odds with the main property which has a pitched roof. The main original core can be distinguished from the rest of the house by the substantial chimneys on each end of its roof. 1.2 To the east of the house is an L-shaped stable block with the buildings cumulatively making a courtyard of similar height and proportioned structures which are visible on the skyline as one approaches the site from the south. 1.3 The house sits quite remote from any other dwelling on this stretch of road. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of all but the original core cottage, including the stables, and the erection of a new dwelling roughly on the footprint of the stables. The owners wish to erect a new dwelling but would like to retain the original core cottage as they believe it has historical interest. As originally proposed, this was to be extended to provide a one bedroomed living unit. However, following discussion with the Department, this part of the scheme is now simply to retain the original cottage, without any subsequent extension or change and which will be used for ancillary living accommodation for the main dwelling. 2.2 The existing single storey property has a floor area of 123 sq m, the stables 133 sq m and the garage 33 sq m. The proposed dwelling will have a floor area of 226 sq m. The footprint at 154 sq m is slightly larger than that of the existing house but there is a second floor of accommodation contained within the roofspace which results in the additional floor area and an increased building height of 6.2m compared with 4.6m. 2.3 The new house is a modern design which has a simplistic profile - a roof pitched at 45 degrees and finished in slate with the walls finished ion horizontal, pre-weathered Siberian larch with timber framed windows in dark grey with galvanise metal rainwater goods. 2.4 The building has a long frontage of a little over 20m and a smaller rear, flat roofed annex with a flat roofed dormer above. The front elevation is characterised by larger openings with rooflights above and five rooflights in the front pitch. A flue will be introduced into the centre of the roof. 2.5 A garage is to be introduced at the rear of the house. This will have a footprint of 8.9m by 5.6m and be 2.45m to the eaves and 5.2m to the ridge. This too will be finished in slate and timber. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as not for a particular purpose and within an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. 200m to the north of the site is a site of archaeological interest (Manannan's Chair). As such, there is a presumption against development as set out in General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 where the protection of the landscape is

169

the most important consideration. There are policies on the replacement of dwellings as follows: Housing Policy 12: "The replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless: (a) the existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment; or (b) the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation. In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status(1) by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria: (i) the structural condition of the building; (ii) the period of non-residential use(2) or non-use in excess of ten years; (iii) evidence of intervening use; and (iv) evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon." Housing Policy 14: "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area(1), which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2- 7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building. Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact." 3.2 In addition, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant: General Policy 2: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (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; (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". 3.3 The Department has recently published the Residential Design Guidance (March 2019) which provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property.

170

PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Planning approval was recently granted for a Certificate of Lawfulness of Use as a private dwelling. Due to lack of clarity on whether there was an agricultural occupancy condition on the property, this was sought and granted (19/00394/LAW). Prior to that, planning approval was granted for the extension of the dwelling under 97/01064/B and 92/01706/B. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 German Parish Commissioners seek a deferral until after they have considered the application (29.01.20). 5.2 Highway Services make no comment although no change is proposed to the access and there will be no material change to the use of the access. 5.3 Ecosystems Policy Office initially requested a deferral pending further information. Further correspondence with the applicant indicates that they require an assessment for legally protected bats, nesting birds and common lizards is undertaken prior to the determination of the application. If bats, nesting birds or lizards are found it will not stop the proposals taking place, but mitigation must be put in place to ensure the long term protection of these species (21.02.20). The applicant has indicated that they would be happy to do this work prior to any work commencing and ensure that any required mitigation is undertaken (21.02.20). They submit comments directly to the Department on 21.02.20 stating that the buildings have potential for nesting birds and bats and advise on the provisions of the Wildlife Act 1990. They also note that there are records of common lizard in the surrounding area which are protected under the Act. They also refer to records of bats and suggest that the site is within close proximity to a wooded valley which will increase the potential for bats to use the site. They reiterate their requirement for an ecological assessment of the site for bats, nesting birds and common lizards prior to the determination of the application. Any survey for bats should be undertaken in accordance with the Bat Conservation Trust's Bats Surveys for Professional Ecologists - Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition 2016). Should bats be found then a mitigation plan for their protection should be submitted to the Department prior to the determination of the application. They add that the presence of bats will not prevent the property from being converted (the proposal is for demolition and replacement) but provision must be made for the on-going protection of the bats. The EA must include Reasonable Avoidance Measures to protect nesting birds and common lizards. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issue in this case is whether the proposed replacement dwelling complies with the provisions of the Strategic Plan, particularly Housing Policies 12 and 14. It is also relevant to consider whether the proposal to retain some part of the existing dwelling is acceptable as development and particularly the erection of new dwellings is generally discouraged in undesignated areas. 6.2 It is clear from HP 12 that the replacement of a rural dwelling will be acceptable provided that the existing dwelling is not of particular historic or architectural interest. The core of the existing dwelling is old: it appears on the 1960s County Series maps. However, it has been extended in an unfortunate fashion and its windows, which would have originally been vertically proportioned sliding sashes, have been enlarged to now have a modern style. Otherwise, the core is still traditional although the overall character of the property is something more modern and not overly attractive, particularly the mansard style annex on the roadside. As such, whilst the existing house has some attractive characteristics, the overall character is not something which warrants protection against replacement. In any case, the applicant intends to retain the original core of the house so the historic character of what exists, will be preserved.

171

6.2 The property has been the subject of extensions as recently as 1997 and was the subject of a very recent Certificate of Lawfulness of Use in 2019. Its lawful status as a dwelling is not disputed. 6.3 The new dwelling represents an increase in floor area, measured externally, of 83% which is greater than the 50% generally accepted. HP14 makes it clear that larger extensions may be considered acceptable where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact. In this case the proposal will return the existing property to something which has a reduced impact (the cottage will be smaller and the insensitive mansard roofed annex will disappear) and the new house will sit behind it. It will be visible on the approach to the property from both directions but due to its position, it will have little difference to the current impact of the stables albeit that the new house will be taller. The timber cladding will have a more natural impact than does the render on the existing stables and overall, with the removal of the stables, the amount of building will reduce as will the visual impact. As such, it is considered that the proposal complies with HP14. 6.4 The replacement of an existing rural dwelling usually requires the complete demolition of the existing property. In this case, some of the existing is to be retained. If this was tantamount to a self contained unit of accommodation, this would not be considered acceptable as the new house would not be a replacement, but an additional dwelling on the site. 6.5 What will remain of the existing cottage will be something with an internal floor area of 25 sq m. The Housing (Standards) Regulations 2017 set out minimum floor areas for houses and tourist accommodation, stating that anything below 25 sq m of floor area would not be suitable as a permanent dwelling and anything below 17 sq m would not be suitable for tourist accommodation. In this case, the applicant wishes to use what remains as ancillary living accommodation to that of the main, new house. The retention of part of the house therefore will not represent a second dwelling on the site and will assist in screening the new house from public view. 6.6 The proposed means of access will not change. The access is onto a lightly trafficked highway and the proposal should not result in a material change in use. There is therefore considered to be no significant or adverse impact on highway safety from the proposal. 6.7 The design of the new dwelling is not traditional; neither is the existing when taken as a whole, nor the stables. As such, the replacement of all of the relatively modern fabric with something modern and innovative whilst sympathetic in terms of materials, to the rural location, is considered to accord with the first part of HP 14 in that whilst not on the footprint of the existing dwelling, it is on the footprint of the existing stables which are to be removed, and further from the public highway, resulting in a reduced environmental impact. 6.8 No approval is required to demolish either the dwelling or the stables and as such, it is usual for any requirement for ecological information to be provided prior to the determination of an application where there may be a risk to protected species. However, in this case, the site is remote from trees or the usual habitat for bats (it is not known where the wooded valley is that is referred to by Ecosystems Policy Office as the site sits at the top of a hillside) so it is unlikely that there would be a risk to bats from the uncontrolled demolition of the buildings. There may be a risk to breeding birds and lizards if the works are undertaken within the relevant season. However, the applicant has indicated that they are willing to undertake these surveys, and in fact have already spoken to someone to undertake this work, and would abide by any mitigation measures recommended and given that the applicant has been advised of the risk and the provisions of the Wildlife Act it is considered that a condition requiring the submission of this information prior to the demolition of the buildings is appropriate in this case.

172

6.9 Finally, whilst there is no firm recommendation from the local authority, their initial response was received on 29.01.20 and a further deferral of this application beyond the cut off date for it to be included on the next Planning Committee agenda (24th February, 2020) would result in the application being determined at the earliest on 16th March which would not be within 8 weeks as required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019. As such, it is considered appropriate to determine the application without the final recommendation of the local authority. If this is received prior to the Planning Committee meeting, these views will be reported to the members at the meeting and these comments taken into consideration. CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed new dwelling and garage, together with the retention of the original cottage but the removal of all other structures on site, is considered to accord with HP 14, EPs 1 and 2 and EP 4 with the appropriate condition, and is supported. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 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. 8.2 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 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

173


Item 5.22 Proposal : Siting of a caravan / motorhome to be used as living

accommodation for a period of 18 months whilst converting a barn to a residential dwelling (PA 19/00773/B)

Site Address : Lower Skerrisdale Farm Peel Road Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 1HP

Applicant : Ms Tula Coman & Mr Robert Woodward Application No. : Principal Planner :



______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions C 1. The occupation of the temporary accommodation hereby approved is limited to those associated with the implementation of the conversion works approved under 19/00773/B and the accommodation may remain occupied only until 28th February, 2022 or on completion of the conversion works, whichever is the sooner. Reason: the site is not designated for development and what is being approved is a residential unit on the site which, if retained on completion and occupation of the converted barn, would amount to a second dwelling on the site, contrary to the Strategic Plan. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) The development is considered to be acceptable, given that residential use has been permitted through the conversion of the barn to living accommodation and there is not considered to be any adverse impact on the landscape or the living conditions of those in the adjacent dwelling, subject to a condition which limits the occupation to those associated with the implementation of the conversion works approved under 19/00773/B and for the accommodation to remain occupied until 28th February, 2022 or on completion of the conversion works, whichever is the sooner.

______________________________________________________________


_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE CONTRARY TO POLICIES WHICH PRESUME AGAINST THE CREATION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION IN THE COUNTRYSIDE


174

THE SITE 1.1 The site is that of an approved barn conversion which sits on the northern side of the Stockfield Road and accessed via a long lane which is also a public right of way. The site sits alongside the curtilage of an existing house which fronts onto the lane and which also has a barn alongside. The buildings were all originally part of one holding including agricultural land around about but the holding has been split between the main house and the barn which is the subject of this application, which has had planning approval for conversion (see Planning History). 1.2 The building group is traditional in character with most of the barns being stone faced although there are other, more modern, clad buildings in amongst them. The property which is associated with this current application is two storey and stone with a slated roof. Access has also been approved separate from that serving the main house so that both properties are not sharing the same means of access into the site. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the temporary installation of a motor home or caravan on the site whilst the renovation works are being undertaken. The applicants wish to live on site during the undertaking of the works for increased security and also as they have sold their house to fund the purchase and conversion of the building and do not have alternative accommodation nor could they fund this. They also have an elderly dog with onset dementia and incontinence problems and they need to be close to her to let her out, feed her and generally keep an eye on her which they could not do from a remote property. 2.2 Planning approval has been granted for the installation of a septic tank, details of which are shown in the application and also details of the type of accommodation which would be used - in this case, a towable caravan. 2.3 The caravan or motorhome would be sited in the middle of the courtyard of buildings. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site is in an area designated on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as not for a particular purpose and of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. There is therefore a presumption against development here. There are no Strategic Plan policies which relate to temporary accommodation, other than the following reference: "8.11.3 It is unlikely that permission will be given for permanent replacement of dwellings which were never intended to have a permanent residential use, such as chalets and other structures built of materials for only temporary or seasonal use." 3.2 There is also no provision for temporary approval of living accommodation in any approved development order. Planning approval is required here because the residential status of the site only takes effect once the barn has been converted and is occupied. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Planning approval was originally given for the conversion of the barn under 14/00104/B and then modified under 19/00773/B. This also permitted the introduction of an access drive to the property from an existing field gate further south on the site, adjoining the lane/public right of way. 4.2 Planning approval was given for a similar arrangement under 18/00538/B where Ballawhane Farm was to be replaced and the developer wished to live on site to oversee their livestock whilst work was undertaken.

175

REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 German Parish Commissioners seek a deferral until after their next meeting, the date for which is not given (30.01.20). 5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services have no objection (05.02.20). ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issue here is whether the proposed temporary accommodation would have any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the area, particularly given the proximity of the public right of way or on the living conditions of those in the adjacent residential property. This was recently advertised for sale. 6.2 The temporary accommodation would not be particularly visible to those passing on the public right of way due to intervening buildings. As such there would be no impact on the passing public. 6.3 Similarly, there is an agricultural building in between the house and the site which will screen the sight and activity from there. Once the approved new access is constructed, there should be no traffic associated with the converted barn coming into contact with the house and its site. 6.3 The applicants have indicated that the accommodation is only required until the house is completed and anticipate this to take around 18 months. 6.4 Whilst there is no firm recommendation from the local authority, their initial response was received on 30.01.20 and a further deferral of this application beyond the cut off date for it to be included on the next Planning Committee agenda (24th February, 2020) would result in the application being determined at the earliest on 16th March which would not be within 8 weeks as required by the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019. As such, it is considered appropriate to determine the application without the final recommendation of the local authority. If this is received prior to the Planning Committee meeting, these views will be reported to the members at the meeting and these comments taken into consideration. CONCLUSION 7.1 Whilst there is a presumption against development here, the accommodation is clearly temporary in nature and appearance and is directly associated both with a clear time frame and a development so that enforcement of a time frame would be possible. The applicants' reasons for wishing to remain on site whilst work is being undertaken are understood, particularly in view of the adjacent public right of way. As such, the development is considered to be acceptable, given that residential use has been permitted through the conversion of the barn to living accommodation and there is not considered to be any adverse impact on the landscape or the living conditions of those in the adjacent dwelling, subject to a condition which limits the occupation to those associated with the implementation of the conversion works approved under 19/00773/B and for the accommodation to remain occupied until 28th February, 2022 or on completion of the conversion works, whichever is the sooner. The additional period over the stated 18 month period will allow the works to commence in earnest, for the owners to relocate and to accommodate any additional time needed to complete the conversion works. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 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;

176

(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. 8.2 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