DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 TOWN AND COUNTRY (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2019

Agenda for a meeting of the Planning Committee, 10th May 2021, 10.00am, in the Ground Floor Meeting Room of Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas

Please note that while this meeting is to be held in person, the Department has facilities available for persons who would prefer to attend virtually, by way of Microsoft Teams. Guidance notes are available on our website here - https://www.gov.im/media/1371693/electronic-planning-committee- supplementary-guidance-march-2021v2.pdf

1. Introduction by the Chairman

2. Apologies for absence

3. Minutes To give consideration to the minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 26th April 2021.

4. Any matters arising

5. To consider and determine Planning Applications Schedule attached as Appendix One.

6. Site Visits To agree dates for site visits if necessary.

7. Section 13 Agreements To note those applications where Section 13 Agreements have been concluded in the period 19th April 2021 to 3rd April 2021.

8. Any other business

9. Next meeting of the Planning Committee Set for 24th May 2021.

1

Appendix One PLANNING COMMITTEE Meeting, 10th May 2021 Schedule of planning applications

Item 5.1 Erection of 27 dwellings with associated Part Of Field No. 121388 And Former Dale access, drainage, and open space Nurseries Oatlands Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 4ER

PA20/00740/B Recommendation : Approve subject to Legal Agreement

Item 5.2 Erection of 12 residential dwellings with Bix House And Land To Rear Farmhill Lane associated infrastructure and landscaping Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2EB

PA20/01531/B Recommendation : Approve subject to Legal Agreement

Item 5.3 Change of use from existing gym into Diamond House Demesne Road Douglas Isle nursery facilities (class 4.2) Of Man IM1 3DS

PA20/01399/C Recommendation : Permitted

Item 5.4 Conversion and extension of existing Ballig Handleys Corner Kirk Michael Isle Of stone storage building for both tourist and Man IM6 1AY residential use

PA21/00059/B Recommendation : Permitted

Item 5.5 Erection of eight industrial units / Land Off Harcourt Drive Balthane Industrial commercial / storage units with Estate Balthane Ballasalla Isle Of Man associated roads, footpaths and vehicle parking PA21/00220/B Recommendation : Permitted

Item 5.6 Construction of flood protection walls River Section To Rear Of Glen Road Glen Road Laxey Isle Of Man

PA21/00298/B Recommendation : Permitted

Item 5.7 Alterations to substructure of existing weir River Weir Adj To Glen Road Glen Road and re-grading of river channel Laxey Isle Of Man incorporating a rock ramp to control flow and stabilisation of existing river banks PA21/00300/B Recommendation : Permitted

2

Item 5.8 Creation of a toilet and shower facility for Glenlough Campsite Ballahutchin Hill Union disabled users Mills Isle Of Man IM4 4AT

PA21/00349/B Recommendation : Permitted

3

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 10th May 2021

Item 5.1 Proposal : Erection of 27 dwellings with associated access, drainage, and open space Site Address : Part Of Field No. 121388 And Former Dale Nurseries Oatlands Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 4ER Applicant : Keldevelopments Limited Application No. : 20/00740/B- click to view Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer

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

C 2. Each dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied 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 dwelling 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. No development shall take place until a further landscaping plan of soft landscaping works surrounding the substation have been submitted to and approved in writing by Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include additional planting/tree planting as already shown on drawing 02 REV L but additional planting in and around the Public Open Space Area and to the frontage/entrance of the site. This shall include full details of all trees to be planted, including a) their quantity, location (or density), species (botanical names), size at date of planting; b) the approximate date when they are to be planted; and c) how they will be maintained until successfully established. All remaining planting shall be carried out in accordance the approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation of each dwelling permitted. Any trees or shrub which within 5 years from the completion of the development dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species unless the planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development and to protect amenities of neighbouring amenities.

C 4. Prior to the commencement of development a 'Timetable Scheme' for the provision of the Public Open Space areas as shown on drawing 002 REV L is to be submitted to and approved by the Department which gives a timetable of when all the Public Open Space will 4 be completed and all made available for recreational use before the occupation of the last dwelling. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed timetable.

Reason: To ensure adequate Public Open Space provision is provided.

C 5. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling, the road and footway/footpath between the highway and that dwelling shall be constructed to at least base course level.

Reason: To ensure adequate pedestrian and vehicular access to each dwelling in the interest of highway safety.

C 6. All planting, seeding or turfing not included within the areas of public open space (mentioned within Conditions 3 & 4) 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 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.

C 7. Prior to the commencement of the development (including demolition) the proposed new access is to be installed (required to be completed prior to first dwelling being occupied) with visibility splays of 2.4m x 70m in both directions and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1.05m in height above adjoining carriageway level. This also requires no obstruction (i.e. any vegetation, trees, fences, gates, walls, sheds, greenhouses, play equipment, and any other structures) exceeding 1.05m in height above adjoining carriageway level within the front garden of the dwelling on Plot 3.

Reason: To ensure safe access onto the highway in the interests of highway safety both during the construction period and afterwards

C 8. 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 fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected or placed within the curtilage of any dwelling house forward of any wall of that dwelling house which fronts onto a highway, without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area and to ensure visibility is not impeded by building/structures forwards of the dwelling on Plot 3.

C 9. Prior to the commencement of any development additional information shall be submitted in writing and approved by the Department to demonstrate that the drain detention basin design accords with industry practice e.g. CIRIA SuDS Manual - Design Assessment Checklist: Infiltration / Detention Basin. The Detention Basin and associated drainage scheme approved under these details and shown on drawing 002 REV L and 100 REV A are required to be in place before the occupation of the first dwelling and shall be retained and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure appropriate surface water drainage of the site and prevent off site flooding. C 10. The protection measures and construction methods detailed in the Tree Survey and Report prepared by Manx Roots submitted in support of the application shall be adhered to in full, subject to the pre-arranged supervision detailed in (Section 1 of the Arboriculture Method Statement), by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, or wilfully destroyed during the development phase and 5 thereafter within 5 years from the completion date, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars or as may be permitted by prior approval in writing from the Department. This condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development subject to satisfactory written evidence of contemporaneous supervision and monitoring of the tree protection throughout construction by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist.

Reason: To safeguard the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.

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

Reason for approval: It is concluded the proposals complies with the relevant planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and the IOM Development Plan 1982 and Residential Design Guide 2019. Accordingly, on this basis it is recommended the application is approved subject to conditions as listed and subject to a Section 13 Legal Agreement. ______

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

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

Flood Management Division (DOI) Manx Utilities The Public Estates and Housing Division (DOI)

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):

The owner/occupier of Ballachurry Farm Cottage, Bernahara, Andreas - 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 4(2):

The owner/occupier of 21 Little Meadow, Andreas 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.

It is noted that a copy of a letter signed by local residents against the building of 17 houses (PA 18/00980/B) at the site was included as part of the submission of the owner/occupier of 21 Little Meadow, Andreas. However, this signed letter does not refer to the current proposal in terms of description or refer to the current application number. Accordingly, it is not considered the address listed (see paragraph 5.9 of this report) can be considered in terms of Interested Person Status. ______

6

Planning Officer’s Report

THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPROVAL WILL BE SUBJECT TO A SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENT IN RELATION TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND AS THE PROPOSAL COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL

0.0 PREAMBLE 0.1 The planning application was deferred by the Planning Committee in order that the heads of terms of the Section 13 agreement be clarified with regard to the drainage and Public Open Space.

0.2 Since this time the applicants have provided the following comments: "To keep you in the loop I write to advise that I have today made a verbal approach to the Andreas Commissioners offering to deposit on behalf of the developer a maintenance fund of £5000.00 with them, this to be used only for the maintenance of the open space at the development. This will be subject to a formal legal agreement and the developer will meet all legal costs associated with it.

As you are aware the planning committee, through their deliberations, were concerned that the formation of the management company would be an unnecessary burden on the first- time buyer element of the development. Whilst the costs are not finalised, from the initial quotations received that equates to circa £40.00 per year per household or 77 pence per week per household, we accept their decision (don't see the logic in causing the delay but accept nevertheless) to defer the decision-making process pending the intervention politically to regularise the sustainable detention basin type storm water design.

As I understand it MU, as part of the on-going response to the climate change emergency, is looking at sustainable drainage options of which the detention basin option is one. The problem then exists that in statute there is no requirement for them to adopt the solution being proposed. Clearly this needs to be urgently addressed and then the matter of adoption will fall to the MU.

Our development if granted approval on the basis that the adoption of the PoS is in temporary abeyance can then progress. I set out a simple timeline:

Activity Date

Pay commissioners a legal maintenance retainer April 2021 Planning approval granted with condition relating to April 2021 June 2021- Dec 2022 PoS Construction period PoS maintenance March 2023 - November 2027 MU and Central Government agree detention basin April 2021 - March 2028 adoption format

I may be over simplifying the matter but it seems that seven years to agree the practicalities and legal requirements for a detention basin adoption does not appear too onerous a burden on the departments involved; especially as the climate change issue is high on everyone's agenda. In return Andreas and the North gets the benefit of 27 new homes, 5 of which are first time buyers, the commissioners benefit from the rated income, the school, pub, shop and other local amenities are supported through additional community involvement.

Can you please discuss this proposal at whatever level you feel appropriate and press that this is urgent to allow the development to proceed?"

7

0.3 Further It has been acknowledged that while utilising sustainable drainage systems is an appropriate means to deal with surface water drainage and is a recommendation set out in the National Strategy on Sea Defences, Flooding and Coastal Erosion, there is no agreed mechanism for their future maintenance, nor a requirement that either the local authority or Manx Utilities adopt them. Officers within Government are pursuing a resolution to this situation, however this may take some time to be agreed. In the meantime the applicants have offered a solution by way of a management company to deal with maintenance. This is not an ideal solution but is the best option in the current circumstances, especially given planning approval for a very similar scheme has already been approved and could be implemented without such measure in place. Further, it is note the cost of the management company to maintain the Public Open Space/detention basis is approximately £40 per year, per dwelling which is not considered to be unreasonable or unaffordable for any occupant of the dwelling. Further, the maintenance cost essentially cover the cutting of the grass/landscaping and ensuring the outflow pipe is in good working order. There is not expensive elements to the cost in question i.e. no private pumping stations etc. which in years to come will require extensive equipment to be repaired/replaced.

0.4 It is therefore again recommend that a Section 13 Legal Agreement be undertaken which requires the maintenance of the Public Open Space and drainage detention basin by a private management company (27 dwellings forming a part of) until such time as the Public Open Space and drainage detention can be adopted and maintained by a Local Authority or Government Body.

0.5 Please note, with the exception of paragraph 8.1 (to reflect the previous comments) there are no other chances to this report.

1.0 SITE 1.1 The site defined in red is a parcel of land, 3.04 acres (1.2 hectares) which is made up of part of part of Field 121388 and Former Dale Nurseries all located to the north western side of Andreas Road, northeast of Little Meadow Housing Estate and to the west of Andreas Village.

1.2 The application site as the name suggests, is defined when viewed on site as two separate areas. The east section of the site is part of part of Field 121388. The site is rectangular in shape measuring 1 acre with no built development, and having a character of a flat field. The boundaries of the site are characterised with mature landscaping, with the northern boundary including a number of mature trees. The site is accessible to Oatlands Road via an existing field gate access, which is located to the south-western corner of the site.

1.3 The second part of the site which makes up the remaining 1.8 acres is more irregular in shape (the maim section almost L-shaped) which is currently covered by a larger amount of built development, in the form of three detached glass greenhouses, all in a state of disrepair. The greenhouses have a total floor area of approximately 3092sqm which covers the 7149sqm site (1.8acres).

1.4 The site is currently served by a vehicular access (shared with neighbouring property Drayton Lode & The New Bungalow) to the south-western corner of the site which adjoins onto Little Meadow.

2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of 27 dwellings with associated access, drainage, and open space. A previous application (18/00980/B) has recently been approved (23.10.2020) on the same site for the residential development of 17 dwellings with associated roads, plots, drainage and public open space.

8

2.2 The proposal includes a total of twelve houses types, ranging from detached bungalows, semi-detached bungalows, two storey terraces, two storey semi-detached properties, and two storey detached properties. The dwellings would be finished in a mixture of painted render, slate effect concrete tiles, and slate grey aluminium/uPVC windows

2.3 A total of 2089sqm of public open space is proposed within the site, the main part within the centre section of the site. Further, more useable Public Open Space can be found to the southern corner of the site (running parallel with Oatlands Road). There is further public open space scattered within the estate, in the form of amenity spaces (i.e. landscaped areas). Additional native tree planting and additional landscaping is proposed within and around the southern boundaries of the site.

3.0 PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 The application site is within two separate designations under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The eastern part of the site i.e. Field 121388 is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential Use (existing). The western part of the site i.e. Former Dale Nurseries is not designated for development. The site as a whole is not located within a Conservation Area, nor within in Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.

3.2 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 this current planning application:

3.3 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 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."

3.4 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."

3.5 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."

9

3.6 Environment Policy 10 states: "Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4."

3.7 Environment Policy 13 states: "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted."

3.8 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."

3.9 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 spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

3.10 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(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);

10

(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."

3.11 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."

3.12 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."

3.13 Transport Policy 1 states: "New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes."

3.14 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."

3.15 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."

3.16 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards.

The current standards are set out in Appendix 7."

3.17 Recreation Policy 3 states: "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan."

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:

4.2 Residential development of 17 dwellings with associated roads, plots and drainage - 18/00980/B - APPROVED.

4.3 Approval in principle for erection of five dwellings addressing means of access and siting - 15/00875/A - Field 121388, Oatlands Road, Andreas - 15/00875/A -APPROVED

4.4 Extension to existing glasshouses for preparation of plant feed, Dale Nurseries Ltd, Andreas - 85/01119/B - APPROVED 11

4.5 Erection of four polythene greenhouse tunnels, Dale Nurseries - 85/00020/B - APPROVED

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Andreas Parish Commissioners have objected to the application on the following grounds (20.08.2020): "I have to inform you that Andreas Parish Commissioners have now considered the above plans as received 28th July 2020 and that at this stage feel unable to support this until such time as the following issues have been suitably addressed, and that they (the Board) are confident that there will be no undue or additional expense or hardship on existing rate payers within the Parish. The Commissioners note that there has been a detailed report undertaken by BB Consulting Engineers appertaining to the drainage management and the flood risk of this site, the salient points of which are: (Drainage report) "Item 2.6 - There is a surface water pond and watercourse within the proposed development site. The watercourse flows in a south-westerly direction along the southern boundary of the site towards Andreas Village, where it connects to the existing public surface water drainage system."

(Flood Risk Assessment) "Item 2.1 - The mechanism of flooding at the site and in the locality of Little Meadow is well known and demonstrated within detailed technical reports commissioned by the MUA and which BB Consulting have seen. The flooding is a result of flow backing up in the existing culvert at Little Meadow, which in turn is due to the inadequate capacity of the existing sewer network within Bride Road and backfalls within the local drainage network."

To date the Commissioners have not had sight of these technical reports from the MUA, nor any satisfaction in their previous request to rectify the issues causing the flooding. This same issue was raised in October 2018 (copy attached for reference) when the initial application was made and whilst some remedial repairs have taken place, the problem within Bride Road still remains as the works were never completed conclusively.

However, on 19th August the Commissioners met locally with representatives of the MUA who have advised that the wider issue of the main drain in the village into which the surface water from this development ultimately discharges is currently being assessed and remedial works are to begin imminently.

There remains concern within the Commissioners regarding the upkeep and maintenance of the retention basin within the site, designed to collect all excess water should the volume exceed the existing drainage system design capability in any single rainfall event. It is felt that any additional maintenance of this area over and above the standard requirements of grass cutting should not be borne by the rate payers of the Parish.

Again, following the Commissioners meeting with the MUA on 19th August they (the MUA) have advised that it is their sole responsibility to permanently maintain the discharge mechanism from the retention basin and subsequent flow throughout the local drainage network.

The Commissioners are further concerned that the parking allocation within the proposed development will not be adequate and will restrict access for Service vehicles (e.g. Emergency and Refuse). This in turn will also increase propensity of roadside parking in an area which by the very nature of the development may well have a higher density of younger children thereby creating an additional but avoidable safety risk. Whilst it is accepted that the parking allocation meets the required numbers for the size of the development, it is a fact that this 12 site is within a rural area which already has few and at times inadequate public transport options. The opportunity for employment in the area is extremely limited so it would be prudent to assume that many householders may well have additional vehicles to commute to their workplaces. The Commissioners, therefore, request that consideration be given to encompass additional overspill parking within the proposed development.

This could be achieved by utilising some of the grassed areas, which, as, by their own admission, the developers do not consider a play area priority due to the close proximity of the village Sports Field.

Only when the above issues have been addressed satisfactorily will Andreas Parish Commissioners feel confident in supporting the development."

5.1.1 Following these comments and amended plans being submitted, the Commissioner's made the following final comments (08.03.2021) "The Commissioners have considered this application at length, and whilst recognising the land zoning and that existing planning policy supports this proposal, the Commissioners have difficulty in adding their support to the matter due to the following concerns.

Having considered all the submissions which seem to seek resolution to the potential successful drainage of the site, the Commissioners are not convinced that the proposed detention basin sited on what is termed 'public open space' will be 'fit for purpose' considering the already problematic drainage infrastructure of the village.

The existing drainage throughout Andreas is already at capacity and any proposal which could add to the current flooding being experienced by residents cannot be supported.

The proposed detention basin and flood management states an expectation from this Authority to adopt management of the same at the end of the build. The Commissioners, for what is a very small rural community, with residents already having flooding problems, have these issues at the forefront of their concern.

The unknown obligation and whether the suggested resolve will work, and how it will be managed moving forward leaves the Authority unable to offer or commit to any future adoption at this time, should any approval be granted.

The Commissioners are also extremely concerned that the lack of pavements and road width within this development will cause problematic access for service vehicles and create a very congested finished product.

Finally, the Commissioners would like it to be noted that the selected landscaping for the development is, in their view, fast growing and costly to maintain, with the added potential to obstruct vehicular vision and pedestrian access along footpaths. It is considered high maintenance, over and above what they would consider necessary for public open space being maintained at public expense.

In conclusion, The Commissioners reiterate they will not undertake any adoption commitment at this time, which will leave such to be resolved between MUA and the developer. The concern being that should the proposed drainage system fail, the management may fall to future residents of the site or potentially, the rate payers of Andreas Parish.

These issues were raised by the Commissioners in their response to the Planning Board in August 2020 and further discussions have failed to allay their concerns for the future development of this site."

5.2 Highway Services made the initial comments (03.08.2020): 13

"Please could the Applicant / Agent provide additional information and revisions mainly for clarity purposes: i. Separate drawings showing the main junction at the site and Oatlands Road visibility splay and swept paths or a revision of the same drawing with different colours showing the tracking and the visibility splay. There are too many lines in the same colour to distinguish adequately, the tracking from the visibility splays and other features, such as the path and the boundary. ii. Visibility splays for the accesses serving plots, 2 and 3 from Oatlands Road which too must be to Design Manual for Roads and Bridges standards. CD123 refers. iii. Revisions to the internal junction: a. Tracking to left and right inbound and outbound is necessary b. Native hedging must be located outside of visibility splay at height below 1.05m c. Pedestrian crossing and tactile paving incorrectly drawn d. Transition to junction table interferes with driveways serving plots 5 and 6. iv. Confirmation of adequate clearance by the tracking vehicle of margins / kerb check at the turning heads. v. Revisions to driveway widths. These must be a minimum of 3.4m where shared between vehicles and pedestrians. Extra width allowances should be made where there are side by side driveways, particularly where these are adjoining neighbouring plots, such as at plots 8 and 9, 20 and 21 and 25 and 26. vi. Provision of separate covered and secure bicycle parking for units without garages."

5.2.1 Following additional information/amended plans Highway Services made the following comments (09.02.2021): "The revisions clarify the site layout and demonstrate by a swept path analysis that a larger vehicle can enter and turn adequately on there being no on-street parking. The parking risk should be reduced on car parking being provided for each plot in accordance with the Strategic Plan car parking standards of at least two car parking spaces per unit with 18 plots having garages of suitable size to count as parking and to allow the storage of bicycles and other items. Bicycle parking is necessary for the nine units without garages in a secure, covered storage facility. Electric vehicle charging points should be considered to aid low emission objectives. A designated path is to be provided within the shared surface section with a junction table provided at the intersection with the segregated path. Surface water is to be contained within the site.

The proposed creation of the access junction and direct accesses onto Oatlands Road require visibility splays of 2.4 x 70m in each direction at a height not exceeding 1.05m would be subject to a s109(A) Highway Agreement to form the new connections to the existing public road. One plot is to be accessed of the private lane adjoining Little Meadow which is considered suitable. It is understood that the internal street and the connecting path to Little Meadow are to become highway maintainable at public expense for which a separate technical approval and s4Highway Agreement are necessary. The 'Give Way' sign on Little Meadow would require repositioning. Both Highway Agreements would arise after planning consent is granted.

The proposal does not raise significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services raise no objection subject to conditions for the layout to accord with Drawing No: 002 Rev L, visibility splay at the access junction and direct access onto Oatlands Road to be provided and retained at 2.4 x 70m in each direction at a height not exceeding 1.05m and the provision of bicycle parking for nine units without garages. An advisory is required to apply too for s4 and s109 (A) Highway Agreements.

14

Recommendation: DNOC"

5.3 The Public Estates and Housing Division (DOI) comment (14.08.2020); "We refer to the aforementioned planning 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.

Current data drawn from Housing Division records for Ramsey and the North indicates that there are 67 persons on the general public sector waiting list for affordable housing to rent. There are also 9 persons on the active first-time buyers register seeking to purchase a first home in the North of the Island. This figure is not indicative of likely final purchases as the ability to progress to completion would depend upon personal circumstances and mortgage ability at point of allocation.

The department would therefore request that consideration be given by the Planning committee to include a requirement, in respect of any approval granted for this site, for the applicant to enter into a Section 13 Agreement with the Department to provide affordable housing, based upon the usual calculation of 25% of the number of units approved within the application. The Department can confirm that the Proposed Site Plan indicates that five homes are identified as being suitable for affordable housing, and therefore a Commuted Sum will be required for the difference between the 25% affordable homes (6.75) and the proposed number (5). We can also confirm that the architect for the scheme has discussed the application with the Department.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the application."

5.4 The Arboricultural Officer (DEFA - 06.11.2020); "I would like to make the following comments in relation to application 20/00740/B - Erection of 27 dwellings with associated access, drainage, and open space.

The land is currently a mix between garden, agricultural land and horticultural usage. There are mature broadleaf trees boarding the site and mixed ornamental trees within the site.

The Arboricultural impact assessment submitted in support of the application has highlighted the potential removal of 19 individual trees and 4 tree groups. 2 Category B trees (T14&15) have been proposed to be removed in order to facilitate development. These trees are good quality however do to their location, do not provide much public amenity value, but are in good condition. The remaining trees are category C and U and are mainly situated amongst other retained trees, so there will be little landscape impact if they were to be removed.

The proposed retained trees are at risk of damage from the construction of the properties, so protection will be required. The tree protection plan, produced by Manx Roots in support of this application will afford the trees adequate protection and I recommend you add a condition in order to ensure their protection. There is no replanting plan I am aware of and due to the potential loss of canopy cover, replanting should be considered, I recommend you request this detail.

1. The protection measures and construction methods detailed in the Tree Survey and Report prepared by Manx Roots submitted in support of the application shall be adhered to in full, subject to the pre-arranged supervision detailed in [insert section], by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted, or wilfully destroyed during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the completion date, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars or as may be permitted by prior approval in writing from the Department. This condition may only be fully discharged on completion of the development subject to satisfactory written evidence of

15 contemporaneous supervision and monitoring of the tree protection throughout construction by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist.

2. No works or development shall be carried out until the Department has approved in writing the full details of all trees to be planted, including a) their quantity, location (or density), species (botanical names), size at date of planting; b) the approximate date when they are to be planted; and c) how they will be maintained until successfully established."

5.5 Manx Utilities initially made the following comment (01.09.2020): "Manx Utilities Authority has assessed the above planning application and would like to advise you that the Authority has no objection to the application subject to the following condition/s:-

It is recommended that the applicant needs to clarify the full ownership of the basin attenuation as Manx Utilities will not consider this for future adoption.

There must be NO discharge of surface water (directly or indirectly) from this proposed development to any foul drainage system(s) so as to comply with the requirements of Manx Utilities and the Sewerage Act 1999.

The proposed dwelling must be connected to the public sewer(s) in a manner acceptable to Manx Utilities. All drainage works must conform to the requirements of "Manx Sewers for Adoption", any necessary CCTV surveys are to be carried out at the developer's expense. There is no public foul or surface water sewer in the above location. However, there is an existing Surface water culvert nearby to the site which can be used. During very heavy rainfall this culvert does surcharge so as discussed we would require attenuation. In accordance with the Sewerage Act 1999 communication fees will be payable to Manx Utilities Authority, 27 x £1500.00 = £40,500.00 will be payable in respect each property being connected (directly or indirectly) to the public drainage system…".

5.6 Ecosystems Policy Officer (DEFA) makes the following comments (25.08.2020): "Prior to determination of this application the Ecosystem Policy Team request that a number of changes are made to the planting proposals as shown in the proposed site plan:

1. Removal of Griselinia littoralis (New Zealand Broadleaf) and cotoneaster sp. from the boundary planting and native hedgerow planting lists - Both of these plants are listed on Schedule 8 Part II of the Wildlife Act 1990. It is an offence to plant, or otherwise cause to grow in the wild any plant listed on Schedule 8.

2. Within the Tree Planting Specification are 2 planting lists - Native Hedgerow Planting 1 and Native Hedgerow Plating 2. A number of the species on this planting list are not native to the Isle of Man. These species are: o Buddleia o Fuchsia o Escallonia macrantha o Hebe wiri image

All of these non-natives should be removed from the planting list and replaced with Isle of Man native species. Use of native species is particularly important around the boundary of the site and on any planned Manx sod hedges. Additionally, the A3 Plans state that the Manx sod hedges will be sown with native hedgerow species or daffodils and I do not think that daffodils are appropriate.

3. Overall, with the plans as currently shown, we feel like there will be a net loss for biodiversity on site due to the loss of a number of trees and the mature hedgerow along the 16 north of the site. There will be upwards of 20 trees removed to facilitate the development and only 4 native trees planted.

Therefore, in order to comply with Strategic Policy 4 (b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, we would like to request that additional native tree planting be incorporated into the sites design and further native boundary planting, particularly around the western edge of the site where very little planting has been planned."

5.7 DEFA Fisheries (08.12.2020) make the following comments: "DEFA Fisheries has no objection to this proposal providing the works are conducted according to written method statements agreed in advance with the Inland Fisheries Section of the Fisheries Directorate, DEFA. Reason: to allow DEFA Fisheries to provide advice on a suitable approach to construction, in order to reduce the possibility of injury or disturbance of fish further downstream.

The applicant is advised to contact DEFA when works are due to commence, which can be done by email or telephone. In the meantime please contact Inland Fisheries on 685857 with any further queries."

5.8 The owner/occupier of Ballachurry Farm Cottage, Bernahara, Andreas who owns land adjacent to the site (opposite side of Oatlands Road - Fields 121424, 124284 &121285) objects to the application on the following summarised grounds (12.08.2020); when Little Meadow Estate was built in the 90's no details were given for the historical culvert running to the southwest of the site was to be filled in by the Developer to make the gardens bigger; the Developers filled the culvert with three large land pipes and filled them over; this was done without input from any wider authority; the issue only came to my families attention when the surface water started to backup (culvert pipes laid too high) and refused our fields becoming boggy and field with water reeds and therefore remains unstable for stock or planting; concerns with this application and last that the retention pond/dub within the site to hold water, until the drains could take the water; concern the water will just run to the existing drains/culverts which cannot cope currently; Flood Risk Assessment is poor and does not give the simplest details as to the capacity of surface water, from a now increased 27 houses, which the suggested dentation area is required to hold and to which ditch will these waters flow to; and question the demand of more houses and thought the need for houses was near to Douglas. 5.9 The owner/occupier of 21 Little Meadow, Andreas has submitted a copy of a letter signed (12th November) by local residents against the building of 17 houses (PA 18/00980/B) at the site, which includes photographs of flooding at the rear of their property. The full list and details can be viewed on the Planning web site. In summary the objections state: We bought the property unaware of water problems in the area and it was not disclosed by the previous owners that the property would flood in heavy rain; when there is heavy rain the garden fills with water often resembling a swimming pool; on one occasion we had to borrow a water pump for 3 days; more dwellings as proposed will increase the water problems to the area; every time it rains the main roads around Little Meadow have water fathering on them, large puddles as water has nowhere to go flooding properties and neighbouring fields; and object the building of more properties on the site as I fear it will make existing problems worse and eventually create new ones. This letter is signed by the following:

Nr 1a Little Meadow, Andreas Nr 2b Little Meadow, Andreas Nr 3 Little Meadow, Andreas Nr 4 Little Meadow, Andreas Nr 5 Little Meadow, Andreas Nr 6 Little Meadow, Andreas Nr 7 Little Meadow, Andreas Nr 8 Little Meadow, Andreas 17

Nr 10 Little Meadow, Andreas Nr 12 Little Meadow, Andreas Nr 15 Little Meadow, Andreas Nr 18 Little Meadow, Andreas Nr 19 Little Meadow, Andreas Nr 22 Little Meadow, Andreas

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 Given the land-use designation and the type of development the following elements are relevant to consideration in the determination of this application; (a) principle of development; (b) the potential impact upon the visual amenities of the area; (c) potential impact upon neighbouring amenities; (d) potential impact upon highway safety; (e) potential drainage/flood issues (f) Affordable Housing potential (g) Open Space Provision; and (h) Potential impacts upon trees.

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT 6.2 As outlined within the planning policy section of this report, the site is partially proposed for residential use (eastern section Field 121388) and partially not designated for development (western section former Dale Nursery), albeit the latter currently has a large amount of built development on.

6.3 The recently adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 has been undertaken and adopted, which identified that a total of 770 new dwellings are required to be provided between the years of 2011 to 2026 in the North of the Island. A total of 5,100 dwellings are required over this same period throughout the Island. Andreas Village is regarded as a Service Village under Spatial Policy 3 which also states that "Housing should be provided to meet local needs and in appropriate cases to broaden the choice of location of housing".

6.4 As part of the Area Plan for the East process, a Site Assessment Framework published as part of Preliminary Publicity includes net density assumptions (including open space but not strategic provision) - High (40 - 100 dph) i.e, "Town centre development, typically development which is apartments or terraced housing. Medium density (15 - 30dph) i.e. Larger sites close to the settlement centre, typically estates incorporating different dwelling types including some apartments and terraced housing and low density i.e. larger sites towards the edge of settlements, consisting of mainly houses and bungalows with relatively few apartments or terraces and low density (5 to 10dph).

6.5 This proposal would be on the low side of medium density being 22dph. The previous approved scheme resulted in 15dph, again within the medium density range. It should be noted that while the amount of dwellings has increased, this is because the type of dwellings have altered. The last approved scheme proposed larger detached properties (generally 4 bed dwellings) whereas the current application proposes small types of properties (generally 2 to 3 bed dwellings). In terms of built development when viewed from the street scene, the amount of built development in likely to be similar.

6.6 Strategic Policy 1 indicates we should optimise the use of previously developed land and ensure efficient use of sites (taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity) and that development should be located to make best use of planned and existing infrastructure, facilities and services. As Andreas is a 'Service Villages' and it is considered further dwellings located in this settlement as proposed, are in line with sustainable objectives of the overall IOMSP, i.e. people living close to existing services/employment and have less reliance of cars. This site would fit well with that brief. The site is 1.1 hectares. It is partially brownfield, close to a good bus route, near to local shops/nursery/post office/pub, Andreas Primary School and large amount of Public Open Space.

18

6.7 However, as mentioned previously while the eastern part of the site is on land designated for residential development (and has had recent approval for five dwellings albeit now expired), the eastern part is not. The Department has no concerns with the principle of developing the eastern part of the site once again. The question is whether permission should be allowed for the western part of the site to be developed for residential development. In this case there are a number of factors in support of development.

6.8 Firstly, General Policy 3 paragraph (C) indicates that; "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;".

6.9 Further, under appendix 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan the term is defined as:-

"Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.

The definition includes defence buildings, but excludes: o Land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings. o Land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures. o Land in built-up areas such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments, which, although it may feature paths, pavilions and other buildings, has not been previously developed. o Land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings).

There is no presumption that land that is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing development nor that the whole of the curtilage should be developed."

6.10 It is considered the site and associated buildings, structure and hard standings would all meet the definition of "previously-developed land" and therefore the principle of utilising this section of General Policy 3 is acceptable. The next question is whether; "…where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment…". It is potentially difficult to argue that the proposed development reduces the impact, given the amount of dwellings proposed and necessary road infrastructure, compared to the existing low level green houses. It is therefore difficult to argue the proposal meets this section of the policy. However, in terms of whether; "…the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment.", it is considered the overall development would significantly improve the landscape and wider environment given the overall scale in its context with the settlement which is sites within and given the quality of the layout of houses, different house types, density, landscaping and open space provision; which all amount to an visual impact of the site and area, albeit accepting the level of built development is more apparent from public views.

6.11 The site has been in a poor state of repair for many years and a blight to the village and street scene, which is unlikely to be brought back into it original use, given this condition.

6.12 A second factor in support of development is the sites surroundings, in terms of built development or potential built development. To the north east of the site are existing properties (Oatlands Bungalow & Oatlands Lodge) and to the rear of these properties is the eastern part of this site which is designated for development. Immediately to the southwest 19 and west of the site is Little Meadow Housing Estate (23 dwellings), Drayton Lodge & The New Bungalow and to the northwest of the site is land that is designated for development and has had approval for 24 residential plots (00/00196/B). Accordingly, given these factors it could be considered the site; albeit on a larger scaled, could be classes as an infill site given the existing built development and surrounding land which is currently designated for residential development.

6.14 Lastly a significant material consideration is the fact an extant approval existing on this site for residential development which was considered against the same policy consideration and Development Plan.

6.13 Given the reasons stated it is considered the principle of developing the site for residential purposes is acceptable. This is not an automatic reason to allow development as further material planning matters as indicated previously need to be considered, to determine if the 27 dwellings on the site is appropriate.

THE POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE AREA 6.14 General Policy 2 paragraph (b) states that the design should respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them.

6.15 The site from public views would be noticeable when passing the site, with the two bungalows on Plots 1, 2 & 3 which directly front onto the site being the most apparent features on the site from Oatlands Road. These dwellings would fit with the existing character of properties along this section of Oatlands Road which currently are mainly made up of bungalows (Oatlands Bungalow & Oatlands Lodge) to the northeast of the site. Furthermore, within the garden of Oatlands Bungalow there was a recent AIP application for a further single storey dwelling (16/00811/A - since expired). Views would also be achievable from Oatlands Road between the dwelling on Plot 3 and Oatlands Bungalow of sections of the proposed estate, albeit the closest views would be over the public open space and landscaped area, which essential would create a more natural buffer between the dwellings and Oatlands Road. Additional, should a dwelling within the garden of Oatlands Bungalow ever been completed (land designated) then this would lessen the impact further of the housing development.

6.16 The layout, density, housing types, design of dwellings and finishes are considered to be a high standards and would result in a housing estate which would be a nice place to reside and see from Oatlands Road, resulting in a beneficial development in terms of its visual appearance in the street scene. While the proposed 27 dwellings is 10 dwellings more than previously approved, as mention this is due to smaller properties being proposed, the actually built development (i.e. built form) on the site is not so significant to warrant a refusal now.

6.17 Whilst there will be an impact to the visual amenities of the area over the current situation, it is considered the proposals would be acceptable and comply with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP.

POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES 6.18 The second issue relates to the potential impact of the development upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties, namely Oatlands Bungalow, Oatlands Lodge, Drayton Lodge & Bungalow to rear of Drayton Lodge (name not known). Given the size of the site and number of dwellings, all properties adjacent to the site will be impacted by the development. Any development would have an impact; the issue to consider is whether the proposed development would significantly impacts upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties. Generally the main issue relate to overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy, overbearing impact upon outlooks and/or loss of light.

20

6.19 In terms of overlooking a general guide which the department utilises is the 20 metres measure, which is taken between direct facing windows. In this case all of the proposed dwellings with direct facing windows are greater than 20 metres from neighbouring existing surrounding properties. Where this gap is closer the proposed dwellings either have their gable end wall facing neighbouring properties or orientated away from existing properties. Further there can be found existing/additional landscaping is in.

6.20 The design and siting of the dwellings from neighbouring properties and sun orientation (east to west), all ensure there is no significant overbearing impacts upon neighbouring properties or loss of direct sunlight.

6.21 Overall, whilst the proposed development will have an impacts upon existing surrounding neighbouring properties, it is considered for the reasons given the proposed development would not having an significant impacts upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and therefore comply with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON HIGHWAY SAFETY 6.22 Firstly, all properties meet the required parking standards providing at least two off road parking spaces. Comments made by the Commissioners are noted, however the IOMSP only requires two spaces per dwelling and that has been achieved.

6.23 It should be noted that the visibility splays can achieve the 2.4 x 70m in both directions. In fact visibility to the north is unrestricted at 220m and to the south at 167m from the centreline of the access with a 2.4m setback. The only issue relates to the 0.5m off set. While in some cases that can cause concern; for instance a visibly splay may be achievable, but within the middle of the splay there is a kink in the road, which essential creates a blind stop where a car would disappear for a few seconds and reappear suddenly, hence a highway safety issue, although technically providing the visibility splay. However, this is not the case. The site is on the outside of a bend and has unrestrictive views of the whole highway and footpath well above the required visibility and along the public footpath and with no features (landscaping, walls etc) blocking any views. This is evident when viewing from the position of the new access, when visiting the site. Consequently visibility is considered to be acceptable.

6.24 Accordingly, the application complies with Transport Policies 1, 4, 6 & 7 and the parking standards of the IOMSP.

POTENTIAL DRAINAGE/FLOOD ISSUES 6.25 As can been seem from the comments of all parties and the applicant, there is an accepted issue with the existing surface water drains within Andreas Village. From comments received there appears to be two areas of concerns with the existing drains. The first is the drainage pipe within and underneath the rear gardens of Nr 1a to 14 Little Meadow, which from comments received indicate that the filling up of the original ditch (to create larger gardens) and not properly installing appropriate drains, results in the water backing up towards the site and neighbouring fields. The second area of concern seems to be the potential partial or fully blocking up of the existing drains between Lawn House and Andreas Stores.

6.26 This application does not, nor can it address the existing issue as the issues fall outside the supplicant ownership/control. Manx Utilities also acknowledge these concerns and the issues in the previous application, albeit comment that although these works will be addressed, they are not proposed for the short or medium term.

6.27 The drainage of the scheme has been undertaken by a drainage engineering company as has the Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). It is proposed to provide a detention basin within part of the Public Open Space area, also known as sustainable drainage system (SuDs). These are areas which are designed to reduce the potential impact of new and existing 21 developments with respect to surface water drainage discharges. The SuDs essentially stores any surface water with an outfall to the existing ditch system restricted to a rate of 7 litres/second/hectare. The proposal is designed to serve all hard surfaces and currently ignores the beneficial effects of proposed private soakaways within the rear gardens of Plot 13 to 16. It is designed for a 1 in 100 year rainfall event and a minimum storage volume of 291m3.

6.28 The FRA indicates that currently the surface water runs directly from roof and hard surfaces on the site into the existing ditches (along southern boundary of site) with no meaningful attenuation and runs into the surface water drainage network, in Little Meadow. The applicants indicate there is currently hard surface run-off from the existing site totalling 3171sqm. The proposed site equates to 4498sqm of hard surfacing (i.e. roads, driveway, roofs etc). It should be noted that this is less than the previous approved application which had hard surfacing of 5049sqm. Due to this increase in hard surfacing and due to the sensitively to surcharging of the receiving surface water network, the above mentioned detention basin is proposed to accommodate all hard surfacing on the site. The applicants advise that the proposals will reduce the amount of surface water entering the existing system and therefore can only have a beneficial effect on the flooding currently experienced in the locality. They comment that it would certainly not make the existing flooding any worse.

6.29 Manx Utilities have again (as previously) raised no objection to the proposal, although they have again commented that the basin attenuation will not be adopted and will be up to the developer or future residents to maintain.

6.30 There are two options in relation to this aspect of the proposal. Firstly, approving the application, and accepting that while the existing drainage system is clearly inadequate due to blockages and poor installation; this proposal would be an improvement in essentially reducing or preventing the amount of surface water into this existing drainage system. The second option would be to refuse the application as the existing system cannot adequate deal with surface water, albeit the existing site would still drain into this system with no meaningful attenuation. This option may also restrict any development in Andreas till this issue is resolved. Further, the previous application accepted the first option, which had a greater level of hardstanding and potential for surface runoff.

6.31 In terms of flooding of the site the Flood Management Division (FMD) have indicated that they are generally satisfied that internal floor levels are appropriate and there will be no detriment off-site, the SuDS drainage must function correctly. We will request further information to demonstrate that the design accords with industry practice e.g. CIRIA SuDS Manual - Design Assessment Checklist: Infiltration / Detention Basin. Discussions with the FMD have advises that in principle the detention basin should be acceptable, albeit the Design Assessment would ensure that it is appropriate. It is worth nothing that the dentation basin of the size proposed was approved under the last application; albeit did not seek this information. The Planning Department does not generally get involved in the precise details of such drainage works (normal building control or other legislation). The Department does however, need to be comfortable that the principle for the works can be achieved. Accordingly, in this case with the comments made by the FMD it is considered a condition could be attached which requires a Design Assessment Checklist: Infiltration / Detention Basin be provided prior to any works commencing.

6.32 Overall, the scheme to provide a drainage system within the site has been approved previously and therefore the Department is comfortable that the principle of the "offline" solution appears to be acceptable with Manx Utilities and the applicant's drainage engineers. A condition should be attached to any approval which requires the drainage basis and associated drainage works be in place prior to the occupation of any dwelling on the site. Further a Section 13 Legal Agreement should be signed which requires the applicants to set 22 up a Management Company (for the 27 dwellings) which will maintain the open space and detention basis.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION 6.33 As indicated by Housing Policy 5 the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing when developments are of 8 dwellings or more. On this basis a total of 6.75 affordable units would generally be required. In this case the applicants have been in discussion with the DOI Housing Division and both parties have agreed that the applicant will provide 5 dwellings (one more than previous application; albeit more dwellings) and a commuted sum in lieu of the shortfall of 1.75. The Department did ask the DOI Housing Division why six AFH units could not be provide don site. The Division stated: "We asked for 6 AHU's but the architect told us that it was very difficult to fit the full allocation within the schematic layout as they had drafted so we accepted 5 plus Commuted Sum. This was accepted as we are going to have a substantial number of new Affordable Homes coming from the Poyll Dhooie site (subject to planning) and possibly more from the Milntown application so the North will be very well provided for."

6.34 Addition comments from the Housing Division include: "I think that the Department's acceptance of the shortfall, when compared to the normal 25% Affordable Housing contribution, was in this case founded on the matter raised in my earlier email, and that is the fact that the great majority of applicants for first time buyers housing seek homes in, and on the outskirts of, Ramsey. The number of persons seeking first time buyer units in the North as their first choice, as confirmed in the First Time Buyers Total Register dated 1st February 2021, is split between Ramsey and Maughold (23) and Northern Parishes (2). Whilst it is possible that some of the people on the Ramsey list may be willing and able to purchase a house in Andreas, the official Northern Parishes waiting list only contains a small number of applicants. Accordingly, it may well be that the approved and forthcoming schemes in Ramsey will be able to provide suitable affordable housing in the area of the town that the waiting lists/register indicates.

On a second point, there is no Housing Authority serving the Andreas area, and that would mean that DOI acting in its capacity as a Housing Authority would be the body which would allocate Affordable housing as public sector housing for rent. Waiting list numbers for public sector housing in the Northern parishes are very small save for Ramsey Town Commissioners which has a substantial waiting list.

The Commuted Sum proposed, of £110k, is substantial and will help greatly for the funding of affordable housing in areas where there is proven ongoing demand."

6.35 It is noted that DOI Housing commented that there are only 9 persons on the active first-time buyers register seeking to purchase a first home in the North of the Island (not just Andreas). This figure is not indicative of likely final purchases as the ability to progress to completion would depend upon personal circumstances and mortgage ability at point of allocation. Accordingly, while there are 9 not all these person would be able to complete a purchase or want to live at the site. The commuter sum payment is paid to the DOI Housing Division and this can be used in other areas of the IOM, potentially where there is greater demand. A counter argument is that the site does not provide the six units on the site and while there may be difficulties to fit this additional unit within the site, the site is larger enough. However, given the proposal provided one more AFH on site than the extant approval and as a commuted sum payment for the 1.75 unit shortfall (equating to £110,377.41 would still be paid), and as there is no objection from the DOI Housing Division, in fact confirming that the commuted sum could be used to areas with greater demand, it is considered the application on balance is acceptable on this issue. A Section 13 Legal Agreement will need to be agreed.

23

OPEN SPACE PROVISION 6.36 Recreation Policy 3 indicates that where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan.

6.37 The proposal would provide one main area of open space within the centre of the site, with other smaller areas to the south of the site and others around the site. The latter being more of an amenity benefit rather than being useable as POS. In total the proposal would provide 2089sqm. The required amount is 2112sqm. There is a shortfall of 23sqm, however, it is not considered this is so significant to warrant a refusal. It should be noted that there is a large area of POS (larger open areas of grass/fields partially formally laid out as sport pitches and children's play area both within a few minutes (under 5 mins) walk away, with good footpath access. Accordingly, the Department was content that more formal POS (sports pitches etc) or children's play area were not required on this site, give the site is within safe walking distance of such provision.

6.38 Overall, it is considered the proposal would meet the aims of Recreation Policy 3.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON TREES 6.39 As outlined by the Arboricultural Officer the proposal would result in the removal of 19 individual trees and 4 tree groups; however, the Officer does not raise an objection. The majority of the trees to be removed are located in the centre of the site (where approved to be removed previously) are not of a high quality. The majority of tree loss is to the rear north boundary of the site. While there are some quality trees being lost, the arboricultural report indicates that the removal would be beneficial to the trees proposed to be retained given the closeness of some of the trees. From public views, the loss of these trees would not be noticeable given existing dwellings/landscaping in the area and especially if the new dwellings where built.

6.40 While a number of landscaping is proposed within the site, it is considered more planting could be achieved within or around the frontage of the site. Accordingly, a landscaping condition should also be included for additional planting to what is already shown.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, for the reasons indicated within this report it is concluded the proposals complies with the relevant planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and the IOM Development Plan 1982 and Residential Design Guide 2019. Accordingly, on this basis it is recommended the application is approved subject to conditions as listed and subject to a Section 13 Legal Agreements.

8.0 SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENT 8.1 This application is recommended for an approval subject to a Section 13 Legal Agreement for five affordable houses within the site and a commuted sum payment in lieu of the shortfall of the 1.75 units (£110,377.41) and which requires the maintenance of the Public Open Space and drainage detention basin by a private management company (27 dwellings forming a part of) until such time as the Public Open Space and drainage detention can be adopted and maintained by a Local Authority or Government Body.

9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; 24

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

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

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

25

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 10th May 2021

Item 5.2 Proposal : Erection of 12 residential dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping Site Address : Bix House And Land To Rear Farmhill Lane Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 2EB Applicant : Hartford Homes Ltd Application No. : 20/01531/B- click to view Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer

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

C 2. No dwelling shall be occupied until the estate road from the junction of the adopted highway to the access of that dwelling has been constructed at least to base course level and lighting has been provided.

Reason: In the interest of Highway Safety and provide access to each dwelling.

C 3. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling 2 car parking spaces associated with that dwelling as shown on approved drawing 122 REV A shall be provided and retained free from obstruction thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the car parking standards are met in the interests of highway safety.

C 4. No tree marked as being retained on drawing TR-101220 shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of occupation of the dwelling, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. In the event that retained trees become damaged or otherwise defective during the construction phase due to events outside of the applicant's control the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action approved in writing by the Department and implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that trees marked for retention are not removed, in the interests maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated.

C 5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS), adhering to the recommendations of BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - recommendations), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The AMS should address the specification of the protective fencing to be used, the installation of temporary and/or 26 permanent ground protection, the installation of new hard surfacing (materials, design constraints and implications for levels) with the RPAs of retained trees, preparatory works for new landscaping and how the project arboriculturist and/or construction manager will carry out arboricultural site monitoring during construction, including a schedule of specific site events requiring input or inspection. The agreed protection measures, construction methods and site monitoring shall be adhered to in full.

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

C 6. The implementation of the tree protection measures set out in the approved Arboricultural Method Statement (required under condition 5) shall be monitored by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist, in accordance with the details contained therein.

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

C 7. All tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the BS8545:2014 Planting Proposal report and drawing MP-101220 prepared by Manx Roots and submitted in support of this application. The planting shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the completion or occupation of any part of the development (whichever is the sooner,) or otherwise in accordance with a programme to be agreed.

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

Reason: to ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs.

C 8. All recommendations listed within the approved "Preliminary Ecological Appraisal Report" prepared by Manx Wildlife Trust dated December 2020 (Sections 5.1 to 5.15) are to be fully adhered to.

Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site.

C 9. Prior to the commencement of the development a Construction Environmental Management Plan (which will outline how the construction project will avoid, minimise or mitigate effects on the environment and surrounding area during construction) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department and this approved plan shall be full adhered to.

Reason: In the interest of the environment/biodiversity during the construction period.

C 10. There shall be no external lighting of the woodland footpath or of the woodland boardwalk loop path development hereby approved unless otherwise approved in writing by the Department.

Reason: In the interests of wildlife within the area.

27

C 11. No development shall take place until landscaping details (size, height, centres etc) of the low level hedging (Griselinia littoralis should not be used) between each dwelling and along the rear boundaries of Plots 22 to 28 (replacing the timber fencing as shown on Drawing 124) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. 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. No permission is granted for any fence or wall to be erected to the rear of Plots 22 to 28 either now or in the future.

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

C 12. The woodland path running from the estate road to the Lheannag Park estate road shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to occupation of any dwelling and retained thereafter.

Reason: It is essential for a footpath link to be in place between the site and Lheannag Park for amenity purposes.

C 13. No development shall take place until a Drainage Strategy and associated detailed design, management and maintenance plan of surface water drainage for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

The approved drainage system shall be implemented in accordance with the approved Drainage Strategy prior to the occupation of the dwellings and maintained thereafter for the lifetime of the development in accordance with the approved maintenance scheme.

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

C 14. 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 fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected or placed within the curtilage of any dwelling on Plots 22 to 28, without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.

Reason for approval: It is concluded the proposals complies with the relevant planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, Residential Design Guide and the Area Plan for the East and therefore it is recommended the application is approved subject to conditions as listed and subject to a Section 13 Legal Agreements relating to Affordable Housing provision, provision and maintenance of the woodland boardwalk and Public Open Space provision/commuted sum for shortfall.

______

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

28

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

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

It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2): o Annacur Cottage, Annacur Lane, Douglas o 38 Farmhill Park, Douglas o 39 Farmhill Park, Douglas o 40 Farmhill Park, Douglas

As they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (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 4(2): o 36 Farmhill Park, Douglas

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. o 35 Farmhill Park, Douglas o 43 Farmhill Park, Douglas o 30 Melbourne Street, Douglas o 12 Bluebell Close, Douglas o 1 Hedgerow Close, Douglas o 3 Farmhill Lane, Douglas o 12 Harcroft Meadow, Douglas o 28 Pinehurst Avenue, Saddlestone o 4 Robin Lane, Douglas o 28 Harcroft Avenue, Douglas

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. ______Planning Officer’s Report

THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPROVAL WILL BE SUBJECT TO A SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENT IN RELATION TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND OPEN SPACE PROVISION AND THE LEVEL OF WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS CONTRARY TO THE RECOMMENDATION 29

1.0 SITE 1.1 The site defined in red is a parcel of land, 2.27 acres (0.9 hectares) is currently party of the rear garden of Bix House and part is a woodland area. The property Bix House and is curtilage is shown in blue on the location plan and is owned by the applicants. However, with the exception of boundary changes and splitting off the rear garden of Bix House, there are no changes to this property.

1.2 The site is located to the north eastern side of Farmhill Lane and west of Farmhill Park. The site (within red line) can be split into two sections (shown as Zones C & D on submitted plans). Zone C is the parcel of land which currently forms part of the residential garden of Bix House. It is characterised as having a gently slope (flat in places) running downwards from Bix House towards Zone D and is in large parts lawned but with a central section of woodland which was planted by the owners of Bix House a few decades ago (1980's). To the northwest boundary; which is shared mainly with Nr 38 Farmhill Park, but to a lesser extent Nr 39 Farmhill Park, there is significant leylandii hedgerow of a significant height (5m+ in height). To the northeast boundary of Zone C is the beginnings of the woodland area of Zone D, there is currently no physical barrier (fence/wall) at this point. To the southeast boundary is a sod bank with mature trees. This boundary adjoins the neighbouring site which is currently being developed for housing. The south-western boundary is currently open as it forms part of Bix House curtilage; but also back onto the rear boundaries with Farm Hill Cottage and Nr 40 Farmhill Park.

1.3 Zone D character is a wooded area, which ground level is below that of Zone C. This area is a typically wooded area with many trees of various sizes and types bit also watercourse and dubs in places. This area is currently not open to member so the public, being part of the ownership of Bix House.

1.4 The site to the south east, south, south west and westerly directions the areas are characterised as housing sites which have been developed gradually over the last few decades. To the north and northeast of the site are characterised as wooded areas/Ballaughton Park/Ballaughton Nurseries.

2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of 12 residential dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping. The proposal includes a total of two houses types all two storeys, mainly detached, but three terraced properties (affordable housing). There are also variations in finishes (fully brick, part brick part render, mostly render with brick detailing etc.). The proposal includes; 9, four bedroom dwellings and 3 two bedroom dwellings. All have at least two off road parking spaces. The housing is all located within Zone C. No housing development is proposed to Zone D (i.e. woodland area).

2.2 Access form the site will be form the neighbouring housing development (16 dwellings approved under 19/01408/B) which is currently under construction, utilising the approved main estate access onto Annacur Lane.

2.3 The proposal includes the provision of three areas of Public Open Space within Zone C. It also proposes to made the woodland in Zone D open to member so the public, which includes the creation of a woodland walk (new paths etc.) through the woodland (a loop) which also connects into a new footpath to run along the southeast boundary of woodland, connecting the application site to a new footpath within the Iheannag Park (residential estate) which has links to a further public footpath to Ballaughton Park. The new paths and woodland walk would be open to the public to use.

3.0 PLANNING POLICIES

30

3.1 The application site, including the woodland area (Zone D) is within an area recognised as being an area of "Predominantly Residential" under the Area Plan for the East. The site is not within a Conservation Area.

3.2 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 this current planning application:

3.3 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 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."

3.4 Spatial Policy 1 states: "The Douglas urban area will remain the main employment and services centre for the Island."

3.5 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."

3.8 General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

3.9 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." 31

3.10 Environment Policy 4 states: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect: (a) species and habitats of international importance: (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites.

(b) species and habitats of national importance: (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats; (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or (iv) National Trust Land. (c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats.

Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."

3.11 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."

3.12 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."

3.13 Transport Policy 1 states: "New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes."

3.14 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."

3.15 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."

3.16 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards.

The current standards are set out in Appendix 7." 32

3.17 Recreation Policy 3 states: "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan."

3.18 Residential Design Guide - July 2019

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

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

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

4.3 Approval in principle to the layout of plots and roads, Land adjacent to Farmhill Manor, Ballaquark Estate, Douglas (Amended Resubmission) - 86/01382/A - APPROVED

4.4 RECONSIDERED - Layout of new streets and sewers for residential development, Field 2043, Farmhill Lane, Douglas - APPROVED - 87/00912/B

Adjacent site 4.5 Erection of 16 dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping works (revised scheme to approved PA 18/00862/B) - 19/01408/B - APPROVED

4.6 Erection of 16 dwellings with associated infrastructure and landscaping - 18/00862/B - APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS All comments received can be viewed in full on the Planning Departments website. 5.1 Douglas Borough Council made the following comments (16.02.2021): "Following consideration of the planning application listed above, I can advise that Douglas Borough Council has no objection to the application. The Council gave consideration to the amendments that had been made to the original application and believes that the changes made could be considered as addressing many of the objections that had originally been made. The Council accepts that there will still need to be several legal agreements put in place regarding access rights to the proposed paths along with agreements over the ongoing maintenance of these public areas to ensure that the public can continue to benefit from the remaining woodland areas. The Council also notes that there will be a requirement for an agreement to be reached over the adoption and ongoing maintenance of a small stream/ditch as referenced within the comments made in the submission by the DOI's Flood Risk Management Division. Pending satisfactory agreements being reached the Council has no objection to the application."

5.2 Highway Services have no objection to the application (18.01.2021) making the following comments: "Reference made to planning approval 19/01408/B

Accessibility: 33

The site is considered to be accessible to sustainable forms of travel. The proposal enhances walking. This is welcomed. The proposed layout includes a 1.5m footpath for recreational purposes and connectivity to Lheannag Park on agreement. The width is above the minimum 1.2m. Details of the termination and connections will be necessary and a S4 Highway Agreement should the path be intended as highway maintainable at public expense after the grant of planning consent. Consideration should be given to paths to link the picnic tables from the street.

Vehicular Access and layout:

The proposal provides a north westerly extension of a 5.5m adoptable standard shared surface internal street to be formed under Approval 19/01408/B leading to a turning point and serving driveways and a layby. An upgrade to the junction with Farmhill Lane is approved under the earlier application too and would remain suitable to cater for the additional 12 units proposed under this application; although adjustments will be necessary to better accommodate buses.

The southern section of the proposed street has a width of 3.67m over a distance of 6.5m before widening to 5.5m to retain a tree. The width reduction is acceptable over short distances and would remain adequately sized for emergency and larger vehicle use. A swept path analysis using a waste collection vehicle as shown within the submitted Technical Note demonstrates that turning is satisfactory too. Additionally, suitable manoeuvres are shown for a large car too. The proposed layby for visitor parking is to be positioned south of plot 17 and is suitably dimensioned at 6 x 2.4m A separate s4 Highway Agreement would apply to this section as well as those sections adoptable under 19/01408/B or for those under 19/01408 to be amended by a Deed of Variation.

Plot driveways suitably dimensioned for shared use between vehicles and pedestrians with most having side by side car parking at 6.5 x 6.0m. Plot 17 has a longer driveway for a tandem arrangement at 11 x3.4m, and Plots 18 and 19 have one 3.4m width driveway and the adjacent one at 2.5m which would remain adequate. The proposal shows integral garage for nine units. These are below recommended size of 6 x 3m to count as parking to be 5.0 x 2.5m, and for the four bedroomed units and 5.5 x 2.6m for the five bedroomed units. These would allow parking for small vehicles or serve as storage for bicycles and other items. Electric vehicle charging points should be considered.

There is space for waste bin storage for street side collection.

Parking: The proposal identifies a total of 26 car parking spaces with each plot having two 'open' car parking spaces per unit compliant with Strategic Plan standards. Two others are formed by the layby. Acceptable storage for bicycle parking is to be provided by way of garages for nine units and within sheds for the three units without garages.

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

Traffic Impact The proposal is predicted to increase vehicles by eight vehicles in each morning and afternoon peak hour equivalent to one vehicle per six minutes, adding a small amount to the 10 two-way peak hour vehicular traffic movements proposed under 19/01408/B which would be within the limits of materiality not to cause undue highway efficiency issues on the approved upgrading of the Farmhill Lane junction.

Road Safety: 34

The proposal does not give rise to significant road safety issues. The submitted Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and the Designer's response raised an issue with the potential kerb height south of the proposed layby as being too high to cause a trip hazard. This is to be resolved on lowering it at the detailed design stage. This should be in order. The matter is further safeguarded at the next stage when a Stage 2 RSA would be undertaken as part of the street highway adoption process under a s4 Highway Agreement.

Conclusion: As drawn the proposal is satisfactory in highway terms for Highway Services to raise no opposition subject to conditions to cover the extension of the street, driveway access, driveways, hardstanding for car parking to accord with Drawing No. 122 rev A; footpath to Drawing No 128 with details required of terminating and connecting points; garages and sheds for bicycle parking. An advisory to apply too for a s4 Highway Agreement adoption of streets and paths.

Recommendation: DNOC"

5.3 Department of Infrastructure - Public Estates and Housing Division made the following comments (08.01.2021); "We refer to the aforementioned planning 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.

Current data drawn from Housing Division records for Douglas and the East indicates that there are 222 persons on the general public sector waiting list for affordable housing to rent. There are also 33 persons on the Active first-time buyers register seeking to purchase a first home in Douglas, and 117 on the Total first-time buyer register. This figure is not indicative of likely final purchases as the ability to progress to completion would depend upon personal circumstances and mortgage ability at point of allocation.

The department would therefore request that consideration be given by the Planning Committee to include a requirement, in respect of any approval granted for this site, for the applicant to enter into a Section 13 Agreement with the Department to provide affordable housing, based upon the usual calculation of 25% of the number of units approved within the application. The Department can confirm that the Proposed Site Plan indicates that three dwellings, Plots 17-19, are identified as being suitable for affordable housing.

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to comment on the application."

5.4 The Ecosystems Policy Officer (DEFA) comments (21.01.2021); "The DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team confirms that the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) submitted with this application is in order and an appropriate level of assessment has been undertaken. o If this application is approved, I ask that the mitigation measures detailed in section 5.0 of the Manx Wildlife Trust Preliminary Ecological Appraisal dated December 2020 (Sections 5.1 to 5.15), be secured with a planning condition. REF - (2001531B APL Prelim Eco Appraisal Report 1 of 3.pdf, 2001531B APL Prelim Eco Appraisal Report 2 of 3.pdf, 2001531B APL Prelim Eco Appraisal Report 3 of 3.pdf.) o I also request that a condition is secured for a Construction Environmental Management Plan (which will outline how the construction project will avoid, minimise or mitigate effects on the environment and surrounding area during construction) to be submitted to planning for written approval prior to development commencing.

35 o Though no site lighting is currently proposed, I request that a condition is secured for no external lighting to be installed unless a detailed external low level lighting scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Department, which is in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8 Bats and Artificial Lighting (12th September 2018). o Lastly, though document '2001531B APL A1 Site Plan' contains the details of tree and hedge planting across the site with specific tree species. There is no species listed for the proposed low level hedging. I request that a condition is secured to ensure that New Zealand Broadleaf (Griselinia littoralis) is not used as this is a Wildlife Act 1990 Schedule 8 Invasive plant."

5.5 The Senior Forestry and Arboricultural Officer (DEFA) makes the following comments (26.01.2021): "This application replaces application 20/00824/B which was withdrawn before it was determined. In terms of the arboricultural impact/ issues this development is very similar.

The Directorate's comments on this previous application are attached for reference. I am pleased to report however that the amendments presented in this new application have addressed all of the Directorate's objections. These were:

1. The proposal does not provide adequate trade-off between the loss of tree canopy cover and the gain of public amenity through increased public access to adjacent woodland, as discussed in pre-application consultation. In addition to the link path, which will now be constructed to an adoptable standard, this application provides a loop path through the woodland area to east of the houses. This path will provide valuable amenity to local residents and access to nature.

2. The incursion in to the RPA of T25 is likely to result in a reduction in the safe useful life expectancy of this Category A tree. The addition of a narrowed section of road acting as a traffic calming measure has significantly reduced the RPA incursion. I am confident that the residual risk can be successfully managed through on-going arboricultural supervision during the construction phase.

3. The proximity of plots 22-25 to trees to the North-East is likely to lead to future pressure to remove trees marked for retention; the design will fail to achieve a harmonious relationship between trees and structures that can be sustained in the long term. The distance between the trees and plots 22-25 has been slightly increased. This, in conjunction with the pruning described in paragraph 6 of the arboricultural impact assessment, will improve the relationship between the trees and houses in the short to medium term. In the longer term, following further growth of the trees, there is still likely to be some future pressure to prune or remove trees but I am confident that this can be managed through the Tree Preservation Act (because the trees are currently registered and a licence would be required to undertake the work).

4. The woodchip providing a link between the proposed development and the existing Lester's Yard is likely to need replacing in the future, which will put retained trees at risk. The link path will now be constructed to an 'adoptable standard'. The DoI (the adopting authority) have confirmed construction on a cellular confinement system sub-base, which will be necessary to protect the rooting areas of the existing (retained) trees, is compatible with the adoptable standard. This version of the development includes a drainage ditch along the northern boundary of the site connecting to a watercourse within the existing woodland (covered by construction exclusion zone in tree protection plan). This represents a risk to retained woodland trees but it is fortunately located in a natural woodland clearing, so the risk should be small. I am confident, therefore, that the installation of this ditch can be

36 successfully managed through on-going arboricultural supervision during the construction phase. If this application is approved I recommend that the following conditions are applied:

1. No tree marked as being retained on drawing TR-101220 shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of occupation of the dwelling, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. In the event that retained trees become damaged or otherwise defective during the construction phase due to events outside of the applicant's control the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action 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 a detailed Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS), adhering to the recommendations of BS5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction - recommendations), shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The AMS should address the specification of the protective fencing to be used, the installation of temporary and/or permanent ground protection, the installation of new hard surfacing (materials, design constraints and implications for levels) with the RPAs of retained trees, preparatory works for new landscaping and how the project arboriculturist and/or construction manager will carry out arboricultural site monitoring during construction, including a schedule of specific site events requiring input or inspection. The agreed protection measures, construction methods and site monitoring shall be adhered to in full

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

3. The implementation of the tree protection measures set out in the approved Arboricultural Method Statement (required under condition 2) shall be monitored by a suitably qualified and pre-appointed tree specialist, in accordance with the details contained therein.

Reason: Required to safeguard and enhance the character and amenity of the site and locality by ensuring compliance with the tree protection and arboricultural supervision details submitted under condition 2 and to ensure that professional technical advice is on hand to deal with problems that arise or modifications that become necessary

4. All tree planting shall be carried out in accordance with the BS8545:2014 Planting Proposal report and drawing MP-101220 prepared by Manx Roots and submitted in support of this application. The planting shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the completion or occupation of any part of the development (whichever is the sooner,) or otherwise in accordance with a programme to be agreed.

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

Reason: to ensure the provision, establishment and maintenance of a reasonable standard of landscape in accordance with the approved designs.

If you have any questions in respect of these comments please do not hesitate to contact me." 5.6 Inland Fisheries Foreman (DEFA) seeks Development within 9 Metres of a Watercourse' form be completed (19.01.2021). 37

5.7 Manx Utilities (Drainage) comment (03.03.2021); "We have reviewed the above application and apart from some minor comments are happy with the proposals. Please be advised that there are some minor tweaks needed on the drainage layout, these are as follows: MU will not permit pumping mains to connect directly to the proposed public foul system, these will need to connect into a discharge chamber before connecting by gravity into the foul system. The SW system can be rationalised with at least one manhole being removed. These amendments can be agreed post planning and updated and submitted as part of the Section 8 agreement (this will not be a section 4 agreement as Hartford have suggested) prior to work commencing. If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me"

5.7 Department of Infrastructure Flood Risk Management Team made the following comments; "DEFER The flood risk assessment has been reviewed and our input has been deferred pending further information: - The long term maintenance of the ditch is to be the property owners/local authority. The maintenance should be carried out by a public body and this should be agreed at planning stage. - The surface water from dwellings will be either the public sewer system or the ditch. A decision on this should be made at planning stage and stated within FRA document. - The attenuation will discharge flow of 0.07m3/s. Attenuation should limit discharge to greenfield runoff rates. This flow rate appears too high. "

5.8 A number of private representations have been received from the following addresses: o 12 Bluebell Close, Douglas x2 (14.01.2021); o Annacur Cottage, Annacur Lane, Douglas (14.01.2021); o 36 Farmhill Park, Douglas (26.01.2021); o 35 Farmhill Park, Douglas (28.01.2021); o 38 Farmhill Park, Douglas (01.04.2021); o 39 Farmhill Park, Douglas (25.01.2021 & 06.04.2021); o 40 Farmhill Park, Douglas (24.01.2021, 01.04.2021 & 14.04.2021); o 43 Farmhill Park, Douglas (date not known); o 30 Melbourne Street, Douglas (27.01.2021); o 1 Hedgerow Close, Douglas (14.01.2021); o 3 Farmhill Lane, Douglas (15.01.2021); o 12 Harcroft Meadow, Douglas (15.01.2021); o 28 Harcroft Avenue, Douglas (21.02.2021); o 28 Pinehurst Avenue, Saddlestone (01.03.2021);

5.8.1 Full details of the comments can be viewed on the Planning Departments Website. Who in the summary the comments are; o development as proposed would detract greatly from our enjoyment of our home (Nr 40 Farmhill Park); o covenant exists that only one house may be built on each plot; o Farmhill Estate and, in the early 1980s, the estate owners obtained planning consent for the construction of some 40 good sized, individual houses on large, well spaced plots, incorporating a wide strip of open space; o The proposed development would destroy the amenity value and outlook from our house (Nr 40) which is, and always has been, so important to us. The proposed plot 21 in particular would have a direct line of sight into our living room and bedrooms as would plot 20, to a lesser extent. The proposed planting of a line of trees would have little effect on this for many years, if at all;

38 o The site is zoned as "predominantly residential" for the simple reason that it is the back garden of an existing house. Whilst the zoning may be accurate, that is, in our opinion, insufficient reason now to view it as a development site; o The Area Plan for The East identifies sufficient sites to meet the foreseeable housing needs of the Eastern Area and it does not include the current site in the housing numbers of the plan; o Application 96/1864 for construction of 3 houses on this same site was refused; o The proposed 12 houses would be and how entirely out of keeping they would be with both our property and the wider area of Farmhill Park, which is comprised entirely of larger, detached houses on individual plots; o A total of 138 trees, creating some 3,396 sq.m of canopy cover would be removed for this development with the obvious adverse effect on the environment and wildlife; o The Report of Manx Roots The report recommends the removal of 34 weak trees in order to preserve the remaining, healthy ones. There is no denying that this action would be the correct way forward but felling the remaining 104 healthy trees purely to facilitate the development would be entirely wrong; o The copse of trees form an attractive urban canopy, providing nesting, foraging and roosting opportunities for a variety of birds and small animals; o The decimation of this woodland would result in significant Ecosystem and biodiversity loss; o the suggested planting is estimated to replace only 767sq.m of canopy. i.e. less than 25% of that lost; o the proposed development immediately adjacent to the woodland area would have a major detrimental effect on the wildlife there, effectively destroying their habitat; o Immediately to the North of the proposed development are other similar, large gardens and further backland development could be undertaken; o Contrary to Environmental Policy 42 and General Policy 2b), c), d) and g); o The previous Inspector who refused 3 dwellings stated: ""I would attach much weight to the expectations of householders to the designating by condition of the area including the appeal site as open space. To my mind, nothing in the definition of open space in the 1982 Order predicates the approval of buildings in such areas as suggested. For this reason, the appeal should fail"; o The application will eliminate around 130 large trees. The government promised to plant 1000 additional trees in urban areas by 2024; o Ecosystem & Biodiversity loss will be significant. We notice significant wildlife in our garden, that no doubt wander from the copse woodland including Bats, Butterflies, Toads, Newts, Finches, Thrushes, Wrens, etc., also hearing a Woodpecker, which we believe are rare here; o Contrary to Environment Policy 3 & 4; o Fails aims of Area Plan for the East; o Contrary to General Policy 2 (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality and b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; o The developer has made no contact or consultation, regarding this latest application, with regard to those neighbouring properties; o Hedges proposed will take 5 years to protect privacy, if at all; o Fails Area Plan for the East which states; The density of development should be in keeping with the character of the local area; o Concerns of the surface water attenuation capacity tank is insufficient; o Committee Members should visit the site; o Concerns of impact on schools places and infrastructure; o Concerns of noise during construction; o Additional houses means additional traffic;

39 o The new development will add further traffic to Annacur Lane, which is immediately adjacent to my property (Annacur Cottage); it will inevitably increase traffic flow along the lane in both directions outside my drive, making a significant danger to all road users; o children use this outdoor natural space . It is the last remaining wooded area and better suits supporting nature and should be left to nature; o There will be a lowering in quality of life for the people that look out on to the property; o need to protect the wooded area and stop the Destruction of a natural Habitat, and protect our wildlife within the Douglas area; o Protecting what is already there and promoting such acts is what matters; o Additional documents only deal with the impact upon numbers 39 and 40 Farmhill Park; and no consideration whatsoever has been given to the impact upon us as owners of 38 Farmhill Park despite; o The current proposals for the Woodland Walkway would enable the general public to gain access to our rear boundary; o Removing the 31 conifer trees along boundary would have a negative impact on us as they currently provide, screening of noise; screening from high winds; drainage for our garden and surrounding area; o ecological gain that will be gained by the planting of new trees. This cannot be so if the planting of the new trees is reliant upon the removal of 131 existing trees; o protect our garden from strong winds and create additional habitat for the many wildlife species that the, 150 trees Hartford Homes propose to cut down in a scorched earth policy, support in the large tree canopy area; o overall group should be protected rather than the diametrically opposed proposal, which is to completely destroy it; o CGI images the windows seem to be missing, no doubt an oversight but a reflection of the lack of attention to detail in the image production o We would like to extend this invite to the planning committee who would also be very welcome to visit our house and ascertain for themselves what is the real situation, anytime they can; o The applicant has posted a number of Computer Generated images of the proposed development which serve only to support our concerns as expressed in that submission o This proposed development fails on so many counts to meet to requirements of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 o There are many species of birds and we regularly have hedgehogs in area; o The expansion of housing is causing the woodland to be eroded and then destroyed; o Traffic densities and traffic flow will be far greater than that presented; o This development must not be allowed and the long term biodovesity of the Island preserved o

5.9 Capt. Paul Quine MHK for Douglas South objects to the application which can be summarised as (31.01.2021); I have been contacted by numerous people who are fearful of the consequences should this application be allowed. Amongst the issues raised are the environmental impact to the area, seeing the felling of up to 150 mature trees and the decimation of any habitat for wildlife which would occur, resulting in irreparable damage to the local biodiversity; In addition the construction would see significantly increased traffic volumes around Lhennag Park, Farmhill, lower Anagh Coar and Saddlestone, resulting in a severe degradation in the quality of life of residents, particularly elderly residents who wish to cross from Anagh Coar into Lhennag Park at the junction of Cushag Road and Annacur Lane; The construction of 12 dwellings would also result in an acute deterioration of the outlook from the existing properties in Farmhill Lane, Ballaughton Meadow, Lhennag Park, Harcroft Meadow, Pinehurst Avenue, Manor Woods and Farmhill Park as a consequence.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 40

6.1 Given the land-use designation and the type of development the following elements are relevant to consideration in the determination of this application; (a) principle of development; (b) the potential impact upon the visual amenities of the area; (c) potential impact upon neighbouring amenities; (d) potential impact upon highway safety; (e) affordable housing provision; (f) open space provision and (e) potential impacts upon trees/wildlife.

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

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

6.4 The Planning Inspector for the Area Plan for the East has revisited these housing numbers and now the amount of dwellings in the East has initially been reduced to 1500, albeit including the Strategic Reserves sites this gives a total of 2440 new dwellings as initially suggested by the IOMSP. The site in questions was not specially allocated in the housing number (not all sites are). However, the fact remains the land is designated as "predominately residential" use. The adjacent site (approval for 26 dwellings) was considered by the Inspector during the Area Plan process. A "Notional Number of Dwellings" of 10 was given on this site; however, this did not necessary mean that only 10 can be approved. 16 had already been approved on the site and the very meaning of the word "Notional" is not an absolute. Further, the whole purposes of undertaking this assessment are to ensure that there is sufficient land designated to meet the housing needs throughout the East of the Island. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible; to give precise housing number on each site; as generally only once a detail application has been submitted and considered all the issues can a judgement be made. Furthermore, during the Area Plan Process not all sites are precisely allocated, rather are 'washed over', in this case the site was washed over in pink colour on the maps to identify residential designation. This designation is a continuation of the Douglas Local Plan 1998 land use designation which also designated it as "predominately residential".

6.5 In terms of the Area Plan process and the Inspector report, it is importantly to note, the Inspector also commented that; "I consider the priority should be given to development of land allocated for residential development within existing settlements. That would provide about 560 dwellings as shown in table 1 below….". While the current application site was not included within this table, it is within an area allocated as residential and within an existing settlement.

6.6 In terms of the density of the application site and that of the surrounding housing developments it is important to note the guidance within the Residential Design Guide 2019. This indicates that: "Land is a finite resource and it is important to strike a balance between the need to make best use of land (i.e. by maximising densities, so that as many dwellings as possible can be provided on the least amount of land thus reducing the need to develop new areas) and the need to make sure that new developments are attractive and fit-for-purpose. The Site Assessment Framework for the Area Plan for the East contained broad assumptions about typical densities for different locations and types of developments, and these can provide a helpful starting point. However, these should not be taken as targets. In reality, the 41 development that takes place may be of a higher or lower density and, as determined by the context of the site and/or the location."

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

6.8 In this case the application site (without the woodland being excluded) would represent 24.61 dwellings/hectare. Including the woodland (it would be public open space) the site is 12.8 dwellings/hectare. The adjacent housing development (Farmhill Grange Development) which is current under construction and would link into this proposed development represents 26.47 dwellings/hectare.

6.9 Regarding neighbouring developments in the area: o Lheannag Park 36.76 dwellings/hectare; o Woodland View & Appledene Court 47.03 dwellings/hectare; o Ballaquark Estate 30.94 dwellings/hectare; o Farmhill Grange Development 26.47 dwellings/hectare; and o Farmhill Park 6.24 dwellings/hectare;

6.10 An argument in favour of the proposed development is that considering the density of the site against these other housing sites, the density in the main would appear to fit well with the existing housing densities in the area, and namely with the Farmhill Grange Development which this development essential form part of.

6.11 A counter argument is that Farmhill Park to the west/northwest of the site less dense development (6.24 dwellings/hectare) and refusal for three dwellings was refused in 1996 on the grounds that; "The proposed development would be contrary to the terms of the planning approval for the overall layout and use of this land (PA 87/0912), whereby the site formed part of an area of Private Open Space adjoining the stream course…".

6.12 However, since this refusal 25 years ago, there has been the Douglas Local Plan being adopted (1998) and more recently the Area Plan for the East 2020 which both designated the land as residential. Furthermore, the IOM Strategic Plan has been adopted in 2007 and updated in 2016 (Housing numbers only). The IOMSP and the Area Plan for the East main aims is to provide more sustainable development and in terms of new housing development which is required this is by located new housing in existing settlements.

6.13 Strategic Policy 1 from the IOMSP indicates we should optimise the use of previously developed land and ensure efficient use of sites (taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity) and that development should be located to make best use of planned and existing infrastructure, facilities and services. As Douglas is a "Main Employment and Service Centre", again it is considered the majority of dwellings would be located in and around this area, in line with sustainable objectives of the overall IOMSP, i.e. people living close to existing services/employment and have less reliance of cars. This site would fit well with that brief. The site is 0.49 hectares. It is close to good bus routes, near to local shops/pubs, surrounded by existing development to the South, West & Northwest,

42 existing parks and playgrounds (Ballaughton Manor Park & Anagh Coar) are within a short walking distance to the east and south of the site.

6.14 Accordingly, while the previous refusal is of material planning weight; it is a matter of balance whether this outweighs more recent planning policy which would appear to support the principle of residential development on this site. In this case it is considered the passage of time of the previous decision and more up to date planning policy which would support the development of land designated for development it is consider the principle of developing the site for residential development is acceptable. This is not an automatic reason to allow the planning application, as further material planning matters as indicated previously need to be considered, to determine if the 12 dwellings on the site is appropriate.

THE POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE AREA 6.15 General Policy 2 paragraph (b) states that the design should respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them.

6.16 The site from public views would be generally well screened given existing properties surrounding the site namely those within Farmhill Park and the new dwellings within Farmhill Grange Development. There may be glimpses of the dwellings, albeit these will be limited and be seen in connection with existing residential properties which is the character of the area generally.

6.17 The surroundings area's character is mainly of residential development and this proposal would just be a continuation of this existing character in a suburban location. While there is a significant amount of trees proposed to be removed, the trees in question from a visual perspective do not contribute significant to public amenity, as similar to the proposed dwellings, they are screened by existing built development in the area and landscaping within the area. The issue of the potential ecology issues by the tree removal will be consider later in this report.

6.18 The site will become more apparent once it is completed, especially as the new public footpaths through the site and into the wooded area will provide new public vantage points. However, the boundary treatments of the dwellings, especially those fronting onto the wooded/public footpaths are proposed to be hedgerow/bank/mixture of the two, rather than the 1.8m timber fence as shown on the submitted plans. It is considered, especially in the longer term that a fence would appear as a hard barrier between the two areas, while a hedgerow etc. would be more in keeping. The applicants are happy for a condition to amend this boundary feature to a more suitable feature. However, in terms of the street scene, the design, layout, finishes and scale of the development would be appropriate.

6.19 It is perhaps also worth considering the density of the development as discussed earlier in this report and whether the density of this development is in keeping with the area. While density figures can be helpful in considering whether a site is appropriate level, it is perhaps more importantly to consider how a site actually fits in its context, especially when viewed in the public realm. Clearly the site density (24.61 dwellings/hectare) is greater than the adjacent Farmhill Park (6.24 dwellings/hectare); however, of built, the two area form public views are not going to be read as one, As mentioned from Farmhill Park, public views of the site would be limited by the dwellings within Farmhill Park and landscaping between each dwelling. The application site is more likely to be read in context with the Farmhill Grange Development (26.47 dwellings/hectare) which essential these 12 dwellings would form a continuation of, especially given the new public footpath links though both sites. Following this process through, the Farmhill Grange Development is publically viewed in context with Lheannag Park (36.76 dwellings/hectare) to the east and Woodland View & Appledene Court (47.03 dwellings/hectare) to the west. Accordingly, from the main public

43 views of the application site, it is not considered that the proposed development would be out of keeping with the majority of hosing in the immediate area.

6.20 Accordingly, whilst there will be an impact to the visual amenities of the area over the current situation (i.e. a garden), the impact to public views would not be significant and it is considered the proposals would be acceptable and comply with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP.

POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES 6.21 The third issue relates to the potential impact of the development upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties. Given the size of the site and number of dwellings, all properties adjacent to the site will be impacted by the development. Any development would have an impact; the issue to consider is whether the proposed development would significantly impacts upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties. Generally the main issue relate to overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy, overbearing impact upon outlooks and/or loss of light.

6.22 In terms of overlooking, the Residential Design Guide advises that a 20 metre gap between direct facing windows of habitable rooms should be retained. In this case all the proposed dwellings with direct facing windows towards neighbouring windows are greater than 20 metres. Nr 40 Farmhill Park is approximately 28+m away and Nr 39 Farmhill Park is approximately 34+m away both from the closest dwelling Plot 21. Further, the finished floor level of Nr 40 is set above the finished floor level of the dwelling on Plot 21 by approximately a storey in height (see Site Section Plan). Between the boundaries of the two above sites is existing landscaping varying in height, some of which would screen views of the site. However, there are sections where views from Nr 40 especially, but also Nr 39 would look towards the proposed new dwellings.

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

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

6.25 Visiting both these neighbouring properties when the previous application was made; there was concern that there would be an overbearing impact upon the neighbours outlooks, given there was a dwelling immediately to the rear of Nr 40 (on land which is now proposed to be open space). Due to this concern the applicants withdrew the application and have now changed the original scheme to reduce the impact. Without question the views and outlook from Nr 40 and 39 will change, from one of fairly open outlooks over the rear garden of Bix House and the trees/woodland within and beyond, to outlooks over a proposed are of open space looking towards the proposed dwellings. It should be noted that these outlooks are over the rear garden of Bix House, rather than the open countryside etc. and therefore it would have been in the owners of Bix Houses want to plant landscaping etc. to block such views, to increase their own privacy of they wished. The current proposal does include the planting of landscaping & trees in the area of open space which adjoin Nr 40 & 39 which 44 again will reduce the appearance of the development from these properties, but such landscaping will take a number of years to establish. The CGI images provided show the tree in place, and it has been advised it would take 5 years to grow to the height shown. The concerns of the neighbours are understood and understandable, their outlook will change significantly as described previously. However, given the siting of the proposed dwellings in relation to existing properties; the design, scale and size of the proposed dwelling; the ground level differences between the neighbouring properties and the site; existing/proposed landscaping & tree planting; and the suns orientation (east to west); it is not considered the proposed dwellings would give result in a significant adverse impact upon the residential amenities of any neighbouring properties in the area, to warrant a refusal and comply with General Policy 2 and the Residential Design Guide.

6.26 The applicants have also provided CGI images of how the development could appear as during the initial stage of completion and once the landscaping proposed as grown. These images are online and will be viewable at the Planning Committee meeting. It should be noted that one of the annotations is incorrect. Annotation "B" taken from Nr 39 Farmhill Park is from the lower rear garden of this property, rather than the position of the "B" which is positioned on the raised terraced area. Members should note this when considering this image. Essentially, only the annotation is incorrect on the site plan.

6.27 Overall, whilst the proposed development will have an impacts upon existing surrounding neighbouring properties and the neighbours' concerns are understandable, it is considered for the reasons given, the proposed development would not have such a significant adverse impacts upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and therefore comply with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP and the Residential Design Guide.

POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON HIGHWAY SAFETY 6.28 The site would be linked into the existing estate road of Farmhill Grange Development and also utilise the same entrance onto Farmhill Lane which was approved previously for the Farmhill Grange Development. This access has viability splays of 2.4m x 25m metres in both directions, as requested by Highway Services (as approved previously). Furthermore, no objections have been made from Highway Services in terms of traffic generated by the development.

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

6.30 The new public footpath which runs from the new estate road through the woodland area to the Lheannag Park estate would be constructed to an adoptable standard and DOI have indicated they would adopt them as well as the estate road itself. The "woodland loop" footpath would be constructed of wooded boardwalks (similar found in Glens etc.) would be provided and completed by the applicants. Currently, the applicants are in discussion with other third parties who are interested in takin this wooded area over (albeit still remain publically accessible). A condition should be attached with any approval which seeks a management/maintenance scheme be submitted to ensure the long term maintenance of the "woodland loop" path.

6.31 Objections from the owner of Annacur Cottage are noted, but it is not considered there would be a significant level of traffic generated by passing vehicles from this site. Most owners/visitors within the new dwellings would like use the main road to the south towards Annacur Lane and then onto New Castletown Road and therefore not pass Annacur Cottage. The owner of Annacur Cottage comments that Farmhill Lane is used as a short cut. Whilst there is no reason to doubt this, it is likely this is people who live to the north of the site within Farmhill Park are those using Farmhill Lane as a short cut. Farmhill Lane is essential a cul-de sac and would not be a short cut for anyone other than those living in Farmhill Park. 45

Accordingly, there would not seem to be any benefit for the potential new owners within the estate, to travel along Farmhill Lane past Annacur Cottage. Furthermore the Lane is narrow and not in a good condition.

6.32 Accordingly, given no objection from Highway Services and for the reasons indicated within this report the application complies with Transport Policies 1, 4 & 7 and the parking standards of the IOMSP.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION 6.30 As indicated by Housing Policy 5 the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing when developments are of 8 dwellings or more. On this basis a total of 4 affordable units would generally be required. In this case the applicants have been in discussion with the DOI Housing Division and both parties have agreed that the applicant will provide 4 dwellings onsite (plots 17, 18 & 19). A Section 13 Legal Agreement will need to be agreed.

OPEN SPACE PROVISION 6.31 Recreation Policy 3 indicates that where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan.

6.32 The proposal would provide in three areas of open space which would be adopted by DBC. In total the proposal would provide 1032sqm. The required amount is 1044sqm. Therefore there is a shortfall in the amount of POS being provided of 12sqm. The applicants, Department and DBC have agreed a commuted sum payment in lieu of the public open space of £10,296. Further, it should be noted that the 1044sqm does not include the woodland area which is 4495sqm in area. While this area is to remain in private ownership (either applicants and/or third parties) it is proposed to be publically accessible (Section 13 Legal Agreement) with the applicants providing the public boardwalk path through the woodland. Accordingly, while there is a 12sqm under provision, given the provision of the woodland path (a new feature in the area) which is publically accessible; and with the commuted sum payment of £10,296, it is considered the proposal would comply with Recreation Policy 3.

6.33 It should be noted that there are two areas of POS (larger open areas of grass/fields (albeit not formally laid out as sport pitches) and two children's play areas within a few minutes (under 5 mins) walk away. Accordingly, the Department was content that more formal POS (sports pitches etc.) or children's play area were not required on this site, give the site is within safe walking distance of such provision.

6.34 Overall, it is considered the proposal would meet the aims of Recreation Policy 3.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON TREES/WILDLIFE 6.35 As been outlined by objectors to the proposal, the development would result in a number of trees (155 trees) with in the rear garden of Bix House. It should be noted only four small trees are proposed to be lost within the woodland area.

6.36 The Department gives significant weight to the comments of the Ecosystems Policy Officer and the Senior Forestry and Arboricultural Officer both of DEFA , and the Manx Wildlife Trust who raise no objection. Further, the applicants have employed Manx Roots to consider the quality of the trees proposed to be lost. The Ecosystems Policy Officer advises that the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) submitted with this application (Undertaken by the Manx Wildlife Trust) is in order and an appropriate level of assessment has been undertaken. Further, the Senior Forestry and Arboricultural Officer confirms that; "in addition to the link path, which will now be constructed to an adoptable standard, this application provides a loop

46 path through the woodland area to east of the houses. This path will provide valuable amenity to local residents and access to nature."

6.37 The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal does utilises DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - UK) Biodiversity metric which gives a figure on the site habitant value. This is a useful accounting tool for measuring the biodiversity losses and gains that result from development projects. In this case the woodland area has a value of 3.71 biodiversity units, the trees with the centre of the rear garden of Bix House have a 1.48 biodiversity units, the garden/lawn 0.65 biodiversity units, and the southern/eastern boundary hedgerow has 0.39 biodiversity units. Therefore the woodland area has the greatest biodiversity value than all the other areas combined. The appraisal indicates that these calculations are useful (in UK) to determine how much offsite habitat would be required to offset biodiversity units lost; however within such a confined site the necessary area required for standard offsetting is not available. Due to this the appraisal indicates that the most practical solution for 'no net loss' and potential 'net gain' would be ecologically minded design and implementation to retain the best ecological features and enhance them, whilst providing new habitats of value to biodiversity. One example given is the replacement of the leylandii hedge with the proposed boundary planting (Hornbeam hedgerow) which would be more beneficial to biodiversity in the longer term.

6.38 The Preliminary Ecological Appraisal goes into detail of what animals, tree & plants etc. where found on the site and also outlines a number of recommendations to improve the biodiversity of the application site and wooded area. Some are the recommendation include, installation of bat and bat boxes within the area and within eves of the dwellings, production of a Site Environmental management Plan to demonstrate how the development will ensure adequate measures will be put in place to protect the existing woodland; the woodland path being a boardwalk construction with no artificial lighting; new tree planting and landscaping as suggested by Manx Roots being undertaken for nest birds, sheltering, foraging etc. are some examples. These recommendations listed within the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal are appropriate and a condition should be attached to any approval which requires the recommendations be fully adhered to.

6.39 Clearly, the removal of the trees and therefore habitats will have an impact on biodiversity and this does weigh against the development. However, given no objections being received from the Ecosystems Policy Officer who agrees with the conclusions and recommendation of the Manx Wildlife Trust, it is considered the impact upon wildlife and ecology can be adequately mitigated.

6.40 In relation to the loss of trees, namely the visual amenity of the area. For similar reasons to why the proposed dwellings are not significantly apparent from public views (existing building development and larger mature wooded areas to the north/east of the site) the copse of trees within the centre of the rear garden of Bix Houses do not result in significant public amenity value, i.e. they are not seen from public views to a significant extent. Accordingly, from a visual impact there are no concerns. Manx Roots detailed reports indicated that the proposal would equate to a loss of 9% of canopy cover in the wider landscape and while this is significant, the trees in question have a lower individual amenity value and if left unmanaged many of the trees are likely to see physiological decline in the coming years due to suppressions cause by over congestion and/or structural failure due to weakness resulting from over congestion. Further approximately 34 trees could reasonably be removed as good management, irrespective of the development.

6.41 Manx Roots have also produce tree protections plan and tree planting plans which the Senior Forestry and Arboricultural Officer raises not objections subject to recommended conditions.

47

6.42 This, with any green field site proposed for development will have an impact upon the biodiversity of the site. The site is no exception. The removal of the number of trees proposed is a negative aspect of the proposal and does weigh against the submission. However, with the recommendations of the Manx Wildlife Trust for mitigations methods and new tree planting/landscaping as proposed all in agreement with the Ecosystem Policy Officer and the Senior Arboricultural Officer; it is considered the impacts created by the development can be adequately mitigated.

DRAINAGE/FLOODING. 6.43 The proposal includes a diversion of the existing surface water pipe which currently to along the southern gable end wall of Bix House and runs across the application site. The proposal is to divert this via an open drainage ditch which runs along the eastern and north boundaries of the site into the existing ponds found within the wooded area (where current surface water runs to) to the north of the site. Manx Utilities have considered this and have raised no objection.

6.44 The site is not within High Flood Risk zone (River or Tidal) but there were initial comments from the Flood Management Division (DOI) in relation to the surface water flooding (1 in 100 year event) and whether the new drainage ditch would be suitable.

6.45 Following discussions with the relevant parties (MU, FMD, applicants and the Department) an altered drainage scheme has been provided which requires less maintenance and is easier to maintain. A condition should be attached which requires the drainage works be installed and maintained by the relevant parties.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposed application requires a balanced decision, against the scheme is the amount of tree loss/ecology impacts, while the proposed application does provide mitigation, it is just that, mitigation. Clearly if the only aspect to consider was this then the application would likely fail. However, it is not. The site is designated for residential development, which is within Douglas which is the main settlement for housing, services, education, shops, employment & public transport and the most sustainable town on the IOM. The aims of the IOM Strategic Plan and the Area Plan for the East both promote sustainable developments which can utilise existing services and have good transport links. Clearly, therefore the principle of developing the site for residential development weight in favour of the application. Added to this the proposal provides good and usable public open space provision, good footpath connections and introduces a woodland path which will be beneficial to all residents in the area. There will be an impact upon neighbouring amenities compared to the current situation; and while the concerns of the neighbours are understandable, it is not consider the impacts of this proposal are so significant to warrant a refusal.

7.2 In conclusion; on balance, for the reasons indicated with this report it is concluded the proposals complies with the relevant planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, Residential Design Guide 2019 and the Area Plan for the East 2020 and therefore it is recommended the application is approved subject to conditions as listed and subject to a Section 13 Legal Agreements relating to Affordable Housing provision, provision and maintenance of the woodland boardwalk and Public Open Space provision/commuted sum for shortfall.

8.0 SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENTS 8.1 As noted within this report there are three matters which require a Section 13 Legal Assessment. The first being affordable housing provision which in this case will result in 3 dwellings on site. The second relates to Public Open Space which includes onsite provision and a figure of £10,296 in lieu of the shortfall of onsite provision, which has been agreed with Douglas Borough Council. Thirdly, the public boardwalk path through the woodland should be provided at certain stage (i.e. before the occupation of the 7th dwelling), public access should 48 not be restricted and boardwalk shall be maintained to ensure it is safe and useable for members of the public to use, all by the owner of the site. All are considered acceptable.

9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

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

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

49

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 10th May 2021

Item 5.3 Proposal : Change of use from existing gym into nursery facilities (class 4.2) Site Address : Diamond House Demesne Road Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 3DS Applicant : Mr Peter Halpin Application No. : 20/01399/C- click to view Planning Officer : Mrs Vanessa Porter

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 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 occupation of the additional areas of nursery shown on drawing no. 20/3036/04 hereby approved, the parking layout (including line painting and hooped parking barriers) as shown on drawing no. 20/3036/06 shall be completed & retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of highway safety and ensure adequate parking provisions.

Reason for approval: The proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and therefore acceptable. ______

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is considered that the following Government Department should be afforded Interested Person Status as they have raised material consideration in their representations in accordance with Article 4(2):

DOI Flood Risk Management Division ______

Planning Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE AS IT IS A DEPARTURE BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

THE APPLICATION SITE

50

1.1 The application site is "Diamond House" which is situated upon a corner plot where Westmoreland Road meets Demesne Road. The building takes up a large plot space with there being a courtyard to the front of the property and to the side of the property.

1.2 The surrounding area has a mix of uses, including car sales and workshop units, offices, retail, education, healthcare and residential. Diamond House is prominently sited on the corner of Demesne Road and Westmoreland Road, albeit that the part of the building to which this application relates fronts directly onto Demesne Road. The building has something of the appearance of an industrial unit.

THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current planning application seeks approval to change the use of the existing first floor ladies gym area and associated areas to a childcare facility for children aged 2 years upwards. The change of use also includes a part of the ground floor area.

2.2 The proposed change of use will mean that the majority of "Diamond House" will be a Nursery with the area not being used as a nursery being the Spar which is located to the Westmoreland Road elevation.

2.3 The proposal also includes the installation of three windows situated to the first floor level on the north west elevation and four windows situated to the south east elevation.

PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has been the subject of over 30 previous planning applications, the more recent of which point clearly to the building's evolution from office uses to its current, more commercial, uses. The most relevant are set out below for reference, and inasmuch as they show this evolution they are material to the assessment of this current application: o PA 17/00746/B: Conversion of ground floor from various current uses (changing area, salon and storage) to an extension of existing nursery facility, including alteration to parking/drop off area o PA 15/00265/B: Conversion of loft / storage space to an exercise area for combined use by the children's nursery and ladies gym o PA 14/01227/B: Conversion of ground floor into a children's nursery (retrospective).

Condition 2 of this approval ensured that the maximum number of children attending the building at any one time shall not exceed thirty two. This condition was added in the interest of the amenity of the surrounding area along with highway safety and parking and to safeguard the welfare of children. o PA 13/00633/B: Conversion of vacant warehouse / workshop to provide gymnasium to ground floor and a childcare facility to first floor with associated parking provision. o PA 13/00017/C: Change of use of part of existing therapy room facilities to provide crèche for use by members during their visit to the gym. o PA 12/01173/B: Enclosure of area under existing canopy to front of shop area to create a coffee lounge. o PA 12/00899/B: Alteration and conversion of redundant storage area to a gymnasium to be used in conjunction with existing health/beauty facility (Amendment to PA 11/01148/B). o PA 11/01148/B: Alteration and conversion of redundant storage area to a gymnasium to be used in conjunction with existing health/beauty facility. 51

o PA 10/01307/B: Conversion of existing ground floor office and first floor store to a hairdresser's salon with treatment and therapy rooms.

PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Residential on the Area Plan for the East, Map 4, Douglas.

4.2 Of specific relevance to the assessment of this application is General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 which 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; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services considered the application and initially Opposed to the application, requesting for a car parking survey. This was done and now Highway Services state the following, "Accordingly, as parking matters have been addressed by the additional information, Highway Services raise no opposition subject to parking layout according to Drawing No: 20/3036/06, and conditions for reserved parking signs and bollards to clarify parking arrangements at the shop." (14.04.21)

5.2 Douglas Corporation have considered the application and have no objections. (6.01.21)

5.3 DOI Flood Risk Management Division have considered the application and state the following, "No Flood Risk Management Interest." (11.02.21)

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are whether the increase of the nursery space will increase the impact on the existing highway services and how the external alterations might affect the character or amenity of the local area taking into account the residential living conditions of neighbouring properties.

6.2 Highways 6.2.1 When looking at the information provided by the agent on behalf of the applicant they state that the gym since lockdown has seen a reduction of a third of its normal occupancy whereas the nursery has seen an increase in the request for additional facilities which has brought about the possibility of changing the use from gym into additional nursery facilities.

6.2.2 When looking at possible highway implications it is relevant to note that the proposal will accommodate children of varying ages and will provide general nursery facilities, before and after school hours "school clubs" and will provide care for children during the school holidays. There is currently 15 staff hired with the proposed opening times between 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday and depending on events 10am to 5pm Saturday/Sunday.

6.2.3 The initial information Highway Services objected to the application stating that there was not enough information provided to sufficiently assess the potential Highway implications.

6.2.4 Additional information was received regarding the parking within the surrounding level and information provided from a survey done by the existing clients of the nursery. Highway Services subsequently stated, "The submitted parking statement presents a strong, reasoned 52 argument on the operational and parking arrangements and issues at the site and in the vicinity which are not all related to the current use of the buildings associated with this proposal. Additionally, it provides clarity over the land ownerships indicating that the Applicant has sufficient parking within its site for the existing and proposed use without parking for staff, allowing the highway concerns to be overcome."

6.2.5 With the above in mind the main issue with the application would be the parking which with the additional information it has shown that there is sufficient for the use. The proposed Site Plan provided from the agent on behalf of the applicants show the proposed parking spaces within the site and as such to assist the parking within the area a condition should be attached to state that the linework for the parking spaces must be done prior to commencement.

6.3 Character of Area 6.3.1 As stated within part 1 of this report the area is surrounded by a wide range of uses and the building itself lends to an industrial feel, with this in mind the addition of the proposed windows to both the north west elevation and the south east elevation will not change the character and appearance of the area.

6.4 Residential Amenity 6.4.1 It is also necessary to note that on the original planning application (PA14/01227/B) and the subsequent application afterwards (PA15/00265/B) there was a planning condition which limited the number of children within the site at one time. This condition was not followed through on the 2017 application (PA17/00746/B) with the planning officer stating in his report, "6.4 It is considered that a condition limiting the numbers of children that could be within the building at any one time is not necessary should the application be approved. This is a matter determined by the Children and Families Social Care Directorate, and in the understandable absence of clarity that that Directorate are able to offer at this stage, no such condition is considered either necessary or possible with the necessary certainty such a condition should provide."

6.4.2 When looking at whether putting a condition on this application restricting the number of children would be acceptable it is relevant to note that such a condition is more to assist the amenity of the area and neighbouring properties. Where "Diamond House" is situated whilst there are several residential properties nearby, there are also several different types of business which change the overall streetscene.

6.4.3 The applicants have stated within the additional information received that "Based on the requirements to provide one toilet per eight children, this would limit the maximum capacity of the new space to 96 children. Whilst this would be a theoretical capacity, operationally, running a facility with this number of children would be neither feasible nor desirable. However, having the full capacity available is important if, for example, all children attending the nursery are required to use the first floor for a period whilst facilities on the ground floor are upgraded."

6.4.4 With the above in mind from the applicants and taking into account that the statutory nuisance are different (and lower) to what might be a material impact in planning terms (not least as the statutory nuisance test takes account of the lawful use of the site and what a reasonable minimum noise may be). It can be seen that there are other factors which would limit the amount of children within the site prior to the local amenities, with regards to Planning, being affected. The local authority and the Highways Division do not raise any objections on the application which deems that the amenities of the surrounding area would not be affected, either by traffic or by noise, especially when taking into account that there a couple of car garages within the immediate area which would create a certain amount of noise.

53

6.4.5 The above assessment has assessed the considerations made for the application and the proposal is deemed to satisfy the criteria that the scale of operation is appropriate for the specific site and the surrounding area. A condition to limit the number of children on this site is not necessary as part of this application as the site, parking provisions, proximity to neighbouring properties and the accessibility of certain aspects required for a nursery would limit the amount of children naturally.

CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons the proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and therefore acceptable.

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

54

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 10th May 2021

Item 5.4 Proposal : Conversion and extension of existing stone storage building for both tourist and residential use Site Address : Ballig Handleys Corner Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 1AY Applicant : Ms Emma Lings Application No. : 21/00059/B- click to view Planning Officer : Mr Paul Visigah

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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 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 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. 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 decking shall be constructed or placed within the curtilage of the building 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 amenities of the surrounding area.

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), no solar panels shall be attached to the building hereby approved or erected within the site, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To safeguard the residential character and amenities of the area.

C 5. The building hereby approved shall be used as ancillary accommodation for those occupying the main dwelling (Ballig, Handleys Corner, Kirk Michael) or as additional self- contained tourist accommodation. The building shall not be occupied as an independent dwelling unit. 55

Reason: To ensure proper control of the development and to avoid any future undesirable fragmentation of the curtilage.

Reason for approval: Overall and on balance, it is considered that the proposal complies with General Policy 3, Housing Policy 11, and Environment Policy 16 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. ______

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

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

Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division ______

Planning Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT COMPLY FULLY WITH HOUSING POLICY 11 AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is a parcel of land including the detached dwelling known as Ballig, situated on the northern side of Handleys Corner (A3), Kirk Michael. The property is accessed by a sloped driveway which runs measures about 170m long, and providing the only access to this property which stands isolated within the landscape. The existing property comprises the original cottage, a detached double garage, as well as the existing storage building which is situated north-east of the main dwelling. The buildings together are arranged such that they are enclosed by the surrounding trees and undulating topography around the site, with limited views to the main cottage. There are no views to the storage building from the highway.

1.2 The existing storage building is a stone barn is a pitched roofed building which has its roof covered in grey slate tiles. There is a lean-to roof extension situated on the eastern side with access via the southern gable. This building which is painted white measures 4.1m wide, 5.8m long, and 2.6m high (1.7m to the eaves). The attached extension is 1.9m wide, 3m long and 1.6m high (1.1m to the eaves).

1.3 The nearest properties are Lower Cronkbane situated about 264m southwest of Ballig and on the northern side of Cronk Y Voddy, and Ballig Cottage Handleys Corner situated about 239m north-west of the application site and on the northern side of Handleys Corner. These properties are well screened from the application site by the existing trees and hedging on their boundaries and the boundary of the application site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 This planning application seeks approval for the conversion and extension of existing stone storage building for both tourist and residential use.

2.2 The works would involve increasing the height of the barn by 1.4m, raising the building to 4m, demolishing the side extension and building a timber framed and horizontally cladded timber walled extension measuring 2.5m x 2.5m (with the original shed style roof and pitch preserved). The other extension would be erected on the northern gable and would be 4.1m long, 1.8m wide and 3.2m high to ridge (2.3m to eaves); constructed and finished 56 externally as the new bathroom and having same roof structure and finishing in 34/100 corrugated 0.7mm metal sheeting.

2.3 The proposed barn conversion will provide a one bedroom dwelling. This would include an open plan kitchen and living area, a bathroom (created on the side of the existing lean-to extension), and a sun room created on the northern elevation of the building on the ground floor. On the first floor, a loft bedroom would be created to extend from the south elevation 2.3m wide and 3.7m wide (measured internally). This loft bedroom would overlook the open plan area downstairs and would be served by a stairs on the west elevation of the building.

2.4 Other works would involve: i. Blocking up the main and window by the side on the south elevation and creating a new centralised high level window to serve the loft bedroom on the first floor level. ii. Erecting a new side extension that would have a window on the south elevation and a larger window on the north elevation with views to the countryside. iii. Creating a new access with two windows on the east elevation. iv. Erecting a lean-to sun room extension on the north elevation with two sets of large windows overlooking the surrounding countryside to the north. v. Opening up the blocked up window on the north elevation and creating a new window above level of extension on gable. vi. Blocking up the high level window on the west elevation to create separation and privacy from the main dwelling. vii. Rendering and painting the walls to suit primary dwelling. viii. Installing a new wood burner flue that would rise min 600mm from eastern roof plane. The flue would be finished in black double skin.

2.5 The works would enable the conversion and alteration of the storage building and side extension into a habitable space for family to use and to accommodate tourist use, expanding its current floor area of 28.66 sqm to 35.35sqm (as the altered building will be 4.1m wide, 5.8m long, and 4m high (3.1m to the eaves).

2.6 The applicants have also provided the following additional information in support of the scheme: Use: The long redundancy of the original outbuilding can be proven in that the property has not been a working farm for decades. Perhaps originally used as storage for livestock feed, in more recent years it has been used for nothing more than a place of storage for an oil tank. The oil tank now being removed it has no purpose and without retention or renovation it would only end up as an unsightly derelict outhouse. The area in which the plot is based is of sufficient natural quality and touristic interest as not only being on the TT course, surrounded by hillside walks but also being secluded enough to enjoy the award winning night skies. It is our intension to convert what was a wasted space into a space that not only compliments the countryside but also gives opportunity for others to enjoy it.

Design: In respect of housing policy 15, the design of the alteration of existing building and the new extension has been thoughtfully considered ensuring the proportion and form of the new build is sensitively balanced to the primary dwelling and surrounding countryside to not damage the traditional and natural character.

For the alteration of the existing build it is my intention to keep the original charm, although raising the roof height by 1.4m to allow for a loft bedroom, keeping the same pitch roof and reusing the original slates. Where possible preserving the original stone and raising the walls with cement block, rendering and painting the walls to suit primary dwelling. For the extension to the side and rear of the original building, whilst keeping the same original shed 57 style roof and original pitch, box profile sheeting will be used. The extensions will be timber framed and horizontally cladded timber with a light grey wash for the exterior walls; this will give a contemporary feel but enhancing the agricultural barn-like aesthetics and complimenting the landscape.

The eventual goal would be to set up solar panels and have the building use as much clean renewable energy as possible.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site is located within an area identified as being of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance by the 1982 Development Order. The site is not within a Conservation Area and the site is within an area with low likelihood of surface water flood risk, although the western sections of the site and the existing outbuilding south of the main dwelling is classified to be within a n area with high likelihood of surface water flood risk on the Isle of Man Indicative Flood Maps.

3.2 Within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:

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:

(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;

3.4 Housing Policy 4 (In part): 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: (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and

3.5 Section 8.10: Conversion of Rural Buildings to Dwellings 8.10.1 Throughout the countryside, there are examples of buildings which are no longer suitable or needed for their originally intended use, but which are of sufficient quality or interest to warrant retention and re-use.

8.10.2 Conversion of such buildings into dwellings can make a useful contribution to the housing stock, ensure retention of our built heritage, and improve the appearance of what might otherwise become derelict fabric. The following policy is therefore appropriate:

Housing Policy 11: Conversion of existing rural buildings into dwellings may be permitted, but only where: (a) redundancy for the original use can be established; (b) the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; (c) the building is of architectural, historic, or social interest; (d) the building is large enough to form a satisfactory dwelling, either as it stands or with modest, subordinate extension which does not affect adversely the character or interest of the building; (e) residential use would not be incompatible with adjoining established uses or, where appropriate, land-use zonings on the area plan; and (f) the building is or can be provided with satisfactory services without unreasonable public expenditure. 58

Such conversion must: (a) where practicable and desirable, re-establish the original appearance of the building; and (b) use the same materials as those in the existing building. Permission will not be given for the rebuilding of ruins or the erection of replacement buildings of similar, or even identical, form.

3.6 Housing Policy 15: The extension or alteration of existing traditionally styled properties in the countryside will normally only be approved where these respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. Only exceptionally will permission be granted for extensions which measure more than 50% of the existing building in terms of floor space (measured externally).

3.7 Environment Policy 16: The use of existing rural buildings for new purposes such as tourist, or small-scale industrial/commercial use may be permitted where: a) it is demonstrated that the building is no longer required for its original purpose and where the building is substantially intact and structurally capable of renovation; b) the reuse of the building will result in the preservation of fabric which is of historic, architectural, or social interest or is otherwise of visual attraction; c) it is demonstrated that the building could accommodate the new use without requiring extension or adverse change to appearance or character; d) there would not be unacceptable implications in terms of traffic generation; a) conversion does not lead to dispersal of activity on such a scale as to prejudice the vitality and viability of existing town and village services; and f) the use of existing buildings involves significant levels of redevelopment to accommodate the new use, the benefits secured by the proposal in terms of impact on the environment and the rural economy shall outweigh the continued impact of retaining the existing buildings on site.

Proposals to convert rural buildings to residential accommodation will be considered along with the advice given at Section 8.10 of this document.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The property has been the subject of two previous applications which includes an application for the Erection of detached double garage to the south of the application dwelling under PA 87/01633/B. This was approved by the Planning Committee in October 1987.

4.2 The property has also been the subject of an application for Alterations and extensions to dwelling (PA 98/01936/B) which was approved by the Planning Committee in April 1999.

5.0 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 confirms that they 'Do not oppose' in the letter dated 22 March 2021.

5.2 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Flood Risk Management Division confirms that that there is 'No Flood Risk Management interest' in the letter dated 1 April 2021.

5.3 Michael Commissioners have not made any representations regarding the application although they were consulted on 3 March 2021.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 59

6.1 With the current application, the key issues to consider are; i. The principle of the development ii. the visual impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the existing building iii. the impact on the surrounding countryside

6.2 The Principle of the development 6.2.1 The policies outlined above are clear that proposals such as this are generally to be supported as an exception to the principle that there should be no development in the countryside. In this case, and taking the key elements of Housing Policy 11 as the fundamental basis for the assessment, it is considered that the proposal represents an appropriate such exception.

6.2.2 The conversion of the stone building to residential/tourist accommodation complies with HP 11 in that it relates to a building of historic and architectural interest: a Traditional storage building that reflects the character of the Manx countryside which would be vital to retain. The existing building is being largely retained as is with minimal change to window and door openings and there is only a very small physical alteration to appearance of the building in the form of the increased height and new door and windows to the side.

6.2.3 The barn is evidently redundant (as shown in the accompanying letter which highlights the fact that it has previously been used as a farm storage, and subsequently a storage for oil tank to serve the main dwelling and appears to be structurally intact. There is no reason to assume its use for residential/tourist purposes would be incompatible with adjacent use which is purely residential. Whilst the additional comings and goings associated with its use would be slightly increased than the current redundant use, it is not considered that any increase would be detrimental given that the new dwelling is only a one bedroom dwelling with limited capacity for high occupancy, even for a visiting family. Also, there is nothing to indicate that the converted building could not be attached to the necessary services, either, as the building already receives electricity from the main dwelling and within close proximity to other services.

6.2.4 The retention of the majority of the buildings form save for the addition of the extension to the north elevation and increase in height will help preserve the appearance - and thereby character - of the building. The use of timber frames for some of the windows in the existing barn is welcome, and the use of timber cladding on the smaller sections (extensions) would be appropriate as they would ensure that the building is made to be more sympathetic to the surrounding countryside.

6.2.5 The proposed tourist use of the building would also align with Environment Policy 16 given that; the existing use as an agricultural storage is now redundant; the works would preserve the majority of the buildings fabric (with limited changes to height and fenestrations); the building would effectively serve as an independent ancillary accommodation which would also serve effectively as tourist accommodation when required, without resulting in detrimental impacts on the appearance of the building; would not impact negatively on traffic given its remove location from the highway and the ample supply of parking within the site; in addition to the proposed tourist use being of a scale that would have little or no impacts on the rural economy of nearby villages.

6.3 visual impact

6.3.1 Paragraph 8.10.2 provides appropriate criteria for the conversion of such buildings into dwellings, stating that such proposed uses should ensure retention of our built heritage, and improve the appearance of what might otherwise become derelict fabric. The result of the proposed works is something that is considered to sit comfortably in the context of the broader site area. Whilst the works to the building, particularly the raising of the roof with 60 cement blocks, the blocking up of some windows and door, as well as the introduction of new windows and door on the east elevation do not strictly comply with the requirements of HP11 in that they do not fully re-establish the original appearance of the building and do not use materials similar to the existing finishes (in the case of the render finish to match the main dwelling and roof to the side extension), the works will fit seamlessly with the existing cottage and will integrate reclaimed timber windows, reuse the existing slates on the raised roof and timber front door saved from a traditional Peel House, as well as the erection of the extensions to mirror the form and roof structure of the existing side extension; works which will ensure that the building retains its old appearance whilst appearing attractive.

6.3.2 Granting some elements of the works are considered to be slightly at variance with HP11, the other elements would completely align with HP 11 and housing Policy 15 as the works would only increase the building floor space by 23 percent and would respect the proportion, form and appearance of the existing property. As well, the addition and alterations to the existing windows and access will all significantly improve the character and appearance of the dwelling and are very much welcomed. Besides, the scale of the proposal would remain subservient to the host building and would be considered appropriate when read within the context of its built form, with the finish to tie in the existing and as such deemed acceptable. Also minded is the fact that the proposed works on the building will ensure it fits within the context of the site and result in the general improvement of the broader site area.

6.4 Impact on the surrounding Area

6.4.1 As the property sits detached within its own grounds, it is not considered there to be any adverse impact on the surrounding area owing to the significant amount of screening provided by the existing trees and hedging on the site. The topography of the site and surrounding area also provides sufficient screening to the site, with no views afforded to the application building, although the works are not considered to have detrimental impacts on the views attainable from within the site and the surrounding countryside, particularly from the northwest boundary where the vegetation is considerably sparse.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 It is considered that the development does not comply completely with HP11, although it wold comply with housing policy 15, and there is sufficient justification to consider the proposal acceptable and s such the application is supported.

8.0 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

61 o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status

62

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 10th May 2021

Item 5.5 Proposal : Erection of eight industrial units / commercial / storage units with associated roads, footpaths and vehicle parking Site Address : Land Off Harcourt Drive Balthane Industrial Estate Balthane Ballasalla Isle Of Man Applicant : Mongoose Limited Application No. : 21/00220/B- click to view Planning Officer : Mr Paul Visigah

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

C 2. Notwithstanding the meaning of development in Section 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 or any act revoking or re-enacting that Act, no mezzanine floor shall be constructed without a further application for planning approval being submitted and approved.

Reason: the parking provision is considered acceptable on the basis of the floor area of the proposed units as shown in the submitted plans and on only one floor of accommodation per unit.

C 3. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the cycle parking, pedestrian and vehicle arrangements have been provided in accordance with the approved plans (101 Rev 0 and SM21/535/3). Such areas shall remain free from obstruction thereafter and remain available to the users of the corresponding industrial unit.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for cycle storage, off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

C 4. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping (SM21/535/3) must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the units, 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.

63

C 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2019 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the units hereby approved shall only be used for General industrial (Class 2.3) and/or Storage/distribution (Class 2.4) and for no other purpose 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.

Reason for approval: The development complies with Employment Recommendation 1, Employment Proposal 2, and Landscape Proposal 19 of the Area Plan for the South and with General Policy 2, Strategic Policy 6 and Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan. ______

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

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

Manx Utilities Drainage ______

Planning Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is situated in a parcel of land which lies within Balthane Industrial Estate but abuts the A5 Ballasalla to Castletown Road between the Airport Garage and West Wind and Sycamore Cottage - residential dwellings. The Ballasalla Airport Garage abuts the southwest boundary of the site, while Optical House is the property on the southeast boundary. The Northwest and northeast boundary is bordered by the broader site area which has a boundary with the Douglas Road (A5) on the northwest, Sycamore Cottage and West Winds to the north and Balthane Farm to the northeast. Access is presently only from Balthane via Harcourt Drive which links the site to the estate and Balthane Road. The applicant owns the land to the northwest and northeast of the application site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks planning approval for erection of eight industrial units / commercial / storage units with associated roads, footpaths and vehicle parking.

2.2 The development would comprise an industrial block housing 8 industrial units of the same size, with the layout set out such that four units would back the other four units. All the units would be of the same size 18m x 11m and would integrate a W.C measuring 1.5m x 2m on the front elevation. This pitched roofed building would be 5.2m high to the eaves and 7.2m to the roof ridge. 16 GRP rooflights would be installed on each roof plane (four serving each of the industrial units. The front elevation of each units would have a roller shutter door 3.5m wide and 4.3m high, as well as a large glazed section (double glazed powder coated aluminium) 2.7m wide and 4.8m high subdivided into six units which would include the pedestrian entrance door to the units. None of the units is shown as having a mezzanine level.

64

2.3 The units would be constructed with steel portal frame and rafter sections. The roof would be finished in 80mm thick insulated composite panel sheeting with a PIR, LPC approved foam insulated core formed with the insulation material bonded between the outer 0.5mm thick plastisol coated weather sheets. The wall sides are to be clad in 60mm thick PIR core composite panel sheeting complete with vertical corner flashing and bottom cill flashings. The plastic coated vertical box profile sheeting to be Anthracite grey.

2.3 Each of the units would have a vehicle access point which would be sufficient to park a car, separated from two parking spaces (3m x 6m) on the frontage and would link directly to the access and general parking areas situated to the east of the units and providing 11 additional parking areas measuring 3m x 6m. Therefore, 26 parking spaces will be provided in front of the units and 11 additional parking areas created on the south-eastern side of the new industrial block, totalling 37 parking provisions. The access and parking areas would be finished in concrete, tarmac or block paving.

2.4 The development would include the planting of additional trees and shrub/hedge, added to the 40 plus trees that are in existence around the perimeter of the site and that measures have been included to ensure their protection during the building works. The news plantings would comprise ornamental trees selected from native species including Betula Utilis Jacquemontii -'Snowqueen', 'Trinity College'.

2.5 The applicants have also indicated that cycle storage facility would be included on site, situated on the north elevation of the units. The cycle storage which will be manufactured from 50 x 50mmm boxed steel would be 2m high, 1.9m wide and will be chosen from a selection of 2, 4 or 6m lengths. The racks would be Sheffield Toast Racks.

2.6 Other woks would include the creation of footpaths around the new industrial block. The new footpath would be about 1.5m wide. The applicant has also indicated on the Landscape Plan that a new pedestrian link would be created from a car park within the wider site area to the bus stop by the Ballasalla Airport Garage which abuts the site. This is, however, outside the red line boundary and as such would not be assessed in this application.

2.7 The applicants have provided additional information on the use of the units upon request by the Planning Officer dated 29 April 2021. The additional information indicates that: i. The industrial units would be used for both general industrial and storage/distribution. ii. The units would have 29 dedicated parking spaces, together with the eight spaces in front of the proposed units.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area of Industrial Use on the Area Plan for the South. The site is not within a flood risk area as indicated on the Isle of Man Indicative Flood Risk Maps, although the northern end of the broader site area is considered to have low likelihood of surface water flood risk. There is a development brief contained with the Area Plan for the South Written Statement which states the following:

3.2 "Employment Proposal 2: It is proposed that Site 4 to the north east of the Freeport should be designated for Office and/or Industrial Use and be subject to Development Brief 4.

6.9 Site 4 Location: North-east of Freeport, Malew Proposed designation: Office/Industrial Development Brief 4: 1. Any proposed scheme must adequately address the following matters as part of an application:

65 a. Vehicular access must be from the Balthane Industrial Estate Road. Emergency access only will be allowed from the Main Road (A5); b. Parking matters; c. Building size and design; and d. Landscaping; provision must be made for a substantial landscaped area adjacent to the Main Road."

3.3 Landscape Proposal 19: New industrial or commercial buildings at Balthane and Ronaldsway Business Park and the Freeport, which would be visible from the A5 or the Steam Railway, should be of high-quality, functional design. This proposal will also apply to buildings which would be visible from the by-pass once a route has been firmly determined.

3.4 Section 3.24: Summary of Area Plan Proposals vi. There is support to improving access to and the generally poor physical environment in Balthane Industrial Estate. vii. Office or Industrial development will be acceptable on Site 4.

3.5 Employment Recommendation 1: It is recommended that the Department of Infrastructure, the Department of Economic Development and Malew Parish Commissioners work collaboratively to produce a strategy for improvements at Balthane Industrial Estate. This will include general environmental improvements, and also improvements in respect of access, lighting and infrastructure in an effort to ensure that the Estate is an attractive place for both users and customers.

6.8.4 Ronaldsway Industrial Estate is located to the west of the Airport. The Estate is largely made up of a mix of industrial uses but includes other non-industrial uses such as the Sefton Express Airport Hotel and Ronaldsway playing fields and associated facilities. The playing fields are in private ownership and any use of them is entirely at the discretion of the owners, currently the RLC Engineering Group Limited. Some of land to the front of the Sefton Express is proposed to be retained as Open Space as it provides a valuable landscaped buffer between the road and the Ronaldsway Estate and contributes to the general appearance of the area.

6.8.5 Ronaldsway occupies a prominent and well laid out site within the South and as such is considered suitable for Business Park uses. This designation, however, shall not affect the current businesses on the Estate. Other uses may be better directed towards Balthane. Business Park development can be defined as land for light industrial purposes, warehousing, new technology companies involved in scientific, commercial, or industrial research or development and office accommodation as the Corporate Headquarters of companies having multiple and diverse interests (but excluding financial/professional services to visiting members of the public); buildings should be set in parkland which should dominate the landscape (taken from Appendix 1 - 'Definitions' - The Isle of Man Strategic Plan, 2007).

3.6 The following policies within the Strategic Plan are also considered relevant to the current application:

3.6.1 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:

(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; 66

(c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (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; (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".

3.6.2 Strategic Policy 6 Major employment-generating development should be located in existing centres on land zoned for such purposes and identified as such in existing Local or new Area Plans.

3.6.3 Strategic Policy 7: Undeveloped land which is zoned in Local or Area Plans for industrial, office, or retail purposes will be retained and protected for such uses, except where those uses would be inappropriate or incompatible with adjoining uses.

3.6.4 Strategic Policy10 New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: minimise journeys, especially by private car; make best use of public transport; not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and encourage pedestrian movement.

3.6.4 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.

3.6.5 Business Policy 2 Land for industrial development should be designated in all parts of the Island, having regard to: (a) scale, which should be appropriate to the area; (b) the availability of public transport links; (c) the proximity of labour; and (d) the availability of water, sewerage and other utilities

3.6.6 Business Policy 5 On land zoned for industrial use, permission will be given only for industrial development or for storage and distribution; retailing will not be permitted except where either: (a) the items to be sold could not reasonably be sold from a town centre location because of their size or nature; or (b) the items to be sold are produced on the site and their sale could not reasonably be severed from the overall business; and, in respect of (a) or (b), where it can be demonstrated that the sales would not detract from the vitality and viability of the appropriate town centre shopping area.

3.6.7 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 current standards are set out in Appendix 7. * General industrial - 1 space per 50 square metres gross floor space.* * Storage and distribution - 1 space per 100 square metres gross floor space.*

3.6.8 Within the strategic plan paragraph 9.2.3 defines industrial buildings as follows; "industrial building" means a building (other than a building in or adjacent to or belonging to a quarry or mine and other than a shop) used for the carrying on of any process, for or incidental to any of the following purposes, namely:- a) the making of any article or of part of 67 any article; or b) the altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, cleaning, washing, packing or canning, or adapting for sale, or breaking up or demolition of any article; or c) without prejudice to the foregoing paragraphs, the getting, dressing or treatment of minerals; being a process carried on in the course of trade or business other than agriculture, and for the purposes of this definition the expression "article" means an article of any description, including a ship or vessel.

Such buildings are sub-divided into light industrial, general industrial and special industrial buildings, each defined as follows:

The strategic plan defines "general industrial building" means an industrial building other than a light industrial building or a special industrial building;

"light industrial building" means an industrial building (not being a special industrial building) in which the processes carried on or the machinery installed are such as could be carried on or installed in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit, or undue generation of traffic or parking of vehicles; the use of light industrial buildings for research and development of products or processes is permitted by the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2005.

"special industrial building" means an industrial building used for the carrying on of processes (including storage) which may be particularly offensive by reason of noise, smell, vibration, smoke, soot, ash, dust, grit, or fumes, or dangerous by reason of the storage or use of dangerous or inflammable material, or inimical to public health by reason of vermin or other causes.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Approval in principle has been granted for the erection of 34 industrial / commercial units addressing siting and means of access under PA 19/01344/A in November 2019. Previously permission was granted for the creation of a fenced storage compound under PA 09/01796/R.

4.2 The current application runs contemporaneously with the following applications for similar works on other sections of the broader site area, although at varying scales:

4.2.1 PA 21/00416/B for Erection of six industrial units / commercial / storage units with associated roads, footpaths and vehicle parking (Pending Consideration).

4.2.2 PA 21/00418/B for Erection of seven industrial units / commercial / storage units with associated roads, footpaths and vehicle parking (Pending Consideration).

5.0 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 have indicated support for the application in a letter dated 12 March 2021, subject to conditions to allow pedestrian and vehicle arrangements to accord with Drawing No: 101 Rev 0 and cycle parking and pedestrian link to bus stop to Drawing No: SM21/535/3. They also recommended that electric vehicle charging points should be considered to aid low emission objectives.

5.2 The Head of DEFA's Health and Safety Regulation Directorate has made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 3 March 2021:

68

Please note that the hazardous site in this location has been decommissioned and should no longer be a concern to HSWI. I have notified DOI mapping and am awaiting an update of the maps.

5.3 DEFA's ecosystem Policy Officer confirms that they are happy with the landscape proposals as shown in the Landscape/Site Works Plan and ask that this is secured as condition of approval (17 March 2021).

5.4 Manx Utilities Drainage have made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 23 March 2021: Please can you advise your client of the communication fee of £12,000.00 that is payable to Manx Utilities. Your client would also need to complete and send the attached form 'connection to a Public Sewer' to Manx Utilities prior to any connections being made to the public sewer.

5.4.1 Further to their previous comments, Manx Utilities Drainage have indicated that they have no objection to the application subject to conditions related to surface water discharge, connection to public sewers, and compliance with the Sewerage Act 1999 (23 March 2021).

5.5 Malew Parish Commissioners have stated that they have no objection to the application in a letter dated 8 April 2021.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; i) the principle of the proposal (SP6, 7 & BP1, 2) ii) visual impact/impact on the wider environment (EP 22 and GP2 b, c & f) iii) impact on the neighbouring amenity (GP2g & EP 22) iv) impact on the highways & parking (TP7, GP2 h & i, SP10)

6.2 Principle of the Development

6.2.1 The site is designated for industrial purposes so the principle of the development of industrial units here is acceptable. In addition, Landscape Proposal 19 of the Southern Area Plan Written Statement clearly indicates that industrial are allowable at Balthane, the Ronaldsway Business Park, and the Freeport provided they are of high-quality and functional design (particularly those visible from the A5, Steam Railway). The use of the site for industrial purposes (which includes general industrial and storage and distribution) clearly aligns with the previous approval in principle granted for the erection of industrial units on the site. This has been clearly articulated in section 4 of this report.

6.2.2 The proposed scheme would also align with Strategic Policy 6 which takes into account the need for employment generating developments to be sited on land for which they are zoned for (as identified on the Area Plans); a condition which the development would comply with given that the site is zoned for industrial use. The sites proximity to a major employment area on the Island (South - Castletown, Port Erin, Port St Mary, Ballasalla, Colby and Ballabeg), where there would be easy access to labour, with the location also benefiting from an integrated transport network would further ensure the use is in accordance with SP6. As the proposal could potentially offer employment opportunities to this area, this aspect would further be compliant through BP1 and BP2, and is encouraged.

6.2.3 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the principle of the proposed development on this site would be acceptable.

6.3 Visual Impact/impact on the wider environment

69

6.3.1 In terms of visual impacts of the development on the sit and surrounding area, it is noted that the proposed development would feature a modern building (with several units) designed specifically for general industrial/storage and distribution use and finished in a functional appearance to reflect the character of Balthane Industrial Estate. The scale of the development would be proportionate to the site and the individual units have been designed to serve that specific purpose in terms of size, height and appearance. There would be limited public views of the site from the A5 (Douglas Road) given that this block would be situated south of another block which would be about 14m from the highway, and any views obtainable when passing would be read in the context of the broader industrial estate. Besides, the design of the building is such that would be considered to be of high quality and functional; ensuring that it conforms with Landscape Proposal 19 of the Area Plan, and would be appropriate for the site context without appearing as an incongruous feature.

6.3.2 The positioning of the industrial block and layout of the site area is considered to be an enhancement to the character and appearance of the site over and above the present context (which is undeveloped), making a positive contribution to the wider environment in accordance with SP5. Moreover, the scheme is also deemed to be an acceptable form of development when considered in the light of General policy 2 (b & c) as the works would improve the appearance of the site area and ensure it is in keeping with the broader industrial area.

6.3.3 Another factor that bodes well for the scheme is the fact that the trees on the boundary of the broader site area would be retained, with the current proposal introducing new plantings (ornamental trees and shrub/hedge) around the proposed units; all of which would be native species.

6.4 Impact on adjacent properties (GP2g and k, and EP 22)

6.4.1 With regard to impact on nearby properties, it is considered that the nearest industrial building the Ballasalla Airport Garage on the southwest is approximately 21m away while Unit F6 - Bryan House would be approx. 26m from the southern elevation of the unit, with the unit only offering a ground floor level and as such it is not considered that there would be any detrimental impacts on these properties in terms of overlooking and overbearing impacts. In terms of impacts on neighbouring residential amenity, it is considered that the nearest dwelling 'West Wind' is situated 47m from the new industrial block, while the nearest building at Sycamore Cottage is 55m away; distances which diminish the chances for any detrimental impacts to result from the scheme. Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the separating distance between the units and the nearby residential properties would ensure that any impacts in terms of emissions, vibrations, odour, noise or light pollution would be negligible.

6.4.2 Overall, it is therefore concluded that the proposed development would not result in harm to neighbouring amenity through overlooking, leading to a loss of privacy or loss of light through the building having an overbearing impact. As well, there would be no harm resulting from the buildings general appearance on the nearby properties, given the intermediate distances, design, scale and massing of the building which is considered compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g).

6.5 Impact on the Highways and Access

6.5.1 The comments from Highways services are heavily relied upon and in this instance, as the parking provision, pedestrian and vehicle access arrangements, and bicycle storage provisions are considered to be acceptable, save for the imposition of conditions to ensure that these elements of the scheme are implemented within the scheme.

70

6.5.2 From review of the submitted documents, it is also considered that the proposed parking provisions would be sufficient for the number of units proposed for the site. This is based on the fact that the units would serve general industrial and storage and distribution purposes. With regard to general industrial use, the standard stipulates that one parking space be provided per 50 square metres gross floor space. As the eight block unit is 1584 square metres in area, 32 spaces (approx.) would be required. Thus the 37 parking provisions would be more than adequate.

6.5.3 On the other hand, the units were used solely for storage and distribution which requires one space per 100 square metres gross floor space, then the 1548sqm of floor space will require approximately 16 parking spaces. Given that the units are not particularly designated for any specific use, it is noted that there would be a mix of the uses at various proportions or combinations for which the 37 spaces provided on the site would still be appropriate. As such, it is considered that the available parking provided wold be more than sufficient for the proposed development, ensuring that the development complies with Transport Policy 7 and General Policy 2 (h).

6.5.4 It is also considered that the proposal is unlikely to give rise to significant negative impacts on the adjoining network in terms of highway safety or network efficiency with the site traffic being accommodated onto the existing network via Harcourt drive which is an unadopted but established highway. This element of the development is therefore considered to be compliant with Transport Policy 7 and GP2 h & i, and Strategic Policy P10.

6.6 Other Matters

6.6.1 Request for conditions on drainage and surface discharge: Whilst Manx Utilities Drainage has requested that conditions be imposed to control drainage and surface discharge, these are the subject of other regulatory controls such as the Sewerage Act 1999, and as such would be better addressed via the appropriate instruments under these controls. Based on the foregoing, no conditions in this regard have not been recommended within this scheme.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the planning application would not harm the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties or the highway network and would comply with aforementioned planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, and 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: (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.

71

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.

72

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 10th May 2021

Item 5.6 Proposal : Construction of flood protection walls Site Address : River Section To Rear Of Glen Road Glen Road Laxey Isle Of Man Applicant : Department Of Infrastructure Application No. : 21/00298/B- click to view Senior Planning Mr Jason Singleton Officer :

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 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 commencement of works on site, a 'development within 9 meters of a watercourse form' a written method statement and ecological impact assessment should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. All works in the river bed and the vicinity of the river shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason; To ensure adequate protection of the River, associated bio-diversity and fish within.

C 3. The stone cladding on both sides of the wall shall be installed as shown in the approved drawings and retained as such thereafter.

REASON: In the interest of visual amenity of the Conservation Area.

Reason for approval: The application would not harm the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties or considered to harm the watercourse or that of the Laxey Conservation area has been designed to comply with Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 7, 22 and 35 of the Strategic Plan 2016.

______

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Department should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

- Department of Infrastructure, Flood Risk Management. 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 73 matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):

- Occupants of Glen View, South Cape, Laxey 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

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site identified in red starts at the rear of dwellinghouse named 4 Victoria Terrace and extends down the river for approx. 240m to the rear of dwellinghouse Figtree cottage. The locations of the works are to the rear gardens of those properties, mainly to the boundary wall from their residential curtilage to the river. The rear boundary treatment differs from each property.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the existing boundary wall (where applicable) and the construction of flood protection walls comprising a combination of reinforced concrete wall and natural stone cladding to both sides located to the rear of those residential properties fronting Glen Road.

2.2 The applicant notes "the existing wall is undermined and in poor condition and does not offer the required height and freeboard required to prevent flooding". The replacement wall will be broadly the same height as some of the existing which would be approx. 1200mm high and approx. 450mm wide and would feature stone cladding which forms the rivers retaining wall.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area designated as 'predominately residential' on Map 7 in the Area Plan for the East December 2020.

The Area Plan for the East Written Statement 3.2 Within the accompanying written statement, Glen Road Laxey does not generally feature, Laxey River is noted amongst other rivers for populations of spawning salmon and sea-trout. With regard to flooding and erosion in section 5.20.1 refers to the 2016 National Strategy on Sea Defences and Coastal Erosion Evidence report which identified areas at risk of fluvial, surface water and coastal flooding within this, Laxey, amongst other areas was identified "as being at high risk both now and in the future and require urgent consideration, further investigation and potential intervention to reduce the evident risk". Section 5.20.2 notes the impact of flooding, weather and the flood risk when allocating land for future development and "flood risk acting as a critical constraint in the Site Assessment Framework used to assess proposed sites". Section 5.20.3 identifies that Flood risk maps have been produced by the MUA and their data used to identify flood risk areas.

3.3 Natural Environment Recommendation 3 The Department supports further consideration and investigation of the impacts of coastal, fluvial and surface water flooding and coastal erosion on key economic, infrastructure, environmental and social receptors. The ongoing work of the Flooding Advisory Group is recognised as part of this, as well as the findings and recommendations set out in the Laxey Flood Independent Review Report. The following, including the areas of Douglas (comprising 74

Douglas Bay, Douglas Harbour, Glass/Douglas/Dhoo/Middle River Confluence, River Glass and Upper Dhoo) and Laxey, are all identified as being at high risk both now and in the future.

3.4 With regard to the Historic Built environment, in section 6.8 talks about safeguarding the local character local character, particularly those features which fundamentally define the historic built environment in the East. Part of section 6.8.3 provides helpful guidance; "Existing and new development can exist side by side, even with some visual differences presented by old and new building styles. New development should not seek to mimic existing development but be of its own time".

3.5 Urban Environment Proposal 3 Development proposals must make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Traditional or contemporary approaches may be appropriate, depending upon the nature of the proposal and the context of the surrounding area.

3.6 With regard to Tourism in the east in section 10.2.1, only the Laxey wheel and the Great Laxey Mines Railway are noted.

Conservation Area Designation 3.7 The length of the application site is also identified as being within the Laxey Conservation Area 1990.

Strategic Plan 2016 3.8 Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application:

3.9 Strategic Policy 4 Proposals for development must: (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings(1), Conservation Areas(2) , buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest; (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance.

3.10 General Policy 2 (GP2) (in part) 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; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;

3.11 Environment Policy 7 Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria: (a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality; (b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted; 75

(c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and (d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species.

3.12 Environment Policy 22 Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution.

3.13 Environmental 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.

3.14 Other material Considerations; o Laxey Flood Alleviation Scheme Feasibility Study 2020 o Laxey Flood of 1st October 2019 Independent Review Final Report (Arup report) o Laxey Floor Modelling 2017 o National Strategy on Sea Defences, Flooding and coastal Erosion 2016 o Isle of Man Surface water flood map 2014 o Isle of Man Flooding and Wave Overtopping Study 2014 o Flood Risk to Coastal Towns 2012

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 It is pertinent to consider previous approved planning applications to Laxey River:

4.2 20/01385/B - Construction of reinforced concrete wall with stone cladding for the purpose of providing flood protection. This Section of wall ran from the Laxey Woollen Mill to the start of this application at No.4 Victoria Terrace.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief, full statements can be read online) 5.1 Garff Parish Commissioners had not commented at the time of writing.

5.2 Highways Services have commented (02/04/21) and do not object.

5.3 DEFA Inland Fisheries have commented (19/04/21) any works to the watercourse bank and channel are restricted to a period 14th June to September (inclusive) to avoid spawning fish. Also, the works will need to be carried out in accordance with a method statement, to minimise disturbance to fish within the river.

5.4 DoI Flood Risk Management commented (06/04/21) with No Flood Risk Management interest

5.5 2 Glen View, South Cape commented (23/04/21) broadly agrees with stone cladding on both sides of the wall but should be Manx Stone traditionally laid down to the river bed. Also, the former horse drawn wagon way track beside Osbourne Cottage is preserved and other section found are fully photographed for MNH records.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;

(i) Justification for the works (EP7a,b;) (ii) Impact on the neighbouring properties (GP2g ; EP22) 76

(iii) Any adverse harm to the watercourse or (EP7c,d;GP2d) (iv) Visual impact on the wider streetscene and Laxey Conservation Area (SP4; EP35;GP2b&c)

6.2 Justification The starting point is the recommendations that were derived from the Arup report which has enabled JBA consulting to carry out surface water modelling and identify flood risk reduction opportunities possible within the Laxey Area. Of the 50 options for river, tidal and surface water flood risk alleviation, one of the options and the subject of this application is a new retaining wall between the Laxey River and Glen Road. This is further emphasised in the latest report (Laxey Flood Alleviation Scheme Feasibility Study 2020) at paragraph 6.1 titled; Long list of options - Fluvial and tidal referenced; (noted below in 6.3) This is also featured in paragraph 6.2.2 MER Weir and Glen Road Walls on page 35/36 where the table and pictogram shows the location of the works".

6.3 There is a wider government initiative to progress mitigating measures to offset flooding under the 'Programme for Government for a Sustainable Island' where it says; " Continue to invest in sea defences and in reducing flooding and coastal erosion risks for those areas identified as high risk in our national strategy". Laxey River has been identified as being high risk and the requirement for these works has been identified within the latest report from JBA consulting and previous studies, as noted above, which has been sufficiently documented and justified. Of all the works shortlisted, and the subject of this application, are seen as one of the most fundamental aspects to implement the necessary safeguards. As such the department is satisfied there is sufficient need for the principle of the works and as no evidence or conflicting professional hydrological reports to the contrary are published, the application would be in accordance with Environment Policy 7 (a,b).

6.4 Neighbours The proposed works for a replacement wall at the end of the garden to those residential properties would be considered to be relatively non-contentious in the respect to the visual impacts on the neighbouring properties along Glen Road and would not be considered to be detrimental to their amenity. The residents of Glen Road have not commented on the application as they are to benefit the most from the works and this would offer the added protection from flooding over the years safeguarding their properties. This aspect would be read in accordance with GP2g & EP22.

6.5 Watercourse The scope of works will see this part of the river boundary wall being transformed as previously noted in section 2.0 of this report. Importantly the comments from the inland fisheries are helpful and the applicant and their appointed contractors would be required to liaise with them for the production of a full method statement/ risk assessment of all the activities involved for works to replace the walling prior to the works commencing on site. On balance, the proposed scale of the works whilst would be initially invasive to this section of river and the boundary wall can be undertaken in a safe and appropriate manner to protect the quality of the local environment and would not adversely harm the water course, and would be compliant with GP2d and EP7c,d. This aspect can be controlled through an appropriately worded conditioned to ensure adequate safeguards are in place during the construction works.

6.6 Visual Impact The proposed replacement wall is partially visible from the opposite side of the river where there is a public footpath No.415 which runs from the Shore Hotel to the Commissioners offices (approx. 1km in length). From here the proposed wall would be visible and the drawings indicate that stone cladding is to be used on both sides for the majority of its length, which will give a uniform appearance and is welcomed and can be conditioned to ensure its retention is retained in perpetuity. The proposed appearance of the wall with 77 stone cladding would be sympathetic to the surroundings and would be appropriate for the area without being detrimental to the wider Conservation Area. Any visual impact or loss of historic walling that is being replaced or bolstered is deemed to be minimal with any harm being outweighed by the benefits of flood protection to the existing dwellings and their residents and is sufficiently justified as noted above. This aspect would comply with Sp4, EP35 and GP2b&c.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The application has been considered and on balance would be appropriate for the area and would not harm the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties or considered to harm the watercourse or that of the Laxey Conservation area has been designed to comply with Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 7, 22 and 35 of the Strategic Plan 2016, and is recommended for approval.

8.0 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.

78

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 10th May 2021

Item 5.7 Proposal : Alterations to substructure of existing weir and re-grading of river channel incorporating a rock ramp to control flow and stabilisation of existing river banks Site Address : River Weir Adj To Glen Road Glen Road Laxey Isle Of Man Applicant : Department Of Infrastructure Application No. : 21/00300/B- click to view Senior Planning Mr Jason Singleton Officer :

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 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 commencement of works on site, a 'development within 9 meters of a watercourse form' a written method statement and ecological impact assessment should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. All works in the river bed and the vicinity of the river shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason; To ensure adequate protection of the River, associated bio-diversity and fish within.

Reason for approval: The application would be appropriate for the area and would not harm the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties or considered to harm the watercourse or that of the Laxey Conservation area has been designed to comply with Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 7, 10, 22 and 35 of the Strategic Plan 2016. ______

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Department should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

- Department of Infrastructure, Flood Risk Management.

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): 79

- Occupants of Glen View, South Cape, Laxey 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.

- Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society 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

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site identified in red is within the Laxey River weir to the north of Victoria Terrace on Glen Road Laxey.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the steel / concrete substructure of the existing weir 9m x 3m x 1m and re-grading of river channel incorporating a 'rock ramp' to control the flow of water for approx. 40m length of the river and stabilisation of existing river banks with an extra section of wall to tie in and run flush with the new Glen Road wall at the same height. The scope of works would also see the replacement of not only the weir, but the lower steel / concrete platform approx. 10m x 10m x 0.5m and a 6m x 4m platform structure lower down.

2.2 The application is accompanied with a planning statement that covers 20 pages and detailing the background to the application, location and description of works, political policy, planning and other policy framework, proposed option and flood risk statement, scoping assessment for the environmental statement which then includes sub sections detailing bio- diversity and nature conservation, water environment, landscape and visual impact, land and soil, noise, climate, material assets, population, local community, heritage and conservation areas and further drawings and photographs in support of the application.

2.3 The existing weirs reduce the riverbed level from 16.02mAD02 to 13.36mAD02 dramatically reducing the head level of the river whereas the proposed rock ramp aims to reduce the riverbed by the same amount but by utilizing a gradual gradient as advised by flood specialists JBA Consulting which will in turn help to alleviate flooding within Laxey. The proposed rock ramp is made up of strategically placed boulders approx. 1-3 tonnes each or approx. 1.2m dia and graded rock of varying sizes to infill and create the ramp aspect. In conjunction with the rock ramp, it is proposed that the adjacent section of river wall is strengthened and raised adjacent to Glen Road.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area designates the surrounding area as 'predominately residential' on Map 7 Laxey Area Plan for the East.

The Area Plan for the East Written Statement 3.2 Within the accompanying written statement, Glen Road Laxey does not generally feature, Laxey River is noted amongst other rivers for populations of spawning salmon and sea-trout. With regard to flooding and erosion in section 5.20.1 refers to the 2016 National Strategy on Sea Defences and Coastal Erosion Evidence report which identified areas at risk of fluvial, surface water and coastal flooding within this, Laxey, amongst other areas was identified "as being at high risk both now and in the future and require urgent consideration, further investigation and potential intervention to reduce the evident risk". Section 5.20.2 80 notes the impact of flooding, weather and the flood risk when allocating land for future development and "flood risk acting as a critical constraint in the Site Assessment Framework used to assess proposed sites". Section 5.20.3 identifies that Flood risk maps have been produced by the MUA and their data used to identify flood risk areas.

3.3 Natural Environment Recommendation 3 The Department supports further consideration and investigation of the impacts of coastal, fluvial and surface water flooding and coastal erosion on key economic, infrastructure, environmental and social receptors. The ongoing work of the Flooding Advisory Group is recognised as part of this, as well as the findings and recommendations set out in the Laxey Flood Independent Review Report. The following, including the areas of Douglas (comprising Douglas Bay, Douglas Harbour, Glass/Douglas/Dhoo/Middle River Confluence, River Glass and Upper Dhoo) and Laxey, are all identified as being at high risk both now and in the future.

3.4 With regard to the Historic Built environment, in section 6.8 talks about safeguarding the local character local character, particularly those features which fundamentally define the historic built environment in the East. Part of section 6.8.3 provides helpful guidance; "Existing and new development can exist side by side, even with some visual differences presented by old and new building styles. New development should not seek to mimic existing development but be of its own time".

3.5 Urban Environment Proposal 3 Development proposals must make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Traditional or contemporary approaches may be appropriate, depending upon the nature of the proposal and the context of the surrounding area.

3.6 With regard to Tourism in the east in section 10.2.1, only the Laxey wheel and the Great Laxey Mines Railway are noted.

Conservation Area Designation 3.7 The application site is identified as being within the Laxey Conservation Area 1990.

Strategic Plan 2016 3.8 Within the adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, the following policies are considered to be relevant in the determination of this application:

3.9 Strategic Policy 4 Proposals for development must: (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings(1), Conservation Areas(2) , buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest; (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance.

3.10 General Policy 2 (GP2) (in part) 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; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; 81

3.11 Environment Policy 7 Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria: (a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality; (b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted; (c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and (d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species.

3.12 Environment Policy 10 Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4.

3.13 Environment Policy 22 Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution.

3.13 Environmental 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.

3.14 Other material Considerations; o Laxey Flood Alleviation Scheme Feasibility Study 2020 o Laxey Flood of 1st October 2019 Independent Review Final Report (Arup report) o Laxey Floor Modelling 2017 o National Strategy on Sea Defences, Flooding and coastal Erosion 2016 o Isle of Man Surface water flood map 2014 o Isle of Man Flooding and Wave Overtopping Study 2014 o Flood Risk to Coastal Towns 2012

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 It is pertinent to consider previous approved planning applications to Laxey River:

4.2 20/01385/B - Construction of reinforced concrete wall with stone cladding for the purpose of providing flood protection. This Section of wall ran from the Laxey Woollen Mill to the start of this application at No.4 Victoria Terrace. APPROVED.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief, full statements can be read online) 5.1 Garff Parish Commissioners had not commented at the time of writing.

5.2 Highways Services have commented (02/04/21) and do not object.

5.3 DEFA Inland Fisheries have commented (19/04/21) any works to the watercourse bank and channel are restricted to a period 14th June to September (inclusive) to avoid 82 spawning fish. Also, the works will need to be carried out in accordance with a method statement, to minimise disturbance to fish within the river.

5.4 DoI Flood Risk Management (06/04/21) do not object.

5.5 DEFA Bio-diversity commented (16/04/21) noting an assessment is being prepared and requests an ecological assessment.

5.6 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey commented (23/04/21) supplying photos of the weir and views from the footpath. Comments on the original weir should have been photographed prior to removal, the new wall will obstruct views of the river from Glen Road, seeks for an information board on Glen Road and viewing area and their importance to Laxey, comments on how the flooding occurred, potential impact on the side weir and lade structure with reduced water flows, considers the concrete wall out of character with the area and conservation area, stone facing should be to both sides to avoid a detrimental visual impact.

5.7 Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society commented (30/04/21) to say they don’t think the proposal is environmentally or nature friendly and does not properly record the Industrial Archaeological heritage of the Island and Laxey. Comments on the cause of flooding by woodland debris, compares the zoning of the Laxey and Lonan Plan and the Area Plan for the East and the lack of ecological interest designation. references Urban Proposal 3 from TAPE, does not consider the proposal to preserve or enhance and the lowering of the weir would have an adverse impact on the flow of water by lowering the water level in this area, the weir won’t be visible from Glen Road given the height of the walling, should include a viewing point, concrete finish will create a sterile appearance, should be stone faced, works detrimental to Laxey River, registered building application for the demolition should be submitted.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are;

(i) Justification for the works (EP7a,b; Ep10) (ii) Impact on the neighbouring properties (GP2g ; EP22) (iii) Any adverse harm to the watercourse (EP7c,d;GP2d) (iv) Visual impact on the wider streetscene and Laxey Conservation Area (SP4; EP35;GP2b&c)

6.2 Justification The starting point is the recommendations that were derived from the Arup report which has enabled JBA consulting to carry out surface water modelling and identify flood risk reduction opportunities possible within the Laxey Area. Of the 50 options for river, tidal and surface water flood risk alleviation, one of the options and the subject of this application is a new retaining wall between the Laxey River and Glen Road. This is further emphasised in the latest report (Laxey Flood Alleviation Scheme Feasibility Study 2020) at paragraph 6.1 titled; Long list of options - Fluvial and tidal referenced; (noted below in 6.3) This is also featured in paragraph 6.2.2 MER Weir and Glen Road Walls on page 35/36 where the table and pictogram shows the location of the works".

6.3 The supporting statement highlights that; "Following the floods of 2019, the superstructure of the weir was removed to prevent future blockages and the Department proposes to remove the sub-structure of the weir this summer which will include re-grading of the Laxey River bed in this area which will include the installation of a rock ramp which will control the river flows and prevent adverse river bank and bed level erosion".

6.4 There are multiple weir structures in the Laxey River adjacent to Glen Road that are now deemed by the applicants to be in a poor condition and in need of replacing as 83 evidenced in the various reports. The applicant notes that "the existing weir structure is in a poor condition with a large scour hole at the left toe of the weir. The concrete platform is also in poor condition with steel reinforcement protruding from the platform and again, a large scour hole exists on the left side of the channel. If the existing structures were to fail, it could cause blockages downstream resulting in severe flooding".

6.5 There is a wider government initiative to progress mitigating measures to offset flooding under the 'Programme for Government for a Sustainable Island' where it says; " Continue to invest in sea defences and in reducing flooding and coastal erosion risks for those areas identified as high risk in our national strategy". Laxey River has been identified as being high risk and the requirement for these works has been identified within the latest report from JBA consulting and previous studies, as noted above, which has been sufficiently documented and justified. Of all the works shortlisted, and the subject of this application, are seen as one of the most fundamental aspects to implement the necessary safeguards. As such the department is satisfied there is sufficient need for the principle of the works and as no evidence or conflicting professional hydrological reports to the contrary are published, the application would be in accordance with Environment Policy 7 (a,b).

6.6 The broad range of details required for an EIA and Environmental Statements associated with development is intended for much larger and more complex developments and, most likely, set in a more environmentally sensitive locations. Not all of the items listed within the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017. Schedule 4, are of relevance to this development. This development concerns works to remove the weir structures and replace with a rock ramp weir made up of strategically placed boulders and well graded rock. The application demonstrates that it has broadly met the requirements of Environmental Policy 10.

6.7 Neighbours The proposed works for a replacement weir and installation of a rock ramp within Laxey River would be considered to be relatively non-contentious in the respect to the visual impacts on the neighbouring properties along Glen Road and would not be considered to be detrimental to their amenity once completed. The residents of Glen Road have not commented on the application as they are to benefit the most from the works and this would offer the added protection from flooding over the years safeguarding their properties. This aspect would be read in accordance with GP2g & EP22.

6.8 Watercourse The scope of works will see part of the river bed being transformed as previously noted in section 2.0 of this report. Importantly the comments from the inland fisheries and the Bio diversity officer are helpful and the applicant and their appointed contractors would be required to liaise with them for the production of a full method statement/ risk assessment of all the activities involved for works to replace the weir within the river prior to the works commencing on site. On balance, the proposed scale of the works whilst would be initially invasive to the river can be undertaken in a safe and appropriate manner to protect the quality of the local environment and would not adversely harm the water course in the long term, and would be compliant with GP2d and EP7c,d. This aspect can be controlled through an appropriately worded conditioned to ensure adequate safeguards are in place during the construction works.

6.9 Visual Impact The proposed replacement weir is partially visible from the opposite side of the river where there is a public footpath No.415 which runs from the Shore Hotel to the Commissioners offices (approx. 1km in length). On completion of the works the replacement with a rock ramp can be considered to be very important as it will protect the river from blockages and furthermore, the proposed solution will emulate the natural river, improving river continuity and fish passage. Whilst this would be a modern approach to the existing weir and twinned 84 with the additional concrete walling to Glen Road which will be the same finish and height as the adjacent existing wall as previously approved, that would be the same concrete appearance before the wall becomes Manx Stone and would be considered to have a neutral impact, albeit not to everyone’s liking, but would be read in conjunction with the existing concrete walling previously approved. The proposed appearance of the rock ramp would be sympathetic to the surroundings and would be appropriate for the area without being detrimental to the wider Laxey Conservation Area. Any visual impact as a result of the proposed application, or loss of historic weir that is being replaced by the rock ramp and wall is deemed to be minimal with any harm being outweighed by the benefits of flood protection to the existing dwellings and their residents and is sufficiently justified as noted above. This aspect would comply with Sp4, EP35 and GP2b&c.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The application has been considered and on balance would be appropriate for the area and would not harm the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties or considered to harm the watercourse or that of the Laxey Conservation area has been designed to comply with Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 7, 10, 22 and 35 of the Strategic Plan 2016, and is recommended for approval.

8.0 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.

85

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 10th May 2021

Item 5.8 Proposal : Creation of a toilet and shower facility for disabled users Site Address : Glenlough Campsite Ballahutchin Hill Union Mills Isle Of Man IM4 4AT Applicant : Glenlough Camp Site Limited Application No. : 21/00349/B- click to view Principal Planner : Miss S E Corlett

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

Reason for approval: The development is considered to complement the existing tourist facilities on the site which supports the Government's tourism strategy and there would be no harm to existing protected trees or the landscaping, in compliance with Environment Policies 1, 2 and 3 and General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan. ______

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

DoI Flood Risk Management Team should be afforded Interested Person Status as they are a Government Department which has raised material considerations. ______

Planning Officer’s Report

THIS DECISION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE SITE IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT COMPLY WITH ANY OF THE EXCEPTIONS SET OUT IN GENERAL POLICY 3 OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN

THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of a camp site which is mostly used at TT and Festival of Motorcycling events although also during other festivals and over the warmer months of the year. The site lies on the TT Course on the A1 at the eastern side of Glen Vine and to the south of the main road. The site is mostly open field with a hardcore perimeter track and a small number of buildings which are associated with the camp site, mid way along the south western boundary of the site which abuts the farmyard.

THE PROPOSAL

86

2.1 Proposed is a modest extension of an existing building to provide a shower and toilet facility. The extension is a little over 2m by 3m and abuts an existing shower and toilet facility serving the camp site. The new facilities are specifically designed to be usable by those with disabilities. The extension will be finished in render and sheeting to match the building to which it will be attached.

PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the East (2020) as not for a particular purpose and outside of the settlement boundary of Glen Vine. There are Registered Trees within the site although not close to the proposed development. The site falls within the Landscape Character Area of Union Mills, Glen Vine and Crosby (C3) which is Broad Lowland Valley and where the following advice is provided:

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.

3.2 The site lies within an area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982. The Area Plan makes it clear that these areas will not continue to have effect once the Area Plan and its Landscape Character Areas were adopted although it is relevant to the assessment of the application under Environment Policy 2 of the Strategic which promotes the protection of the landscape as the most important consideration in the determination of applications for development unless there are reasons why the siting is essential and there is no harm to the character and quality of the landscape. The Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 also identifies areas of Woodland (which correspond to the Registered Trees) and there is an Ancient Monument (chapel and burial ground) within the farm holding but not on the application site.

3.3 The site does not lie within a Flood Risk Area nor within a Conservation Area and none of the buildings within the application site is Registered.

3.4 There is a presumption against development in undesignated areas and Environment Policies 1 and 2 both presume against development which will be harmful to the landscape. Paragraph 9.5.3 makes it clear that tourism development will not be subject to any less stringent policies than other forms of development in the countryside although in practice, the Department has considered favourably development which supports Government's tourism strategy (11/00549/B on this site, 14/00800/B for Glendown campsite in Port St. Mary, 20/00496/B in Port Erin).

3.5 Environment Policy 3 protects trees and General Policy 2 existing landscape features. General Policy 3 sets out exceptions to the presumption against development in the countryside and the provision of tourism facilities does not appear in the list.

PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 Planning approval has been sought for the creation of an accommodation block for a tented village under 89/01568/B with further development associated with the camp site following - 12/00058/B formed a new access, 12/00057/B saw an access track with motor home parking bays, 12/00052/B the conversion of a store building into a recreation and café facility, 11/00549/B three camping pods and 13/91353/B another access track.

87

4.2 The remainder of the farm to the south is used for agricultural purposes and has been the subject of its own applications for agricultural development which are not considered to be relevant to the current application.

REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services confirm on 02.04.21 that they have no highway interest in the application.

5.2 The DoI Flood Risk Management Team advise that there is no flood risk interest in this application (15.04.21).

5.3 Marown Parish Commissioners have no objection to the application (22.04.21).

ASSESSMENT 6.1 Whilst the site is not designated for development and there is a presumption against development here, the scale of the development is minor, the development will not be publicly visible and even if it were, would not be harmful to the landscape due to its context, scale and surroundings. The provision of accessible facilities should be welcomed to ensure that the Island's tourist facilities are available for all.

CONCLUSION 7.1 The development is considered to complement the existing tourist facilities on the site which supports the Government's tourism strategy and there would be no harm to existing protected trees or the landscaping, in compliance with Environment Policies 1, 2 and 3 and General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.

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 in Article 4(2) who should be given Interested Person Status.

88