Planning Committee Agenda

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 TOWN AND COUNTRY (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) (No2) ORDER 2013 TOWN AND COUNTRY (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) ORDER 2019

Agenda for a meeting of the Planning Committee, 15th February 2021, 10.00am, in the Ground Floor Meeting Room of Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas

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 4th February 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 29th January to 8th February 2021.

8. Any other business

9. Next meeting of the Planning Committee Set for 1st March 2021.

Appendix One PLANNING COMMITTEE Meeting, 15th February 2021 Schedule of planning applications

Item 5.1 Erection of a replacement detached Fern Villa & Part Fields 410213 & 410216 dwelling with associated access, increase Ballakillowey Road Colby Isle Of Man IM9 of residential curtilage within adjacent 4BW field to provide a parking area and erection of a barn PA20/01116/B Recommendation : Permitted

Item 5.2 Construction of nine new garages and Land At Corner Of Lhon Vane Close And Lhon four bike stores Dhoo Close Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 3BD

PA20/01307/B Recommendation : Permitted

Item 5.3 Erection of summer house for use as hair 17 Broogh Wyllin Kirk Michael Isle Of Man salon IM6 1HU

PA20/01288/B Recommendation : Permitted

Item 5.4 Approval in principle for erection of new Land Adjacent To Fasque Andreas Road dwelling addressing matters of access and Ramsey Isle Of Man landscaping

PA20/01386/A Recommendation : Permitted

Item 5.5 Alterations and erection of extension to 14 Cronk Cardle Corony Ramsey Isle Of Man side of elevation and alterations to vehicle IM7 1ET access

PA20/01167/B Recommendation : Permitted

Item 5.6 Construction of reinforced concrete wall Glen Road Laxey Isle Of Man with stone cladding for the purpose of providing flood protection PA20/01385/B Recommendation : Permitted

Item 5.7 Temporary use of site to be used as car Former Isle Of Man Holiday Camp Victoria park (retrospective) Road Douglas Isle Of Man

PA20/01145/C Recommendation : Refused

Item 5.8 Installation of 36no. ground level solar Ballanoa Andreas Road Dhoor Ramsey Isle Of panels and 4no. air source heat pumps 2

Man IM7 4EE

PA20/01258/B Recommendation : Permitted

Item 5.9 Erection of an extension to existing Loughan Barn Bretney Road Jurby Isle Of agricultural shed Man IM7 3EZ

PA20/01406/B Recommendation : Permitted

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 15th February 2021

Item 5.1 Proposal : Erection of a replacement detached dwelling with associated access, increase of residential curtilage within adjacent field to provide a parking area and erection of a barn Site Address : Fern Villa & Part Fields 410213 & 410216 Ballakillowey Road Colby Isle Of Man IM9 4BW Applicant : Mr David & Mrs Hannah Le Couteur Thomas Application No. : 20/01116/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.

C 2. Prior to the commencement of any works an Energy Statement shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Department (Planning and Building Control Directorate) which demonstrates the new dwelling has a Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating of at least 92 (or similar rating system) which can been achieved. The development shall be undertaken in accordance with these details.

Reason: a reason why the application is considered acceptable is due to the overall environmental impacts as outlined on Housing Policy 14 and namely the eco efficiency credentials of the new dwelling

C 3. The development shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures for wildlife as detailed in Section 8 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) produced by the Island Biodiversity Consultants dated August 2020. The identified measures shall be adhered to and implemented in full and maintained thereafter.

Reason: to ensure that the development has an acceptable impact on the ecology of the area including species protected under the Wildlife Act 1990, and Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan.

C 4. The accesses, splays, parking and turning facilities must be provided in accordance with drawings P02A and P09 prior to the occupation of the dwelling as hereby approved and such must be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: in accordance with highway safety.

C 5. No development may commence until such times as there has been approved in writing by the Department a tree protection plan which identifies the position of all existing trees together with a protection plan including construction exclusion zones, for the carrying out of the development works. The development must be undertaken in accordance with these details.

Reason: to avoid the unwarranted and unapproved loss of trees as part of this development.

C 6. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwelling, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

Reason: the landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.

C 7. The outbuilding hereby approved may be used only for agricultural purposes and/or the storage of items associated with the maintenance of the site which are the areas edged red and blue on the plan reference P06A received on 23rd November, 2020.

Reason: the building is justified on grounds of ecological and agricultural maintenance as set out in the application.

N 1. The applicants' attention is drawn to the provisions of the Wildlife Act 1990 in particular in respect of the protection of nesting and breeding birds which may be affected by the timing of the works including site clearance.

Reason for approval: Whilst the replacement dwelling is not a traditional design, it is considered that the proposal will have an acceptable environmental impact, taking into account both the physical and visual impact of the property on the environment as well as the impact through energy efficient and environmentally friendly materials and as such the proposal, including the proposed barn which will assist the implementation of the management of the remainder of the site in an ecologically friendly manner, is considered to accord with Environment Policies 1, 4, 7, 10, 13 and 15, Housing Policies 12 and 14 and General Policy 2. ______

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 National Heritage

The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society 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

______

Planning Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PROPOSAL MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH HOUSING POLICIES 12 AND/OR 14

PRE-AMBLE 0.1 This application was considered by the committee on 04.02.21 and deferred for a site visit. At that meeting the Case Officer summarised an additional representation received immediately prior to the meeting from the IOM Natural History & Antiquarian Society, regarding the wooded nature of the site together with the non-traditional design of the proposal and its detrimental visual impact on the area, which they feel to be in breach of EP1. The letter also raises concerns regarding the proposed outbuilding. The remainder of this report has not been changed.

THE SITE 1.1 The site is the existing residential curtilage of Fern Villa, a detached residential property which sits on the western side of the A36 to the south of its junction with the Ronague Road (B44). The current residential curtilage has a frontage to the main road of 36m and is between 21m and 27m deep towards the west. To the rear is a larger open agricultural field, part of which is included in the application as being within the applicant's ownership and part of which is within the application site.

1.2 Fern Villa is a traditional Manx cottage which faces south and which has a largely traditional core, albeit that its front elevation window apertures have been lengthened and the substantial cills removed, a flat roofed annex added on the roadside elevation which continues around to the rear. The property also has a two storey pitched roofed annex on the western side of the house. The garden associated with the existing property extends to the south of the frontage and has self seeded trees on the roadside boundary and a smaller multi stemmed tree in the centre of the garden.

1.3 There is a gated access just to the south of the house in the stone wall which leads to a small area of hard surfacing which could accommodate one vehicle.

1.4 The western boundary of the site is bounded by trees and shrubs.

1.5 There is a lane to the south of the garden which leads up to the fields to the west of the house.

1.6 The site rises gently from east to west.

1.7 The site lies within an area where the speed of traffic is derestricted although there are signs at the north and south of the settlement recommending the maximum speed not exceeding 50 mph.

1.8 The area is characterised by a mix of building types - some traditional, some traditional with more modern/unsympathetic extensions and some completely modern.

THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the extension of the residential curtilage in an irregular shape together with the replacement of the existing dwelling with a new house. The existing house sits right alongside the road in the northern corner of the residential curtilage.

2.2 The existing house is mostly two storey and has a floor area measured externally, of 182 sq m.

2.3 The proposed dwelling will sit on top of the footprint of the existing but extending it to the south by 6m and moving the rear up to 2.6m further south. The new house will also sit slightly further (4.6m) from the road with the roadside wall continued in place of the existing flat roofed and pitched roof annexes in this part of the site. The existing field gate is also to be built up. The proposed dwelling has a floor area, measured externally, of around 237 sq m, an increase of 30 per cent of the existing floor area and an average increase in height of 1.8m.

2.4 The curtilage is to be extended up to 16m to the west to accommodate an area of hard surfacing for car parking. This will sit next to a new outbuilding, referred to as a barn.

2.5 The dwelling will have a main footprint of 6m by 13.5m with annexes which project 3.6m and 1.7m to the south. There is a general eaves height of 5m although the building steps down towards the road and a ridge level of 7.5 and 8.4m depending upon the slope of the ground.

2.6 The dwelling will be finished in a standing seam sheeted roof with larch cladding and painted timber windows and doors.

2.7 The outbuilding will have a floor area of 12.3m by 7.5m and an eaves level of 2m and 3.1m and a ridge height of 4.2m. The building will be finished in metal cladding of an unspecified colour with ten photovoltaic panels on the south facing roof plane.

2.8 The application includes supporting information in the form of a Design Statement, a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and a Flood Risk Assessment.

Design Statement 2.9 Whilst not referring to any planning policies, the Design Statement explains that the existing property has been altered and extended and "now lacks any traditional features that would be typically associated with a traditional Manx cottage". They describe the roof as being largely intact although the flat roofs are showing signs of disrepair and the building has no foundations or central heating and being next to the field drain has made for a damp building. In 2018 the property was furnished and with personal effects throughout the property.

2.10 They submit a further design statement in December, 2020 which refers to the Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14, suggesting that the existing house has not lost its habitable status by abandonment as whilst the building is in poor repair this relates primarily to the external finishes and structurally it is sound. Whilst it could be repaired it does not make economic sense or would provide the architectural solution that the applicant is looking for. The site has not been used for any other purpose than residential and is understood to have been occupied within the last ten years..

2.11 In respect of its character and appearance, the property has, they suggest, undergone numerous changes and no longer appears as a traditional Manx cottage and in their opinion has no architectural or historic interest. To return the dwelling to its original appearance would involve the removal of the flat roofed extensions and the two storey addition at the side and would not provide the amount of information that the applicant requires.

2.12 The replacement dwelling is less than 50% larger than the existing. They acknowledge that the replacement does not follow the guidance in Planning Circular 3/91 Policies 2-7 but HP14 provides for modern, innovative design of high quality where there is no adverse visual impact. They explain that the proposed house is slightly taller than the existing to allow for 7 increased ceiling heights on the first floor and to raise the new house out of the ground to allow for any issues with rising damp which is particularly important for a timber framed house and this will also allow for level access from the car park area in the field behind. The wider proportions of the proposed house reflect modern day living requirements for the applicant and the roof pitch is dictated by the off site construction method: any steeper and the panels become dangerously slippery to walk on once the finish has been applied. The overhang which is not a vernacular feature, helps protect the timber cladding from the rain. The house also includes a number of outdoor covered spaces which increase its apparent size but contributes to its functionality. They consider that the overall proposal has no adverse visual impact and the timber cladding complement the rural, treed setting including the stone wall which is to be retained.

2.13 The timber cladding is a renewable material sourced in the Scottish Highlands and the metal roof is recyclable. The timber will weather to a silvery grey and will complement the roof and stone. The larger windows will allow for greater solar gain and daylight with smaller windows in the northern elevation. They refer to two other applications, unfortunately not giving the addresses but these are added for convenience - 20/00651/B at Prospect Villa in Andreas and 20/00757/B at Knock-e-Loughan Cottage in Braddan which they feel are similar in some aspects to what is proposed either of which accord with Planning Circular 3/91.

2.14 They explain that the proposed house is in the same area as the existing but moved further away from the field drain and both have a similar footprint not including the external decked areas. It is proposed to upgrade the existing field access to the south of the existing garden leading to a new area of hard standing. They describe the existing as having a driveway which is only large enough for one vehicle accessed directly from the highway with no space for vehicles to turn. The visibility for the new means of access - 56m to the north and 49m to the south - will be improved by carefully removing the stone walls on each side and a sycamore on the corner of the garden will also be removed. The garden wall will be lowered to no higher than 1m above the adjacent carriageway up to the existing opening and within the field the wall will be lowered to no higher than 1m for 15m. The existing driveway will then be blocked up using stone from the former house with quartz top to match the existing garden wall. A beech or similar hedge will be introduced where the current garage sits to replace the ivy growing over the old garage.

2.15 They describe the proposed house as a contemporary response to global climate concerns, local micro climate, site and functional user requirements and is considered appropriate in both its time and place. They will undertake the demolition of the existing building carefully, removing any materials which can be re-used or re-purposed with the majority of the stone to be cleaned and stored either in the garden for facing the foundation level or to repair old walls or new sod hedges to mitigate habitat loss. They state that it is widely recognised that the only plausible way to deliver net zero carbon housing is through the use of timber-based systems and in this case Scottish grown timber will be used and environmentally friendly materials. The barn has been designed to accommodate 10 PV panels. They see no reason why this house will not achieve an A rating in the SAP calculations (which is equivalent to 92 and above).

2.16 Whilst the materials will be sourced from off Island, on Island contractors will be used for the foundations and associated groundworks with the internal fit out. Large structural floor, wall and roof sub-assembly panels are manufactured off site with insulation, cladding, doors, roof coverings and solar panels all in place and the average house takes 5 days to achieve a wind and water-tight stage. These methods are not, they suggest, available on Island.

2.17 The applicant has discussed the proposal with the Arboricultural Office of DEFA and tree protection areas are now shown on drawing 02A and the proposed house has been slightly re-orientated to help protect an existing sycamore to the south west. All new drainage will be 8 in the same location as that serving the existing house. An arboricultural method statement is to be provided and tree protection plan is to be provided including the provision of the electrical supply.

PEA and bat survey 2.18 The Manx Bat Group undertook a bat assessment including an internal inspection in August 2020 and noted two inactive swallow nests but no evidence through droppings were found within the building although they consider it could be used as an occasional roost for bats and recommend that if bats are found during demolition work must stop immediately and either DEFA or MBG must be contacted for advice on how to proceed. If bats are in immediate danger they should be picked up using thick gloves and placed in a box. They recommend the installation of bat boxes either within the buildings or attached to existing trees and MBG would advise on where to install these.

2.19 A preliminary Ecological Appraisal was undertaken in August 2020 and identified the need for surveys which were undertaken and which revealed that the grassland is not ASSI but its loss (300sq m) will require compensatory actions in the form of sensitive management of the remaining semi natural grassland. They suggest that the use of some turf on roof and bank tops will reduce the loss by 23 sq m. They refer to the translocation of 9 heath spotted orchid spikes where the barn is proposed. They refer to there being no protected lizards having been seen but the sod bank to the south of the entrance is lizard suitable and the managed demolition of the wall is included in the precautionary method of working as well as provisions for nesting jackdaws. Three invasive, non native species of flora are present on the lane and they provide advice on how to deal with that. Whilst the watercourse is close to the back of the site no significant frog habitat was found.

2.20 The measures taken to minimise impact on ecology, the barn has been located to reduce the amount of track required and the majority of compensation will take the form of restoration of the remaining 5,300 sq m of grassland through sensitive grazing and hay meadow management and advice is provided on how to achieve this. Compensation is also recommended in the form of the installation of a jackdaw box and suitable swallow box on the buildings.

2.21 In order to manage the field in which there are known to be orchids the applicants explain that they will have a flock of up to 7 sheep (Ouessant - a small Celtic breed) and will cut and remove any additional grass from the fields on an annual basis and will purchase a small tractor, cutter and mini baler which will be stored in the barn with the hay bales.

Flood risk A FRS has been carried out and describes the existing house being separated from the watercourse which is between 0.5m and 1.5m in width, to the north by a short concrete wall. They describe the new house as being 2.4m further from the watercourse than is the existing and the wall will be repaired and replaced where necessary and its height increased to 1.5m faced in stone and capped with quartz. In their two and a half years of ownership they are not aware of the watercourse water level exceeding that of the wall. They acknowledge that there is a risk of the culvert under the road becoming blocked and water backing up although they deem this unlikely as there is no barrier between the stream and the highway which would stop water unable to use the culvert from flowing directly onto the highway and down the hill and the current wall is higher at all points than the highway above the culvert. The increase in height will avert the risk from the culvert becoming blocked and significant debris forms a blockage between the hedges on each side which would prevent water from escaping onto the highway and would flood onto the site.

PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South as not for a particular purpose and within the Southern Uplands Landscape Character Appraisal area where the following guidance is provided within the Area Plan Written Statement:

Southern Uplands (A2) The overall strategy for the area is to conserve and enhance the character, quality and distinctiveness of the open and exposed character of the moorland, its uninterrupted skyline and panoramic views, its sense of tranquillity and remoteness and its wealth of cultural heritage features. Key Views Open and expansive panoramic views out to sea and over the southern portion of the Island. Distant views in some areas enclosed by the surrounding peaks.

3.17i. A number of Landscape Character Types/Areas are identified in Rushen stretching from the Southern Uplands to the Meayll Peninsula. Care is needed in order to protect this array of different landscapes which include open and windswept coastal stretches and inland moorland, high and dramatic sea cliffs and pastoral and arable fields.

3.2 The site also lies within an area designated on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982 as of High Landscape Value and Scenic or Coastal Significance and of ecological interest. Given the land use designation, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant:

3.2.1 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:

(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (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 and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

3.2.2 Environment Policy 1: The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative.

3.2.3 Environment Policy 2: The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. 10

Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential.

3.2.4 Environment Policy 4: 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; (1) Wildlife Sites are defined in Appendix 1 41 (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or (iv) National Trust Land.

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

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

3.2.5 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.

3.2.6 Environment Policy 15: Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part.

Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The

11 nature and materials of construction must also be appropriate to the purposes for which it is intended.

Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape.

3.2.7 Housing Policy 12: The replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside will generally be permitted unless: (a) the existing building has lost its residential use by abandonment; or (b) the existing dwelling is of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation. In assessing whether a property has lost its habitable status(1) by abandonment, regard will be had to the following criteria: (i) the structural condition of the building; (ii) the period of non-residential use(2) or non-use in excess of ten years; (iii) evidence of intervening use; and (iv) evidence of intention, or otherwise, to abandon.

3.2.8 Housing Policy 14: Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area(1), which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.

Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact.

3.3 The Department has recently published the Residential Design Guidance (March 2019) which provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property.

3.4 The Climate Change Bill and Climate Change Mitigation Strategy 2016-2020 are both material considerations and require that developments should be taking account of the effect of development and buildings on climate change and reducing energy costs where possible and practicable and that emissions, particularly carbon emissions should be reduced.

3.5 Environment Policies 10 and 13 provide additional protection in respect of flooding.

PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There have been no previous applications submitted for this site. Development has been proposed in the area, including refusal of two schemes for the replacement of Upper Kirkill (11/00839/B and 11/00840/B at appeal) and replacement of Kirkle Farm under 13/00116/B.

4.2 The issue of replacing older, traditional properties in the Island's countryside has recently become more prominent due to the increasing need and desire for properties to be more 12 thermally efficient - as expressed in the draft Climate Change bill and the changes to the Building Regulations. It could be argued that such changes are consistent with Housing Policy 14's requirement for new dwellings to have a positive environmental impact. These arguments, and the subjectivity of some of the assessments required to be made in HP14 are summarised well in a recent application, 19/01441/B which was approved by the Planning Committee, recommended for refusal by the inspector who considered the appeal brought by a neighbour, and the application was finally approved by the deputising Minister.

19/01441/B 4.3 The inspector objected to the increase of the floor area (80%) and states:

"43. In itself, I consider that the proposed replacement building is well designed; and I do not share the view that it would be unattractive. I consider the proposal to apply Passivhaus design standards to be laudable, although I am not persuaded that this requires so large an increase over the floor area of the dwelling to be replaced. However, I consider that the enlarged footprint and mass of the proposed replacement dwelling would detract from the open character of this sensitive Area of High Landscape Value, contrary to the objectives of Housing Policy 14 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan. For these reasons I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and that planning approval should be refused."

4.4 The deputising Minister however concluded that given that the proposed Passivhaus standard wholly accords with the Government's pursuit of reducing carbon emissions as set out in its Climate Change Strategy 2016-2020 and as such attached significant weight to the proposed dwelling's environmentally positive credentials. He also notes that the innovative yet modern design respects the sloping nature of the site and provides a palate of finishes incorporating both the re-use of Manx stone and slate as well as modern finishes resulting in a high quality building which will not have an adverse visual impact and he was strongly of the opinion that the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape.

4.5 It is also relevant to consider two other recent decisions to replace traditional houses in the countryside with more modern dwellings, approved on the basis that the replacements would achieve higher levels of thermal efficiency - Hillside Cottage and Ardonan (19/01383/B and 19/00875/B) and both were subject to a condition along the following lines:

"Prior to the commencement of any works an Energy Statement shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Department (planning) which demonstrates the new dwelling has a Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) rating of at least 90 (or similar rating system) can been achieved.

Reason: A reason why the application is considered acceptable is due to the overall environmental impacts as outlined on Housing Policy 14 and namely the eco efficiency credentials of the new dwelling."

REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Rushen Parish Commissioners are supportive of the application provided that the materials used allow water to soak through rather than run off onto the roads (23.10.20). They comment again on 19.11.20 stating that they support the application and again on 23.12.20 stating that they considered the application at their December meeting but make no further comment on it.

5.2.1 Highway Services note that whilst there is an upgrade to the access which is better than the existing, the access still needs to accord with requirements for a primary route noting also that the Ballakillowey Road is an A road. They comment on the narrowness of the approach from the dwelling and the visibility splays being substantially less than the 2.4m by 160m required here. They find the provisions for turning and parking acceptable and note that there

13 is storage space available for bicycles and recommend the provision of an electric vehicle charging point (28.10.20).

5.2.2 Highway Services comment further following the submission of further information by the applicant, confirming that the additional information and revisions overcome the highway concerns. They no longer object and recommend conditions which ensure that the accesses, splays, parking and turning facilities are provided in accordance with drawings P02A and P09 and add that a Section 109A Agreement will be required (02.12.20).

5.3 Manx National Heritage note the provision of the PEA and recommend that a survey for nesting birds is undertaken prior to site clearance, that the recommendations in the PEA are undertaken and also that bat boxes are provided as part of the scheme (20.10.20).

5.4 DEFA's Ecosystem Policy Officer has no objection to the application and recommends the following condition:

The development shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures for wildlife as detailed in Section 8 of the Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) produced by the Island Biodiversity Consultants dated August 2020. The identified measures shall be adhered to and implemented in full and maintained thereafter" (03.11.20).

5.5 DEFA's Arboricultural Officer states that the trees on site are medium in size and of fair form. The trees are prominent in the landscape when viewed from the Sloc Road as there are few road side trees in the area. Although the trees have an 'exposed form' meaning the crown has been shaped from the wind, they are worthy of retention and likely be identified as Category C&B trees if a tree survey was conducted in line with recommendations made in BS5837:2012. There have been no trees identified for removal but there may be some conflict between the trees and the proposed building, underground utilities and site access. I recommend you request a tree protection plan to access the potential impact to the trees and potential future loss of trees due to root damage (11.11.20).

5.6 DEFA's Inland Fisheries Office request the submission of a form relating to Development Within 9m of a Watercourse to ensure that there is no adverse impact on the adjacent watercourse (20.11.20). They comment again on 02.12.20 stating as the proposed works are in close proximity to the watercourse, precautions will be needed to reduce the possibility of harmful materials such as concrete or washings entering the river. Suitable precautions have been considered by the applicant on the received form. DEFA Fisheries have no objection to the proposed development, provided that these precautions are followed and there is no disturbance or alterations to the watercourse.

The applicant is however 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.

5.7 Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society comment that the house to be replaced is basically of traditional design and construction and in a prominent location and close to a road. They would have no objection to the removal of the flat roof and garage to provide access and to an appropriately designed extension. However, while the replacement may in itself be a good timber design, such a design and materials are not in keeping with the Manx Landscape, characterised as it is by stone buildings, sometimes rendered, and stone field boundaries. The Society believes that in such a prominent location, in a building which is open to the south-westerlies, the use of timber and partially covered balconies is inappropriate. The proposal is not in accordance with Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 Housing Policy 14 in terms of design and the reuse of traditional materials (02.11.20). 14

5.8 They comment further on 07.12.20 that they are not against new building in the countryside but consider that the proposal is not an isolated building and it can be seen to relate to other buildings along the Sloc Road and they do not believe that the policy regarding reuse of traditional materials was simply put forward to encourage such materials to be used in curtilage walls or as rubble rather than being part of the new house itself. The proposal does not do this. They consider that the new building will be very visible when travelling south and the proposed outbuilding may appear out of scale and character with the landscape. They maintain their concern with respect to this application.

5.9 They comment on 04.02.21, suggesting that the site is far more wooded than the comparable locations in Scotland referred to by the applicant and the landscape areas referred to in 20/00757/B and 20/00651/B are also not comparable. They are aware of the decision to approved the replacement dwelling in Dalby but point out that traditional buildings and materials have intrinsic ecological standards and simple because they have been not properly maintained this is not a good reason to dispense with such materials or design standards contrary to the Strategic Plan and "Planning Circular 2/92" and until the latter is updated, the growing number of non-traditional properties with large areas of glazing permitted in the countryside will detract from the Island's landscape and heritage which is appreciated by residents and visitors alike. They are critical of the lack of assessment in the officer's report of the proposed outbuilding with the solar panels which sits to the west of the house which in their view will sit as a stand alone building with a large area of hardstanding on the open countryside and not surrounded by trees particularly open to views from users of the public footpaths to the north and will be clearly in breach of Environment Policy 1 and none of the other proposals referred to have similar buildings proposed.

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues here are whether the replacement of the existing dwelling is acceptable (Housing Policy 12), if so, whether what is proposed to replace it is acceptable (Housing Policy 14). It is also relevant to consider whether the development results in any adverse impact on highway safety (General Policy 2) or any adverse impact on ecology (General Policy 2 and Environment Policies 4 and 7). Finally, it is relevant to consider whether the development would result in any increased flood risk either to the site itself or to other land as a result of the development.

Principle of the replacement of the dwelling 6.2 Housing Policy 12 is clear that replacement dwellings will only be acceptable in the countryside where the existing house has retained its habitable status and where the house is not of sufficient interest to warrant its retention. In this case the house is apparently structurally sound and could be inhabited with some non structural work. Whilst the dwelling is traditional at its core, this character is detracted from by the garage, flat roofs, window alterations and to some extent, the side annex although in form and position it is not untraditional, however the window arrangement is. It is not considered to be a particularly good example of vernacular architecture. If it were retained, the opportunity for expansion is limited by its position towards the northern boundary of the site where extensions would normally be sited and forcing any new extensions to be on the sides: it would be unusual to have an extension on the front elevation and unlikely to be visually or architecturally successful.

6.3 The Isle of Man Government is clearly committed to addressing climate change (see 3.4 above) and the provision of housing has a key part to play in this. The Department has already seen a number of applications submitted for the replacement of existing traditional dwellings with ones of more environmentally friendly and more thermally efficient structures - see Planning History above.

6.4 These applications are just a few which were approved for the replacement of something of traditional character with a new property which is thermally more efficient than that which it replaced. Two of these are very modern properties and one is traditional. They demonstrate that it can be an argument that the provision of a thermally efficient and environmentally friendly dwelling can be considered as an acceptable replacement of an older, traditional cottage.

6.5 It is fully accepted that these principles should not be a blanket argument for the replacement of every last traditional cottage on the Island which would undermine the character and history of our landscape and there will be properties where their appearance and architecture and history presume in favour of their retention. However, this should be where these are good examples of traditional architecture and in the words of HP12 the existing property is "of architectural or historic interest and is capable of renovation". In this case, the property is a basic Manx traditional cottage but with some of its architectural detailing having been lost (the shape of the windows and the lack of cills) and having had a range of non traditional extensions with limited opportunities for their replacement in a form which would result in an architecturally pleasing property of modern standards of thermal insulation. It is considered that this is not a property of such interest as to warrant refusal of its demolition and replacement and thus the application would satisfy HP12.

Details of the proposed new dwelling 6.6 HP14 then provides advice on the type of dwelling which may replace an existing house. What is proposed is not substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, and the new building is generally sited on the footprint of the existing, and has a floor area which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building.

6.7 The design of the new building is not in accordance with Policies 2-7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91. However, HP14 goes on to explain that "Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building.

6.8 In this case the proposed dwelling is certainly modern and innovative in terms of its appearance, materials and design ethos and also particularly due to its intention to be as thermally efficient and environmentally friendly as possible. Given the context of the site which is relatively natural with existing trees and vegetation, and the mix of housing types in the area, it is considered that a timber clad building as is proposed would be an acceptable form of building here. It is not accepted that the only way in which thermally and energy efficient buildings can be built to try to address Climate Change is with timber framing and it would have been possible to build something which achieves A rated SAP calculations with conventional blockwork or other forms of construction. However, the form of construction is not a matter for the planning process and what is important here is the external finished which is not to be the traditional stone and/or render and slate. Given the natural setting of the building it is considered that the timber cladding would be acceptable here and that a non traditional design would not be out of keeping with the area in which it will sit.

6.9 This moves away from HP14 in that the materials of the existing property - the stone and slate are not to be re-used in the external finish of the new property although some of the stone will be used for walling and the construction of the property. In this case, given what is considered to be a high quality of design, it is not considered necessary to require the building to incorporate slate or stone from the site. The applicants have indicated that they are going to re-use or re-purpose the materials so they will not be lost.

Highway Safety

6.10 Highway Services has indicated that they are content with the proposal now that the plans have been amended and approval can relate to the conditions recommended by them.

Impact on Ecology 6.11 The application includes a PEA and Bat Survey and the conclusions and recommendations of this, included in Sections 8 and 9 can be referred to in the conditions of any approval.

Flood Risk 6.12 The applicant has provided a FRA which demonstrates that the property is neither at risk of flooding nor will the works result in increased flood risk to other properties or land in the area.

Impact of the proposed detached building 6.13 This building will be visible but viewed alongside the proposed dwelling and screened partly by the existing trees which separate the existing residential curtilage from the higher, more open land to the west. The purpose of this building and hard standing is not only to provide vehicular parking and manoeuvring space associated with the dwelling but also the maintenance of the rest of the site including the keeping of sheep. This maintenance scheme has been developed with the ecology of the site in mind and represents, in the applicant's mind, the best way of managing the site for ecological purposes. It is not considered that this is unreasonable or unacceptable in this case, even though it would be seen. If desirable, additional planting could be introduced to screen this building even further from the approaches in both directions although the character of the area outwith the existing residential curtilage is generally more open than heavily landscaped.

CONCLUSION 7.1 Whilst the replacement dwelling is not a traditional design, it is considered that the proposal will have an acceptable environmental impact, taking into account both the physical and visual impact of the property on the environment as well as the impact through energy efficient and environmentally friendly materials and as such the proposal, including the proposed barn which will assist the implementation of the management of the remainder of the site in an ecologically friendly manner, is considered to accord with Environment Policies 1, 4, 7, 10, 13 and 15, Housing Policies 12 and 14 and General Policy 2.

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.

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.

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 15th February 2021

Item 5.2 Proposal : Construction of nine new garages and four bike stores Site Address : Land At Corner Of Lhon Vane Close And Lhon Dhoo Close Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 3BD Applicant : Mr Michael Weldon Application No. : 20/01307/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.

Reason for approval: The proposed application is recommended for approval as it is not considered to harm the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties and would comply with General Policy 2(b) & (c) (g) (h) & (i), Environmental Policy 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. ______

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):

35 Lhon Vane Close, 58 Lhon Vane Close, 61 Lhon Vane Close, 45 Bemahague Avenue, 46 Bemahague Avenue as their boundary is within 20m of the red line boundary of the application site and they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2020).

39 Bemahague Avenue, as they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy ______

Planning Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BEING REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE UNDER SECTION 2; 1(D) AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

0. PREAMBLE 0.1 This application was considered by the committee on the 04.02.21 and deferred at the request of the Local Authority who sought more time to comment. A verbal update of any comments received will be provided. The report has not been updated.

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of an area of single storey garages located on the corner of Lhonvane Close and Lhondhoo Close. Access to the garages is currently only accessible through Bemahague Avenue to the south of the site. The current garages are in three blocks, one to the eastern boundary, one towards the southern boundary, and the third block, centrally located on a back to back layout of garage attached to the southern block to form a "T" shape. The garages are all flat roof, with single car width up/over doors in white and finished in a spar dash. General car parking is available towards the northern boundary and to the western boundary. The existing garages sit at a lower level than the pavement, (approx. 1m) to the north and west boundary and falls away to the southern boundary by a further 1m. This is reflected in the stepped roofs of the existing garages.

1.2 The character of the surrounding residential area are a variety of styles from detached dwellings to the north of the site and semi-detached to the east, south and bungalows to the west, all with a degree of off road parking on the driveway to the front. The properties that boarder the site to the east and south are generally the two stories high.

1.3 There are 22 garages on site and 12 car parking spaces all owner by the applicant and rented out accordingly on a long term basis. Two small grassed area of land belongs to the commissioners with the option to purchase by the applicant.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the construction of nine new garages and four bike stores to the north and north west elevation of the site adjacent to the boundary. The garages would be flat roof and single car width (2.5m wide to 2.8m wide) and 6.0m long. The four bike stores would measure on average 2.2m wide and 3.2m long to either end of the 'car' garages. The garages would be constructed with spar dash render to match the existing garages; fibreglass roof; white powder coated aluminium doors; fascia's and barge boards in white Upvc.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area of predominately residential on the Proposal Map 6 (Onchan) of the Area Plan for the East. Came into operation on 1st December 2020.

3.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this application;

3.3 General Policy 2 (GP2) (in part) 20

Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;

3.4 Environmental Policy 22 (in part) Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution

3.6 Other Material Considerations The Department has recently published the Residential Design Guidance (March 2019) which provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property. This includes specific guidance on rear and side extensions in Section 7.0 titled; Impact on Neighbouring properties.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 02/00846/A - Approval in principle for erection of 6 dwellings to replace existing garages. Refused on appeal. 91/01768/A - Approval in principle to demolish garage block & erect detached/semi- detached dwellings, Refused on Review.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in part, full reps available on line) 5.1 Onchan District Commissioners commented (22/12/20) seeking a deferral until 11th January. In light of the current COVID lockdown measurers issued on 6th January until 21st January. On (15/01/21) the commissioners wrote to advise there are no board meetings and unable to consider the planning application.

5.2 Highways Services do not object (18.12.20) After reviewing this Application, Highway Services find it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network efficiency and /or parking with a positive contribution to sustainable travel on provision of bicycle storage facilities.

5.3 35 Lhon Vane Close, Lives immediately adjacent to the east of the site and their boundary backs onto the application site. They are concerned regarding the level of noise from bikes and cars revving in the morning, an increase in garages will be an increase in noise and fumes. Untidy nature of the site could worsen and rubbish thrown over their wall. The site is being used as a cut through to the St.Ninians Lower School and would lead to an increase in pedestrians. Ongoing issues with parking to Lhondhoo Close and Lhonvane Close.

5.4 58 Lhon Vane Close, lives oppose with application site, (directly opposite the existing garages) to the north across the highway. They strongly object to adding more garages onsite in front of their house and blocking their view. The current garages do not add to the value of the estate and are tatty and not pleasant. They would prefer new houses instead. The garages create noise levels from tenants using them for mechanical work, and noisy engines. 21

5.5 61 Lhon Vane Close, lives opposite the application site (directly opposite the proposed new garages) to the north across the highway. They object to the adding of more garages, consider the existing a blight on the area, noise from cars and bikes revving up, particularly at weekends, area not well maintained and can look untidy and an eyesore. Has a large hedge to obscure the garages. Draws attention to the area being used as a school pick up and drop off or Lower St. Ninians, this would leave to a further increase in noise and pollution.

5.6 39 Bemahague Avenue, is located on the access road to the site approx. 130m to the south of the application site. Objects as the proposal would increase the volume of traffic through Bemahague and is unacceptable, questions the legitimate uses of these garages as none of them appear to house a car. The area and use of the garages is more akin to industrial units. Parking in the area is already at capacity and this would be seen to exacerbate this, placing pressure on the highways and for emergency vehicles. Would prefer to see residential dwellings used rather than more garages.

5.7 45 Bemahague Avenue, is located on the access road to the site approx. 25m to the south of the site. Objects as the proposal would place a further strain on highway, increasing vehicle traffic, particularly pickups and builders vans using the garages for secure storage, difficulty for emergency services to access the area as conflicts with parking on site and on the access road to the site. The potential for further noise and disturbance by working on vehicles and all day and at weekends. Concern is raised regarding the storage and handling of hazardous waste as none of the garages are used for parking of vehicles. Incompatible use with the character of the area, untidiness of the garages, children being able to use the roofs of the garages given the difference in level and causing a nuisance and potential health and safety incident.

5.8 46 Bemahague Avenue, is located on the access road to the site approx.15m to the east of the site (next to 48). Objects as the existing garages are currently used for commercial storage, eg, a gardener a woodworking company, a glazing company, several builders, plumbers and other. This has since increased year on year with many vans visiting the area which is not compatible with the residential area. Would place further strain on parking in the area, and the potential run off water would could impact on the adjacent properties.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; (i) visual impact of the proposed development; (GP2(b) & (c)) (ii) the impact upon the amenities (overlooking, loss of light; over bearing impact, privacy and visual amenity) of the neighbouring properties. (GP2(g)) (iii) Environmental impact (EP22) (iv) Highway Safety (GP2h,i)

6.2 (i) Visual impact The principle of adding more garages to the site in lieu of parking spaces would be an acceptable form of development as it would not be introducing a new element of use that is not already available or utilised on site. The design of the proposed garages would be of similar scale, form and style as the existing garages with a layout that is not to dissimilar to the existing but reflects this part of the site and its topography. The general appearance here is considered proportionate to the site and would be seen to replicate an existing built form. When finished to match the current appearance it will ensure the built forms are complementary to the character and appearance of the existing garages and would not be seen to adversely impact the character of the area given the existing surrounding garages.

6.3 When viewing the proposed garages, it would be partially visible from the highway to the north and surrounding properties but given the topography of the site and differences in 22 levels, the flat roofs would be approximately the height of the current handrail (approx. 1m) on the footpath edge of the site on the north and west boundaries. In this case any views of the additional garages would be read in the existing context of the site and surrounding streetscene. These aspects of the visual legibility are deemed to be an acceptable form of development that complies with those sections of General Policy 2(b) & (c).

6.4 (ii) Neighbouring amenities The comments from concerned residents are briefly noted in section 5.0, the common theme arising from those, but not limited too, are; Noise, Pollution, unkept appearance, school shortcut, parking pressure, vehicle access, use for commercial applications, Health and safety with kids on the roof, potential for flooding.

6.5 Turning to the neighbouring residents' concerns, the proposed garages would remove an element of parking but would inadvertently remove the ability for any outside storage or parking of unsightly vehicles and would further enclose the openness of the site to screen the internal access corridor and fronts of the garages. It was further noted from the site visit, the difference in levels of the site and the surrounding highway where the views looking into the site from the north would be a rendered concrete wall and flat roof approx. 1m higher than the pavement. The visibility and outlook above the tops of the garage would still be achievable and would not be seen as an incongruous feature or harmful in its visual amenity. Whilst this is in turn could allow an element of mis-use and unauthorised access to the roofs, as indicated, this is would be a form of trespass as the land and buildings are private and a matter for the law.

6.6 The agent and applicant have sought to address the concerns in their submission dated 18 January 2020, which portrays a difference of opinion. In summary, the garages have been owned and managed for 18 years by the applicant, in this time, they have not received any complaints regarding noise or nuisances. None of the garages have electricity, water or sewer drainage connected, so cannot be used as a commercial entity, or allow for noise activities on site through workmanship with noise tools. The owners have to carry public liability insurance and part of this they know and inspect the contents of each garage and they, the applicant, confirms these garages are not used in any way different to a garage attached to a residential property. Also stated, the garages generally store motorbikes, bicycles, general storage for house holders, and some for those who are self-employed for storage. The owners take pride in the appearance and continually maintain the garages and area.

6.7 From a strictly planning perspective and what are deemed material considerations. The proposed garages would not be considered to offer any aspect of overlooking leading to a loss of privacy to either of the neighbouring properties. Not would there be any loss of light or overshadowing from the built form of the garages, given the single story nature. Also it would not be considered to have an overbearing effect given the intervening distances between the application site and the neighbouring properties and the proposed location of the garages.

6.8 With regard to the above, the level and scale of development proposed are considered to be relatively subordinate to the existing garages and not judged to cause harm to the enjoyment of the neighbouring amenity. On balance, these aspects would be considered to be compliant with those sections of General Policy 2(g).

6.9 (iii) Environmental impact Turning to whether the proposal would harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby neighbouring properties through a statutory nuisance, it is noted that noise levels are likely to be the most common "nuisance" here as opposed to vibration, odour, noise or light pollution. The additional garages would not be introducing an element of use that is not already present on site. There is a legitimate use of the land for garages and as such those 23 activities would not be incompatible with what is being proposed. There is no evidence that indicates there are any commercial mechanical workshops operating from here, which has been verified by the owners and the lack of services to the garages. It is not considered the additional garages would be intensifying the existing use over and above the existing levels given the nature of uses of the garages.

6.10 On balance, it is considered the additional garages would not cause harm to the enjoyment of the adjacent neighbouring amenity through any statutory nuisance of; noise, odour and light pollution given the intermediate distances and the current arrangement on site of existing garages and would not have any adverse impact that would be contrary to Environmental Policy 22.

6.12 (iv) Highway Safety The concerns raised regarding access and egress from the site, parking and vehicle movement as raised following the consultation period and noted in section 5.0. However, highway Services have considered the merits of the proposal, access to and from the site from the highway, as well as parking and highway safety. As the transport professionals their comments are heavily relied upon and do not object to the proposal. As such the proposal would be aligned with the principles of GP2 (h&i).

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the proposed garages would be an appropriate form of development that does not harm the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties 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) 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.

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 15th February 2021

Item 5.3 Proposal : Erection of summer house for use as hair salon Site Address : 17 Broogh Wyllin Kirk Michael Isle Of Man IM6 1HU Applicant : Marta Louise Loader Application No. : 20/01288/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. The business use hereby approved is only for the provision of the hairdressing business and shall only be carried out by Mrs Marta Louise Loader and only whilst she is resident at 17 Broogh Wyllin, Kirk Michael and no other staff may be employed and/or work at the premises. Upon the cessation of occupation by Mrs Marta Louise Loader, the use for provision of hairdressing business hereby permitted shall cease.

Reason: This permission is granted exceptionally and the Department wishes to have the opportunity of exercising control over any subsequent use in the event of the applicant ceasing the use hereby permitted.

C 3. One of the parking areas within the curtilage of the dwelling shall not be used for any other purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times unless otherwise approved in writing by the Department.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking during the business operational hours in the interest of highway safety.

C 4. No clients of the Hair Dressing Business use hereby approved shall remain on the application site outside of the operational hours stipulated in the application.

Opening Hours: Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays: 10am and 3pm Mondays, Tuesdays, Saturdays and Sundays: Closed.

Reason: In the interest of protecting neighbouring living conditions.

C 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2019 or Town and Country Planning (Change of Use) (Development) (No. 2) Order 2019 or any order amending, revoking or re-enacting these Orders, the building hereby approved 25 shall be used only for the purpose hereby approved (Hair Dressing Business) and shall not be used for any other purpose within Use Class 1.1 without the express grant of planning approval from the Department.

Reason: To enable the Department to consider the implications of any subsequent change of use on the amenities of the area.

C 6. For the avoidance of doubt, should the building cease to be used for the business use hereby approved as specified in Condition 5 of the approval, the building may either be removed or used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and shall only be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment on the main dwelling house at 17 Broogh Wyllin.

Reason: To enable the Department to consider the implications of any subsequent change of use on the amenities of the area.

Reason for approval: Overall, it is concluded that the proposed development accords with the provisions set out in Business Policy 1, General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. ______

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None ______

Planning Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT CONTRARY TO THE LOCAL PLAN ZONING BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL

PREAMBLE 0.1 This application was considered by the Planning Committee on the 04.02.21 and deferred at the request of the Local Authority who sought more time to comment. The report has not been changed and any response received will be the subject of a verbal update to the committee.

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 17 Broogh Wyllin, a semi-detached, two storey modern dwelling situated on the north eastern side of Broogh Wyllin which ends in a cul-de-sac. The property forms part of a modern residential development in the south- western part of Kirk Michael Village.

1.2 Generally, each property within Broogh Wyllin is served by two off street spaces with the application site and the semi-detached properties within the immediate vicinity of the proposal site having a tandem parking arrangement.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The planning application seeks approval for erection of summer house for use as hair salon.

2.2 The proposed works would include: 2.2.1 The erection of a log cabin 4m x 3m and 2.5m to the roof ridge (2.1m high to the eaves) within the rear garden of the property, and on the site of the existing decking within 26 the garden. The cabin would front towards the existing driveway, with two feature windows (0.7m x 1.7m) situated on the left of the patio door (1.4m x 1.9m) on the front elevation. No other windows or doors would be installed on the other three elevations. The cabin would feature a pitched roof (material not stated), with the general construction made of timber. Plumbing would be installed in the cabin for the sink/wash basin and customers would be allowed to use the toilet in the dwelling if required. Access to the cabin would be via the side gate connected to the driveway or through the house. As well, a ramp would be installed to facilitate access to the cabin for wheelchair users.

2.2 The purpose of the cabin would be as a private hairdressing salon to serve a hairdressing business. The applicant has provided additional information to indicate that the proposed hours of opening would be between 10am and 3pm three days a week (precise days not stipulated). The applicant has also stated that customers would come in cars or by foot.

2.3 There would be a maximum of one client in the log cabin at a time with the applicant as appointment would be chosen by applicant from existing clients with daily client numbers to the business not exceeding three clients a day. None of the clients will be coming together as time would be staggered to allow sufficient gap between client visits. There would be no additional staff on site as the applicant would be running the salon on her own as sole trader.

2.4 The applicant has also provided additional information which indicates that there are two (2) off road parking spaces at the property, with eight (8) additional parking spaces opposite the house also available for use by the customers. The parking spaces outside the property are only taken up in the evenings by residents after work but remain free during office hours as they are intended to serve resident and visitor parking.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site is located within an area identified as being predominantly residential on the Kirk Michael Local Plan (1994) and the site is not within a conservation area. As such, the following Strategic Plan policies are relevant:

3.2 General Policy 2 states "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;

3.3 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.

3.4 Paragraphs 9.3.3 and 9.3.4 of the Strategic Plan 2016 provide key considerations that will be integral to the assessment of the application.

9.3.3 The Department has supported the location of offices in town and village centres for several reasons: 27

(a) such centres are accessible to all members of the community, staff and visitors alike; (b) the activity and range of services contribute to the vitality and success of the centres; and (c) the investment in property can be used to renew the ageing fabric of our town centre buildings.

9.3.4 There are exceptions to this general approach: (c) working from home; where this does not result either in staff being employed or in day to day callers, there need be no detriment to the residential area, and there should be less travelling involved; this is also one way of encouraging the formation of new local businesses.

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

3.6 Appendix A.7.6 of the Isle of Man Strategic plan 2016 stipulates that, for a typical residential development, two (2) spaces should be provided per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling.

With regard to the parking standards, there are none specifically relating to the proposed use, although for 'Assembly and leisure (includes cinemas, meeting halls, swimming baths, leisure centres, and the conference and leisure facilities of hotels), 1 space per 15 square metres gross floor space.

3.7 Section 11.4 of Manual for Manx Roads: Allocated and Unallocated Parking

11.4.1 The allocation of spaces to individual dwellings can have an adverse impact upon the efficiency of car parking provision. Allocated parking spaces include any spaces within the curtilage of a property (e.g. garage or driveway parking) and any spaces in communal areas where the space is reserved for one particular property.

11.4.2 On-street spaces upon public highways are always unallocated. However they can be reserved for a particular purpose such as disabled persons or residents' parking through the making of relevant Traffic Regulation Orders. The costs associated with making such Orders will need to be funded by the developer.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site has not been the subject of any previous planning application that is considered to be materially relevant in assessment of the current application.

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 made the following comments regarding the application in a letter dated 25 November 2020:

The proposed salon is to be used for commercial purposes, therefore requiring additional parking for customers. There are two driveway spaces counting as the minimum requirement for parking for a residential dwelling; however, there are another eight car spaces for use by local residents and their visitors nearby.

The use of these spaces will be acceptable for customer parking during the 10am-3pm proposed operating hours. This should not cause disruption to the usual residential use or cause a road safety hazard or network efficiency issue. Accordingly, Highway Services raise no opposition.

5.2 There has been no written representation made regarding the current planning application by the Michael Commissioners at the time of writing this report, although they were consulted on 17 November 2020

5.3 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 In assessing this application, the key issues to consider are; the use of the building, impact on parking demand and road safety, impact on neighbours and the Visual Impact.

6.2 The use of the building/principle of development

6.2.1 As the proposed use of the cabin would be for the operation of a small business run from home, it is important that the probability of the use is considered, so as to limit any larger commercial operation.

6.2.2 When considering this matter it is important to acknowledge that permission has been approved and refused for the operation of businesses (i.e. beauty treatments, hairdressers & tutoring) from a residential property, on the Island. In fact the Departments Permitted Development Order permits a number of business operation to be run from a dwelling, these including child minding (up to 6 children), Bed and Breakfast (up to 3 bedrooms) and an occupant of a dwelling can operate any business from home (no visitors/staff allowed) via a home office within the property. With regard to the current application, however, the key issue of concern here lies in the parking/highway demand from potential visitors given that the property has only two parking spaces.

6.2.3 A further issue in terms of the principle is the impacts on the nearby village centre. It is generally presumed that new commercial uses will be directed towards existing commercial areas. However, the impact of a single employee operating in this location is unlikely to draw materially harmful levels of trade away from the village centre. Moreover, such small businesses could enable the growth of a business that would eventually achieve a sufficient turnover as to encourage its moving into larger, more attractive and more appropriate commercial premises in that town centre in due course.

6.3 Impact on parking demand and road safety

6.3.1 As noted, customer usage is likely to be kept to a minimum since the maximum allowable customer visit a day would be 3 clients. Whilst there are only two parking provisions within the curtilage of the dwelling, there are eight additional parking areas available to the properties within the cul de sac; provided to serve visitors to the area and residents which would be free for use during the operating hours of the business.

6.3.2 In terms of road safety, it is important that there is no noticeable increase in parking demand, and that any increase is kept to an absolute minimum so as to comply with General Policy 2 (h&i). Whilst the applicant has indicated that only a fraction of the customers would come in cars, in addition to a client cap which would only allow a maximum of three customers a day, a condition should be attached to ensure this. As such, a condition would be imposed to ensure that one of the two on-site parking spaces would be reserved for the business during its operational hours in order to forestall any undesirable impacts on highway safety as a result of the development.

6.4 Impact on neighbours

6.4.1 With regard to impact on neighbours, it is not considered that there would be any impacts on the neighbouring dwellings. This is hinged on the fact that the proposed work area would be completely enclosed by the fencing enclosing the rear garden; and the visits of 29 clients would be no more prominent than domestic visitors to the property given that only three clients would be attended to three days of the week. It is also noted that none of the neighbours have raised any concerns regarding the proposed development.

6.5 Visual Impact

6.5.1 There would be limited views to the log cabin from the public thoroughfare of Broogh Wyllin or any other road given that the log cabin would only be 2.5m high (500mm higher than a 2m fence or wall, although the existing fence is 1.8m high). Besides, its appearance is sympathetic and low impact due to its timber construction, scale and mass and the shed could pass as permitted development due to its height and footprint. Based on the foregoing, it is not considered that there would be any adverse impact on the character or appearance of the site or surrounding area.

CONCLUSION 7.1 It is considered that the proposal would have a neutral impact on the appearance and character of the dwelling, with negligible impacts on parking provisions and as such it is supported.

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.

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 15th February 2021

Item 5.4 Proposal : Approval in principle for erection of new dwelling addressing matters of access and landscaping Site Address : Land Adjacent To Fasque Andreas Road Ramsey Isle Of Man Applicant : Mr David Hathersich-Jones Application No. : 20/01386/A- click to view Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer

RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application ______

Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions

C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. Approval of the details of siting, design, external appearance of the building and internal layout, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Department in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019.

C 3. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling the driveway and means of vehicular access identified on "Existing and Proposed Highway Plan - Proposed Visibility Site Plan"; shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

C 4. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling the visibility splay(s) identified on "Existing and Proposed Highway Plan - Proposed Visibility Site Plan"; shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1050 mm in height above adjoining carriageway level.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety.

C 5. Prior to the occupation of the dwelling the erection of fences as shown on "Landscaping Plan and Concept Elevation" plan"; shall be constructed in accordance with the approved plans and retained thereafter.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenities (privacy/noise reduction/outlook). C 6. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping as shown on "Landscaping Plan and Concept Elevation" plan"; shall be carried out in the first 31 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.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development and in the interests of neighbouring amenities (privacy/noise reduction/outlooks).

Reason for approval: It is considered that the proposal overcomes the previous reasons for refusal in respect of access and highway safety and the impact on the living conditions of those in Fasque and therefore has no significant impact upon public or private amenities and therefore complying with Strategic Policy 1, Strategic Policy 2, General Policy 2, Housing Policy 4, Transport Policy 4 , Transport Policy 7 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide. ______

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):

St Bridget's, Bride Road, Ramsey, Thackeray House, Andreas Road, Ramsey and Mount Pleasant, Andreas Road, Ramsey as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). ______

Planning Officer’s Report

THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site is part of the residential curtilage of Fasque, a detached dwelling which sits on the eastern side of the A9 highway which leads north out of Ramsey towards Andreas. Fasque had until recently, two entrances in front of it and a sizeable side garden to the south of the dwelling. Works are currently being undertaken to the property and the whole of the frontage has been removed. To the south of the site sits another detached dwelling, St. Bridget's and to the north is a further dwelling, Trincomalee. On the western side of the road is a dwelling, Mount Pleasant, with a further dwelling, The Croit, behind it and to the south of this is Thackeray House. St. Bridget's is a two storey house set in substantial grounds and whose rear elevation looks partly over the southern side garden of the application site.

1.2 The speed of traffic past the site is restricted to 30mph: a derestricted sign appears around 80m to the north of the application site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for an Approval in principle for erection of new dwelling addressing matters of access and landscaping. All other matters siting, design, external appearance of the building[s] & internal layout are not matters to consider at this stage. 2.2 The site in question is the land (553sqm) to the south of the existing residential property Fasque, which is a modern single storey detached bungalow. The new proposed dwelling would share the existing access which has a width of 9m, and would have a separate

32 driveway which would run partially in front of Fasque (southern section) to the application site.

2.3 Submitted plans demonstrate the access service both Fasque and the new dwelling would have visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m in either direction.

2.2 The application also includes detailed plans on how the landscaping between Fasque and the site would be undertaken and also landscaping fronting Fasque adjacent to the driveway which would serve the new dwelling. This is to overcome previous concerns of noise of vehicles passing the front bedroom widow of Fasque.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Ramsey Local Plan of 1989 as Predominantly Residential. As such, there is a presumption in favour of residential development. The site is not within a Conservation Area.

3.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains a number of policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.

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 and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."

3.4 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3."

3.5 The Strategic Plan identifies a hierarchy of settlements that guide what type of development is appropriate within them. Ramsey is designated as one of the five "Service Centres" within the Island (Spatial Policy 2). This Policy states that; "Outside Douglas development will be concentrated on the following Service Centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services."

3.6 General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; 33

(j) can be provided with all necessary services;

3.7 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…"

3.8 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."

3.9 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."

3.10 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."

"Backland development(2)" (which is development on the land at the back of properties) may also be acceptable in some circumstances, but only if satisfactory access can be achieved and if there is sufficient space to provide adequate amenity for both new and existing adjoining dwellings.

"Tandem development (3)" (consisting of one house immediately behind another, and sharing the same access) is generally unacceptable because of the difficulties of access to the house at the back, and the disturbance and lack of privacy suffered by the house in front.

3.11 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDE JULY 2019

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site has been the subject of a previous application, 03/01404/A for a dwelling on this same site, which was refused at appeal for the following reasons;

"R 1. It is considered that the application site is insufficient in size to accommodate a dwelling with sufficient associated residential amenity space. The development would also significantly reduce to an unacceptable extent the level of residential amenity space enjoyed by the existing adjacent dwelling known as "Fasque".

R 2. The residential development of the application site is not considered to be achievable without causing an unacceptable detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the two existing adjacent dwellings.

R 3. The proposed joint use of the vehicular access with the existing adjacent dwelling, known as "Fasque", is considered to be unacceptable as the visibility for emerging vehicles is unsafe and its additional use would be detrimental to the residential amenity for the dwelling known as "Fasque".

4.3 The previous application and most recent application, 16/00586/A for a dwelling on this same site, which was refused at appeal on the following grounds:

"R 1. The proposal would result in an additional property using an access which will not provide adequate visibility for drivers emerging from the site. Whilst the visibility will be better 34 than what existed previously, it is not fully in accordance with highway safety standards and is not sufficient to justify a further dwelling using this access. The proposal therefore fails to accord with General Policy 2h and 2i of the Strategic Plan.

R 2. The proposed dwelling, by virtue of vehicles and pedestrians passing Fasque to access the new dwelling's access and parking area, together with any vehicular manoeuvring, will result in a diminution of the privacy and general amenity for the occupants of the existing property. Whilst it is proposed to screen this activity by fencing, this in itself will restrict outlook and light to Fasque, to the detriment of the persons occupying that property."

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners have made the initial comments (08.01.2021): "Due to the current situation due to COVID-19 and following advice received from the Department of Infrastructure, the Board of Ramsey Town Commissioners will be unable to hold their next Board Meeting until at least Thursday 28th January, 2021.

Therefore, we respectfully request that you defer any decisions on the following applications until such time as the Commissioners have fully considered the proposals…"

5.1.1 It is noted that the previous application the Commissioners raised no objections.

5.2 Highway Services have no objection making the following comments (14.01.2021): "The application is for approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling, with all matters reserved for later approval other than access and landscaping.

Reference made to previous application 16/00586/A, which was refused on appeal.

The proposal is similar to the application 16/00586/A, to which Highway Services had objected on the grounds of poor visibility. Since then, extensive work has been carried out on the frontage of the dwelling to improve visibility in both directions.

Visibility of 43m in both directions is now achievable from a 2.4m setback. This is the appropriate visibility standard for a road subject to a 30mph speed limit.

The access width of just under 9.1m is an acceptable size to serve two dwellings for vehicular and pedestrian use.

The indicative layout shows a driveway and parking provision of two spaces as easily achievable for the proposed dwelling, whilst not impacting on the existing dwelling. There is space to turnaround to allow forward entry and exit. Any single garage should have minimum size of 6 x 3m to count as parking and facilitate the storage of bicycles and other item. Where a single garage is blew 5 x 2.8m or there to be no garage, bicycle parking should be provided in a separate, covered and secure storage facility to accommodate one space per bedroom. An electric vehicle charging point should be considered to aid low emission objectives. There is space for waste bin storage for roadside collection. The driveway is expected to operate satisfactorily as demonstrated its width for shared use and by the vehicle tracking movements, with adequate lines of sight relative to the existing unit.

The proposal has met all highway requirements and raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services raise no opposition to the proposal subject to a condition to cover the submission and approval in writing by Planning of full details prior to commencement of the development on planning permission being granted in the form of scaled plans or written specifications to illustrate the following: i. Internal vehicle and pedestrian areas (driveway, parking and turnaround area) ii. Car parking in accordance with adopted standard 35 iii. Bicycle Parking in accordance with guidance contained in Local Transport Note 1/20 or Active Travel Wales iv. Waste bin storage.

Recommendation: DNOC"

5.3 The owners/occupiers of St. Bridget's have objected to the application which can be summarised as (30.12.2020); An identical application (for the same type of house on the same site) was made in 2016 and 2004; We believe that there is still merit in the reasons behind the 2004 refusal of planning permission. The first point was that the plot wasn't big enough. Point 2 stated the new building couldn't be erected 'without causing an unacceptable detrimental impact on the residential amenity of the two existing adjacent dwellings'. This meant Fasque itself, and St Bridgets. Point 3 of the refusal stated 'the visibility for emerging vehicles is unsafe.' We believe that this is still the case; The most recent Appeal Inspector's judgement in 2019 raised three issues: residential amenity of Fasque and the new house, visibility splays in the highroad, and the privacy of St Bridgets. We feel that these issues have not gone away, and that any new application can't properly deal with them since they are inherent in the site itself; We feel that the area is not big enough to site another house in, without having a detrimental impact on Fasque and the new house itself; The existing house, Fasque, will now have cars driving past it on a regular basis. The combined entrance simply isn't practical. The owners of the new house will be uncomfortable about driving in front of Fasque; Room has been made in the new application for two car parking spaces at each house, but what happens if either house becomes a three car household, or if there are visitors? Presumably, the additional cars will park on the road; On the question of road access, we reiterate the point made in our December 6th 2016 objection that it is a busy road and the visibility is insufficient. The Highway Board stated on December 5th 2018 that 'there is inadequate highway visibility in both directions', and that there is an 'insufficient X distance' back from the road. The Board reiterated this in March 2019 and stated that Amended Plans submitted in January 2019 failed to remedy this. The Planning Officer stated that 'it is not acceptable to have visibility splays which cross land which is outwith the control of the applicant, and where there are clear impediments to the visibility in both directions; We note that the Highway Board have twice opposed the application, while claiming that 'the only exception would be if the applicant entered into a statutory undertaking with the adjacent third party land owners for the visibility splays to be permanently maintained across their land with no obstructions above 1 metre in height.' As we have said before, we have no intention of giving such an undertaking; and dealing with the residential amenity issue on St Bridgets, having a new dwelling 20 metres away from our house will impact on our privacy.

5.4 The owners/occupiers of Thackeray House, Andreas Road, Ramsey have objected to the application which can be summarised as (10.01.2021); potential for cars parking on the road if the proposed car parking is insufficient (which would appear to be likely); This section of Andreas Road (A9) is a busy section and while subject to a 30mph speed restriction, this is regularly exceeded by passing traffic. While this is obviously not the fault of the owner of the property, it is a known problem with speed enforcement officers often being located at the Grove Museum in an attempt to tackle this. I believe any cars parking on the Andreas Road at this location are potentially dangerous and it should be noted that my own property, St Bridgets, Mount Pleasant and Laurel Hill are all properties with generous amounts of parking available onsite negating any need for dangerous street parking. Any further development of the Fasque site, especially without sufficient parking provision, would increase the potential for parking on the Andreas Road (which in itself would reduce visibility) and when combined with the existing poor visibility (not limited to but including at the road junction from the Bride Road and from the exit of Fasque) may create a dangerous situation for traffic on the Andreas Road, pedestrians and for existing residents (myself included) attempting to exit their properties, which would be unacceptable.

5.5 The owners/occupiers of Mount Pleasant, Andreas Road, Ramsey object to the application which can be summarised as (12.01.2021); concerns of additional traffic and parking issues; should be more than two spaces; consider people will park on the curb/roadside impacting highway safety; and it remains unclear who owns the entrance and as such there will be conflict in the future which could cause major problems to future access of both properties.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this current planning application are (i) The principle of the proposal; (ii) Potential impact on the neighbouring residents living conditions; (iii) and Potential impact on highway safety for access/parking provision.

The principle of the proposal 6.2 As outlined within the planning policy section of this report, the site is designated as predominately residential use and therefore the proposal for residential development is acceptable in terms of complying with the land-use designation.

6.3 Consideration should also be given to The Isle of Man Strategic Plan which has been adopted (1st April 2016). Within this document Strategic Policies 1 & 2 require that new dwellings be located within existing sustainable settlements; being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services and development should optimising the use of previously developed land. This proposal would meet these aims which essentially seek development within exiting settlements rather than the countryside. Spatial Policy 2 also indicates that Ramsey is a Service Centre and that this area should; "…provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services".

6.4 Accordingly, given the above reasons it is considered the principle of developing the site for residential development is acceptable. It is also considered the area of the site is large enough to accommodate a modest dwelling. This is not an automatic reason to allow the proposal as the other matters listed within paragraph 6.1 of this report still need to be considered and be considered acceptable.

Potential impact on the neighbouring residents living conditions 6.5 The property most likely to be affected by the proposal is the applicants own property Fasque (currently for sale). As outlined in the planning history section of this report, refusal reason 2 stated: "The proposed dwelling, by virtue of vehicles and pedestrians passing Fasque to access the new dwelling's access and parking area, together with any vehicular manoeuvring, will result in a diminution of the privacy and general amenity for the occupants of the existing property. Whilst it is proposed to screen this activity by fencing, this in itself will restrict outlook and light to Fasque, to the detriment of the persons occupying that property"

6.6 The previous Planning Inspector (16/00586/A) commented: "56. …Importantly, however, cars approaching or leaving the proposed dwelling would pass over the shared driveway in front of the dwelling at Fasque and be driven very close to certain of its windows. The dwelling would occupy much of the present side garden of Fasque, situated in part behind that of St Bridgets.

57. I accept that cars passing Fasque would generally be moving slowly and that only comparatively minor bedroom windows would be directly affected. I also accept that the proposed bungalow could be sited some 10m from a 1.8m fence at the boundary and some 20m from the corner of the main house at St Bridgets. This would maintain reasonable separation distances, given the designation of the area in the RLP as Predominantly Residential.

58. Nevertheless, the screen planting illustrated around the corner of Fasque to avoid overlooking, although set some 2m away from the building, would restrict its outlook. Moreover, the presence of a new residential property, partly to the rear of the side garden of St Bridgets, would give a perception of a reduction in the peace and privacy of that property.

59. That is not to say that there would be a substantive planning objection with respect to the amenity of St Bridgets alone. However, the shared driveway in front and to the side of Fasque and the overall configuration of the appeal site indicates that the proposal possesses many of the undesirable characteristics often attributed to backland development, including unsatisfactory access, as resisted by EP42 of the IMSP and Policy R/E/P3 of the RLP."

6.7 In response to this the applicants have provided detailed landscaping proposals which show how the boundary between the proposed new dwelling and Fasque would be provided, to try overcome these previous concerns.

6.8 to the front of Fasque, namely bedroom window it is now proposed to curve the driveway slightly away from the front of Fasque, giving a 4.3m between the new driveway and the bedroom window. Furthermore, along the eastern boundary of the new driveway it is proposed to erect decorative fencing (1.4m in height) while allows some light though but provided privacy. As well as the fencing, it is proposed to plant appropriately type/size of trees (maximum of 1.8m in height) and a hedgerow as well as other shrubs etc to either side of the fence, to soften the impact when viewed form the bedroom window and make this section of landscaping visually pleasing, whilst also providing the function of improving privacy and reducing the potential impact of passing slowing moving vehicles. Arguably, the provision of this small garden area (4m in depth) improves the outlook form bedroom 3 compared to the existing situation which has direct views of the adjacent highway. It should also be noted that this bedroom has a secondary window to the side. Details of landscaping to the side of the dwelling will be considered shortly in this report.

6.9 It is noted that the previous refused scheme included (only indicative scheme) the erection of a 1.8m high fence within 2m of the bedroom window. If this was proposed again, then concerns would be had of overbearing impact upon outlooks of Fasque.

6.10 However, in terms of the new proposal it is considered the driveway orientation and position, together with the well thought landscape proposals would provide an important function of providing privacy and reducing noise/general disturbances to the occupiers of the bedroom. Furthermore, it is considered the scheme would be beneficial to the property Fasque over the current situation, which itself would like cause noise disturbances/privacy issues given the existing highway.

6.11 It should also be noted since the last application that the Residential Design Guide has been approved by the Department. This outlines that bedrooms window are habitable rooms, but are not primary habitable rooms (i.e. living rooms/kitchen diners). It is noted the current proposal would have no impact upon the primary habitable rooms of Fasque.

6.12 There was some potential impact upon the side windows of Fasque (not a reason for refusal previously) which serves as a second window for the front bedroom mentioned previously, but also a additional bedroom. The latter is of particular interest in this case, given it is the sole window to this bedrooms. Again there where concerns of overlooking from and into this windows form the application site. Whilst the previous application proposed a 1.8m fence at a distance of 2m away from the window to overcome privacy concerns; this was not considered acceptable in terms of the outlook for this new application. Accordingly, as part of the overall landscaping scheme submitted as part of this application, again it is proposed to have a greater distance between the window and boundary fence, which would be shared with the proposed dwelling. A gap of between 2.5m is being retained and the fence would have a height of 1.5m. To improve privacy again a well-designed 38 landscaping plan with appropriately positioned plants/bushes/hedgerows are proposed. Again it is considered this will provided adequate screening for privacy, whilst also ensure outlook from the bedrooms of Fasque are acceptable.

6.13 While in the overall scheme, the proposed landscaping/driveway alterations are fairly small in nature, it is considered they would be a significant improvement of previous schemes which have not been considered sufficient to overcome amenity concerns to the occupants of Fasque. However, on this occasion it is considered they would overcome the previous concerns in that they would provide sufficient level of privacy to the occupants of Fasque, whilst also ensuring the general noise of slow moving passing vehicles would be sufficiently reduced; all while ensuring the outlooks and amount of natural light from the relevant bedroom windows are protected and are pleasant. Accordingly, in respect of concerns of potential impacts upon the amenities of Fasque; it is concluded the proposal would be acceptable.

6.14 In relation to the potential impact upon residential amenities of neighbouring property St Bridgets; the Inspector of the previous application commented: "…Moreover, the presence of a new residential property, partly to the rear of the side garden of St Bridgets, would give a perception of a reduction in the peace and privacy of that property.

59. That is not to say that there would be a substantive planning objection with respect to the amenity of St Bridgets alone."

6.15 It is not considered traffic generate by the proposal would cause significant impacts upon the occupants of St Bridgets to warrant a refusal. Further, it is noted that landscaping (and fencing) is proposed to be undertaken along the shared boundaries of the site with St Bridgets which would mitigate any noise/general impacts by vehicles. In terms of wither a dwelling would have an impact (overlooking, loss of light, overbearing impacts upon outlook), this cannot be considered at this stage as no details of the dwelling are provided. An indicative footprint is shown and it is considered if a single storey property where propose don this indicative footprint, then this may be acceptable. Of course the taller the building (2,3,4 stories etc) the greater the impacts and possible concerns. However, until a detail scheme for the dwelling is provided it is not possible to consider this aspect under this current application, and would be for a future Reserved Matters application to consider.

Potential impact on highway safety for access/parking provision 6.16 Previous there were significant concerns of inadequately visibility splays of the access which would serve an additional dwelling. Accordingly, the below refusal reason was given to the previous application: " R 1. The proposal would result in an additional property using an access which will not provide adequate visibility for drivers emerging from the site. Whilst the visibility will be better than what existed previously, it is not fully in accordance with highway safety standards and is not sufficient to justify a further dwelling using this access. The proposal therefore fails to accord with General Policy 2h and 2i of the Strategic Plan."

6.17 On this matter the Inspector commented: "49. Under the appeal proposals, Fasque would henceforth be served by a single vehicle entrance in place of the former two accesses, with as much visibility onto the main A9 Andreas Road as could be achieved. That would amount to an immediate improvement in road safety locally, by reducing the number of residential frontage accesses.

50. However, despite the assertion of the Appellant that the requisite 43m sight distance could be achieved along the road edge, I am satisfied, on the evidence of the Highway Authority with reference to the Manual for Manx Roads, that in practice it would be significantly less, especially to the north, at around 18m. It is from the north that the fastest 39 traffic is likely to approach, potentially at or even above the 30mph speed limit on entering the restricted zone.

51. Visibility standards are provided for guidance and I agree with the Appellant that a balanced, common sense judgement is justified on the circumstances of each individual case as to whether a development complies with GP(h) and (i) on road safety. In this connection, I note that that judgements were made to allow frontage development accesses with numerically sub-standard visibility in the examples cited at Eastfield and Grand Island Hotel.

52. Be that as it may, it is evident in the present appeal that the kerbside visibility distances achievable without reliance upon private land obstructed by vegetation and outside the control of the Appellant would be significantly sub-standard, even if the set-back distance were reduced to 1.9m.

53. It is reasonable to consider that this disadvantage would be offset by the improvement in replacing the two former access points with a single entrance.

54. However, it is my judgement on balance that to double the permitted use of the entrance by creating an additional residential dwelling on the appeal land would still pose a significant increased danger to road safety in this particular case, when assessed on its individual merit. That is due to the potential for increased conflict between emerging and passing vehicles, which brings the proposed development into conflict with the aims of GP2(h) and (i) to secure safe access."

6.18 Following the refusal of the last application and comments made by the Inspector, the applicants have reassessed the access and landownership, namely the grass verges/banks.

6.19 The applicants have also provided a better standard of drawings and more detail in terms of the access arrangement and visibility splays. The applicants have shown visibility splays of 2.4m x 43m in either direction (and beyond), which includes a 0.5m offset (not included last time) from the edged/kerb line of the highway. They have also sought advice from Department of Infrastructure in terms of the ownership of the roadside verges and they have confirmation that it is DOI land (this is a common occurrence throughout the IOM). The submitted plans show that the visibility splays are contained within their ownership and that of the Department of Infrastructure. This is important as the DOI either maintains their own land or are happy for the applicants to maintain the land in question.

6.20 The applicants also highlight that: "It should be noted that the speed limit from Andreas just before the 30mph limit has been reduced down to 40mph. This is another positive impact upon the vehicles speed entering the 30mph zone where the site in question is located. Vehicle speed when in the 30mph is much more likely to be near 30mph due to this compared to the previous higher speed limit."

6.21 Highway Services have considered the applicant in detailed as outlined in their representations. It should be noted that Highway Services had objections to the previous application also.

6.22 Again if the previous plans/information was submitted as part of this application, there would have been concerns raised again. However, as outlined the applicants have demonstrated that the required visibility splays can be provided.

6.23 Any new dwelling requires at least two off road parking space and turning provision. While the layout of the site is indicative, it is consider the site is large enough to accommodate two spaces and turning facilities. The existing property Fasque also has such provision.

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 It is considered that the proposal overcomes the previous reasons for refusal in respect of access and highway safety and the impact on the living conditions of those in Fasque and therefore has no significant impact upon public or private amenities and therefore complying with Strategic Policy 1, Strategic Policy 2, General Policy 2, Housing Policy 4, Transport Policy 4 , Transport Policy 7 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Residential Design Guide. Accordingly, the application is recommended for approval.

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.

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 15th February 2021

Item 5.5 Proposal : Alterations and erection of extension to side of elevation and alterations to vehicle access Site Address : 14 Cronk Cardle Corony Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 1ET Applicant : Mr Brian Eavis Application No. : 20/01167/B- 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.

Reason for approval: The proposal complies with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. ______

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that No.13 Cronk Cardle and No.11 Cronk Cardle are given Interested Person Status as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (January 2020). ______

Planning Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE PLANNING APPLICATION PROPOSES AN EXTENSION TO A DWELLING LOCATED WITHIN THE COUNTRYSIDE THAT IS A GREATER THAN 50% INCREASE IN FLOOR SPACE OVER THE EXISTING DWELLING.

THE APPLICATION SITE

1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of 14 Cronk Cardle which is a semi- detached dwelling situated to the south the Cronk Cardle cul-de-sac which is a housing estate of 16 properties.

1.2 Due to the topography of the site Cronk Cardle is situated higher on the hillside than The Corony. Directly to the rear of the property is the service road to the Water Board building. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 The current planning application seeks approval to erect a two storey extension measuring approximately 4.7m by 9.5m with an overall height as the existing property. The proposed extension will extend approximately 2m from the rear elevation of the property.

2.2 To the ground floor level there is proposed a single garage and kitchen to the rear. To the first floor level there is proposed two bedrooms and a balcony to the rear. The proposed balcony will have a privacy screen to the east elevation measuring 1.6m.

2.3 Also proposed are alterations to the highway and existing driveway which will extend the driveway to have two spaces and will extend the residential curtilage to include the part of the highway in front of the property.

PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There are no previous planning applications identified on this site.

PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as zoned "Not for Development" on the 1982 Development Plan, North Map.

4.2 Despite the site not being designated for residential development, the dwelling is authorised as part of the estate approved under PA 04/0865. As such, the provisions of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan are considered applicable.

4.3 General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 applies to the proposal. The relevant parts of that policy are below. "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; (j) can be provided with all necessary services;

4.4 Paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan is also relevant and states, "As a general policy, in built up areas not controlled by Conservation Area or Registered Building policies, there will be a general presumption in favour of extensions to existing property where such extensions would not have an adverse impact on either adjacent property or the surrounding area in general."

4.5 The Residential Design Guidance 2019 is also relevant in this application of which the parts which are relevant are below in the assessment of this application.

REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services have considered the application and Do not Oppose (5.11.20).

5.2 Garff Commissioners have considered the proposal comment the following "Members expressed concern that the planning application shows appropriation of a portion of the public highway. As well as noting that this was highly unusual, concern was raised about removing a portion of the public highway in an area that was an already congested turning area at the end of the cul-de-sac." (11.01.21).

5.3 The owners/occupiers of No.13 Cronk Cardle have considered the proposal and wish to object and state in part, "We have no objections to the property being extended, but we wish to register our objections to the plans to take a portion of the public highway." (12.1.20)

5.4 The owners/occupiers of No.11 Cronk Cardle have considered the proposal and wish to object to and state in part, "I can confirm that I have no objection to the alteration to the alteration of the building of 14 Cronk Cardle per se just an objection to the removal of the part of the public highway and the reworking of the kerbing by the turning head for the reasons stated above."

ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are the impact of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the street scene, the impact of the proposal on the amenities of neighbours and the impact of the proposal on the highway.

6.2 Firstly it is necessary to note that as per part 4 of this assessment it can be seen that under the 1982 Development Plan the existing dwelling is within an area not zoned for development. It is reasonable to say that the dwelling itself is one of a number that form a small estate and that the application site has an accordingly residential feel and as such the application site has been assessed under General Policy 2 and the Residential Design Guidance 2019.

6.3 When looking at the proposal against The Residential Design Guidance 2019 there is guidance for the erection of a side elevation and states, "4.4.2 It is key that any side extension respects the proportion, design and form of the existing dwelling and that it appears as a subordinate to the main dwelling. A side extension should generally not project in front of the existing building or have flat roofs, a pitched roof will normally be essential to any side extension. The roof of the proposed extension should match the original in terms of pitch and shape. The ridge line should either follow or, often preferably, be lower than the original dwelling.

4.4.3 Whether the side extension is single or two storeys, the height and width of these side extensions should be proportionate to the side of the main dwelling. The width should be significantly less than the width of the main dwelling. The ridge height of single storey side extension should normally be below the eaves level of a two-storey house to give clear definition between single-storey and two-storey elements.

6.4 When looking at the proposal in terms of its form, mass and design provides a suitable extension to an existing residential property for which there is a general principle in favour of as indicated in paragraph 8.12.1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. The extension is considered to be reasonable in terms of its size even though it is doubling the side of the dwelling the impact of the dwelling as viewed by the public is not significantly different to the existing situation, especially when viewed with the two storey extension to No.13 Cronk Cardle. The altered and extended dwelling will still sit comfortably within the overall estate that it is situated within.

Neighbour Amenity

6.5 When looking at the proposed works with regards to neighbouring amenity due to No.14 Cronk Cardle being at a higher distance, with the mature trees and hedges to the rear and also due to the distance, over 40m away the properties to the rear should not be affected by the erection of the balcony to the rear.

6.6 To the south east of the property is No.13 Cronk Cardle who could potentially be the most affected with the proposed extension, with regards to the proposed balcony. Whilst they have written in to object against the alteration to the highway, they have stated they don't have an objection to the proposed extension. There is also the installation of a privacy screen between the properties which will limit any overlooking to their garden as such the proposed extension complies with the relevant policies within part 4 of this assessment. 44

Highway Impact

6.7 The proposed extension will result in the loss of one driveway parking space alongside the property, with this in mind the ground floor level of the extension is a garage which with the added driveway extension will create three spaces within the curtilage of the dwelling which is in line with Appendix 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

6.8 When looking at the proposed driveway extension to the front of the property which will encompass up to 1.1m of the highway in a triangular shape, the applicants have stated that the encompassing of the highway is to facilitate the car parking on the application site which is currently quite sharp down from the highway. Whilst there have been a few objections to this proposed alteration Highway Services have written in to state, "The proposal is unlikely to give rise to significant highway safety issues, allowing Highway Services to raise no opposition to the alteration of the vehicle access subject to an advisory for a S109(A) Highway Agreement."

6.9 From the objections received it can be seen that there is currently an issue with the owners/occupiers of the surrounding properties using the turning circle as additional parking which in turn creates an issue with regards to the vehicular movements of cars. Whilst it is noted that this was an issue during my site visit within the comments from Highway Services they do state that the turning circle is within the public highway and cannot be claimed as parking spaces by residents or visitors.

6.10 During my site visit with the applicant it was noted that due to the sharp incline at the top of the driveway they found it hard to park one of their vehicles on the driveway as such the alterations will facilitate the move of one potential car within this turning circle area.

CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, the extension is judged to respect the design and proportion of the dwelling and furthermore it is considered that the proposed works would not have any adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the property or street scene in general and would not appear incongruous within the wider locality or impact on neighbouring amenity. The proposal complies with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 15th February 2021

Item 5.6 Proposal : Construction of reinforced concrete wall with stone cladding for the purpose of providing flood protection Site Address : Glen Road Laxey Isle Of Man Applicant : Mr Aidan McCusker Application No. : 20/01385/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. No development shall be commenced on site until, further details and drawings showing the finished appearance of both sides of the wall to the section of walling fronting Laxey Woollen Mills, has been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Department showing details of existing and proposed walls with ground levels. All walling works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.

Reason; To ensure the character and appearance of the wall in this section is in keeping with this part of the conservation area.

C 3. Pirior to the commencement of works on site, a 'development within 9 meters of a watercourse form' and a written method statement should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department . All works in the vicinity of the river shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason; To ensure adequate protection of the River and fish within.

C 4. Prior to the commencement of works on site, a written method statement should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department, for the eradication of Himalayan Balsalm. All works in the vicinity of the river shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason; To ensure there is no spread of Himalayan Balsalm and that adequate protection of the rivers ecosystem is maintained.

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 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): - 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 - Occupants of Riverside House, Lower Rencell Hill, Laxey, as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy.

It is recommended that Manx Utilities should be given Interested Person Status as they have provided written comments which relate to material planning issues. ______

Planning Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE 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 bridge at the upper part of Glen Road opposite the Laxey Woollen Mill from the approx. the centre line of the highway through to approx. the centre line of the river bed of the Laxey River and continues south east or down stream for approx.190 m ending opposite the dwellinghouse Acacia Villa on the adjacent side of the highway.

1.2 The boundary wall between the highway of Glen road and the Laxey River is, on Glen road side, mainly Manx stone walling, and to the river side alternates from Manx stone wall to sections generally opposite the Manx woollen Mill and a concrete render for the majority up to the new wall and gate which was recently rebuilt and 300mm higher than the existing. The current wall when measured, for its majority from road level is approx. 1.3m high with a domed top.

1.3 To the west of Laxey River and the application is dwellinghouse Riversdale House which sits at a higher level than Glen Road and their outlook is across the river to the application site and the dwellings fronting Glen Road. To the north east part of the site is Laxey Woollen Mill a 2/3 storey building finished in Manx stone with a hipped roof, portrait timber windows. The river wall here and up to the weir where Laxey Rover meets Glenroy River, is all Manx Stone wall and the river side of the wall is prominent and visible and matches that of the Woollen Mill. On the opposite side of the river adjacent to Riversdale House is a shuttered concrete retaining wall.

1.4 There is a natural break in the roadside/riverside wall, approximately in line with the southern gable of the Woollen Mill where the wall finish on the river side becomes smooth concrete and Manx stone to the roadside which continues south to the new section of walling repaired in 2019 with pre-cast concrete retaining wall with a flood gate. This section of wall is 300mm higher than the existing in Manx stone and domed top to Glen Road and a concrete finish down to the river bed on the river side. 48

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of the existing wall and construction of a reinforced concrete wall with stone cladding to the face of Glen Road for the purpose of providing flood protection along sections of Glen Road. The replacement wall will be approx.300mm higher than existing.

2.2 The applicant has submitted cross sections of the type of wall to be built and at what sections also is a planning statement which provides information the background to flooding where in 2019, 51 of the 62 properties were affected, the impact of the flooding and how this resulted in elevated river level further upstream from a blockage at the weir from debris. Emergency repair works were carried out to damaged section of the wall where it was rebuilt with reinforced concrete approx. 300mm higher to give additional flood protection.

2.3 The applicant has helpfully provided a written description to accompany the engineering drawings describing the extent of the replacement works at each section along Glen road. This is noted in the preceding paragraphs from the written statement;

2.4 "The section of retaining wall to be replaced initially was from Ballacowin Cottage on Glen Road up to the road bridge at Laxey Woollen Mills, an approximate length of 140 metres. Appendix A presents a location plan of the various different sections of wall under review. The first section of retaining wall already completed is depicted in magenta on the location plan and the construction details are shown in Section A-A. This completed section of works incorporates a flood gate to provide access to the river for maintenance purposes as requested by DEFA and MUA.

2.5 The next upstream section of 25m is an existing masonry wall which it is proposed to demolish and replace down to river bed level in the same manner as shown in Section A-A.

2.6 The next 67m of wall already has a reinforced concrete lining below road level and so it is proposed to demolish the wall to road level only and construct a new reinforced concrete boundary wall above road level. The construction details of this wall type are shown in Appendix A, Section B-B.

2.7 The remaining section for replacement has 18m of Manx stone wall and 13m of railings up to the bend at the bridge. The wall below carriageway has no concrete face so it is proposed to provide a new reinforced concrete lining on the river side up to road level. A new reinforced concrete 4 boundary wall would then be constructed above this. Construction details for this are shown in Appendix A, Section C-C.

2.8 There is an additional section of wall opposite the properties of Hollywood and Acacia Villa that also need strengthening. These are to be raised approximately 900mm to the same height as the rest of the wall with additional reinforced concrete up stands on top of the existing as shown in Appendix A, Section D-D".

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 the adjacent side of Glen Road and 'Mixed' use opposite the Woollen Mill on Map 7 Laxey Area Plan for the East, coming into operation on December 2020, replacing the Laxey and Lonan Plan 2005.

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 49 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 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; 50

(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; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;

3.11 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 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 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS (in brief, full statements can be read online) 5.1 Garff Parish Commissioners commented (12/01/21) provided commentary highlighting the area is a conservation area and seek the concrete facing the riverside of the wall is unacceptable and should be cladded on both faces.

5.2 Highways Services have commented (24/12/20) and do not object. 51

5.3 DEFA Inland Fisheries have commented (13/01/20) requesting the completion of a pro forma for "Development within 9m of a water course" before they can assess the application.

5.4 MUA Water Authority,(15/01/21) have provided extract from the JBA report appertaining to the design of the wall heights from the weir to the woollen mills, showing level at surveyed cross sections in a table and corresponding plan.

5.5 DEFA Fisheries commented (18/01/21) with no objection subject to conditions, the works can only be carried out between July and September to avoid spawning fish; works to be conducted according to a written method statement agreed in advance with Inland Fisheries.

5.6 DEFA Ecosystems Policy Officer has commented (03/02/21) with no objection but there are records of Himalayan Balsam along the stretch of river and is listed on Schedule 8 Part II of the Wildlife Act 1990 and concerns are that it could spread in connection with the works. They request a condition for the submission of a plan for the eradication of Himalayan Balsam prior to the works taking place.

5.7 DEFA's Principal Registered Buildings Officer commented (01/02/21) highlights the importance of the character and historic merit of the area and the traditional vernacular style of the buildings and the mixed pallet of traditional materials; the wall contributes to the character of this part of the Conservation area; seeks absolute justification for the loss of the wall and sufficient evidence to demonstrate the loss is necessary doe to the risk of flooding; seeks consideration is given to minimise the visual appearance of the concrete wall. If stone facing is not possible are there other options been explored been explored to tone down the impact. UK may have some best practice guidance; the walling in the vicinity of the mill building should be a more sympathetic treatment. Registered Building Consent is required for the demolitions within a conservation area.

5.8 Riverside House, Lower Rencell Hill, Laxey commented (08/01/21) are Located to the west of the Laxey River with a view of the inside of the wall running along Glen Road. Object to the appearance of the riverside of the wall. The proposal would remove this nice view of a weathered wall with a bleached concrete sectional wall. Glen Road side is cladded in stone. Section b/b and c/c were identified in November 2020 as structurally assessed and fit for purpose why now is it being replaced. They feel that it does not need replacing and the section should be faced in stone and not left bare concrete.

5.9 Glen View, South Cape, Laxey commented (04/01/21; 25/01/21; 26/01/21) to objects as there is no justification for the increase in wall height; would flood the woollen mill as water would be diverted down its access road; the railing on the bridge allow for the water to flow through and run down the road, rather than destroy the bridge; the access gate further downstream did not attain planning permission; existing railing offer visibility for those using the bridge, vehicles and pedestrian; could proposed a traffic hazard with a wall 1.6m high and dangerous; the river would not been seen with a wall 1.6m high and would destroy the amenity of Laxey; would allow for poaching; riverside should be stone built; would appear like a bath-tub with concrete walls; requires a Registered Building Application for the demolition of the wall; river gate has no purpose and an eyesore; new wall should match the existing; this area has not flooded in 2019 or earlier, the wall was breached due to debris in the river; loss of amenity to the area, conflicts with the Arup report; works to the river and the weir require Registered Building consent; the proposal should retain the railings or a lower height along Glen Road and stone face on both sides of the wall; the proposal is not appropriate for Laxey Conservation Area. Glen road is a popular tourist route and the heritage view would be removed; flooding has never (in their 30 years as a Laxey resident) breeching the railings; witnessed the floods in 2015 and 2019;

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) (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) (v) Impact on the Highways (GP2h&I)

6.2 Justification There is much debate arising from the consultation period regarding the proposed works or the extent of them. The applicant and their various consultants have carried out numerous reports as noted in section 3.14. 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, and the increase in wall height to from 1.3m to 1.6m, an increase of 300mm. 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)

6.3 F-LAX-006 "Laxey River - Linear wall (Woollen Mill to immediately downstream to MER weir) Description; ~ Replace existing river bank retaining wall along Glen Road and formalise as a flood defence with increased wall height. ~ Height to be determined by hydraulic modelling and the impact of option F-LAX-007 ~ Confirm approx. length. Shortlisted; Yes - Option provides increased SoP (standard of Protection) to nearby properties but may need to be combined with other options to mitigate any downstream impacts. 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".

6.4 On balance, 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).

6.5 Neighbours The proposed works would be considered to be relatively non-contentious in the respect to the visual impacts on the neighbouring properties along Glen Road, with the closest neighbouring property being Riverside House on the opposite side of the river whose curtilage fronts onto Laxey River approx. 15m away. Whilst they have objected to the works on account of outlook of a concrete wall as opposed to a Manx stone Wall is noted, the visual impact is addressed later in the report at 6.7. However the works for a replacement wall 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.

6.6 Watercourse 53

The scope of works will see part of the river bed and banks being reformed by the use of the pre-cast concrete 'L' sections and finished with stone to Glen Road. This method of bank stabilisation has already been utilised and evidenced in the immediate area and further downstream. The comments from the inland fisheries are noted and the applicant would be required to liaise with them for the production of a method statement prior to the works commencing on site and the same for the biodiversity for the presence of Himalayan Balsam along the stretch of river can both be conditioned to secure adequacy of works on site. On balance, the proposed scale of the works would not adversely harm the water course, and would be compliant with GP2d and EP7c,d.

6.7 Visual Impact The walling finish to the road side of Glen Road is Manx stone and would reflect the current finish and is acceptable. The current appearance of the wall to the riverside is a mixture of Manx stone walling with some sections of concrete finished wall that has taken on an aged appearance and then the recently replaced section of walling with concrete pre-cast retaining wall (carried out in 2019 after the floods). If the scope of works were to be undertaken under Permitted Development (Schedule 2 Class 2 Highways works), those sections of concrete walling would have to be replaced with concrete for it to comply with the PDO on a material basis. The prevalence of the use of concrete as a material of retaining walling down to the river bed is clearly evident on both sides of the river and also further downstream, which has in the past been acknowledged as an accepted method of material for this use. The proposed use of concrete walling to those sections of the riverside wall is considered an acceptable method and material for a retailing wall to this section of Glen Road where any views would be read against the backdrop of residential properties of various styles and finishes. It can be seen with the existing concrete sections that takes on a weathered appearance over the years. In this instance and the prevalent use of the material it is not considered to seek any treatment of the concrete face as this will happen naturally and will be consistent with the use further downstream. In this case the proposal would not be introducing an incongruous element that would be considered detrimental to this part of the streetscene.

6.8 The woollen mill is a not a registered building but has a positive contribution to character and appearance of the conservation area which is very apparent when approaching from either direction. It is here where the walling to the riverside is most important as this helps with the character and identity. At present the building and the current retaining wall are of the same Manx stone finishing on both sides. It is at this point where the two rivers converge and the bridge over the Laxey River offers views down most of the length of the river to the weir. The setting here is an important one where the riverside of the wall should reflect the current appearance, the heritage of the area and that of the façade of the Woollen Mill building as opposed to the proposed concrete appearance. This has been discussed with the applicant (01/02/20) and they have agreed to a condition being placed on any approval signifying that the wall to the front of the Laxey Woollen Mill is to be faced both sides with Manx stone down to the river bed which is seen as a positive outcome for the character of the streetscene and that of the conservation area.

6.9 The proposed increase in height of the wall by 300mm is not considered to have an adverse impact on the appearance of the streetscene over and above the existing. Any visual impact is deemed to be minimal and any harm is outweighed by the benefits of flood protection to the existing dwellings and their residents and is sufficiently justified as noted above.

6.10 The proposed replacement wall would be read in conjunction with the remaining buildings (Laxey Woollen Mill) and the wall fronting to Glen Road being finished in Manx stone would be seen to enhance the character and appearance of the streetscene and that of the conservation area with the added benefit of assisting in the bank and road stabilisation which

54 would positively contribute to the ongoing flood mitigation works in the area. This aspect would comply with Sp4, EP35 and GP2b&c.

6.11 Highways The application does not propose any alterations to the current access arrangement to the highway of Glen Road. A section of railing opposite the woollen Mill is due to be removed and replaced with a Stone wall. Highway Services have considered the merits of the proposal, users of this part of Glen Road, and highway safety. As the transport professionals their comments are heavily relied upon and it is noted they do not object, the proposal would be aligned with the principles of GP2 (h&i).

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 The application has been considered and on balance would seek to regularise the works already undertaken to the wall 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.

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 15th February 2021

Item 5.7 Proposal : Temporary use of site to be used as car park (retrospective) Site Address : Former Isle Of Man Holiday Camp Victoria Road Douglas Isle Of Man Applicant : RBS International Application No. : 20/01145/C- click to view Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer

RECOMMENDATION: To REFUSE the application ______

Reasons and Notes for Refusal R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes (if any) attached to the reasons

R 1. The proposed temporary use would reduce the likelihood of a prominent brownfield site being brought forward and this would be contrary to Strategic Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan (2016), the policy on car parks as set out in "Reform of the Planning System - Programme for Government 2016 - 2021" and the recommendations of the Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Development of Unoccupied Urban Sites (2017-2018).

R 2. The proposed use is not in accordance with the land use zoning as set out within the Area Plan for the East 2020.

R 3. The proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 43 and General Policy 2 as the proposal would detrimentally affect the visual amenities of the street scene. ______

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None ______

Planning Officer’s Report

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

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site comprises part of the former Isle of Man Holiday Camp which is a corner plot located off Switzerland Road and Victoria Road. The Former Victoria Road Prison site is to the northwest of the site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for the temporary use of site to be used as car park (retrospective). Currently there are three parking areas layout across part of the site. Other parts of the site remain unchanged.

2.2 The applicant's state: "The proposed temporary car parking use will provide off road car parking facilities for the staff of Howard Pearson House, reducing the impact of congestion on the existing highways 56 network. The application seeks approval for up to 65 parking bays with proposed lighting and landscaping. The Government will be aware the applicant has already laid the area for car parking and therefore to support this application, further details have been provided highlighting proposed materials and boundary treatments. Consequently, in light of the extant planning permission, the site has already been established as suitable for redevelopment."

3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area of "Mixed Use" on the recently adopted Area Plan for the East 2020. The site is not within a Conservation Area. Under the Plan the site has a designation of "DM013g".

3.2 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016) contains a number of relevant policies.

3.2.1 Strategic Policy 10 states: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement" 3.2.2 General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

3.2.3 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."

3.2.4 Transport Policy 6 states: "In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users."

3.2.5 Environment Policy 43 states: "The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans. The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric, rather than its demolition." 57

3.2.6 Paragraph 11.5.3 indicates that the long term the target is to reduce the level of car parking required for town centre developments and seek to develop more sustainable staff and visitor transport plans but sets out a general policy (Transport Policy 7) "in the shorter term" which sets out parking standards for new developments.

4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 The Council of Ministers have approved an Action Plan to Reform the Planning System (hereafter "The Action Plan"). The document "Reform of the Planning System - Programme for Government 2016 - 2021" GD2018/0031 was laid before Tynwald on 15th May 2018. One of the actions set out within this is that, "Council of Ministers have agreed the following Policy with immediate effect: In order to continue to incentivise and support site redevelopment and the associated economic development, Planning Approval should not normally be given for brownfield sites to be used as temporary car parks" and that this is important, "To ensure faster brownfield site redevelopment and encourage socio-economic development".

4.2 Report of the Select Committee of Tynwald on the Development of Unoccupied urban sites (2017-2018) (hereafter "The Select Committee Report" recommended that,

"Tynwald calls upon the Council of Ministers and all Departments to use every means at their disposal to encourage and prioritise the development of unoccupied or previously developed urban sites ahead of building on greenfield sites in the Manx countryside; and in particular that Tynwald is of the opinion that urgent action should be taken … (iv) to use the planning system, taxation and other potential incentives to discourage greenfield development; (v) to use the planning system, taxation and other potential incentives to encourage brownfield development in Development Zones in Douglas and in other urban areas".

4.3 The Manual for Manx Roads (published by the Department of Infrastructure) sets out detailed guidance on highways matters.

4.4 The Area Plan for the East has been approved by Tynwald and came into operation on the 1st December 2020. This identifies that the application site is proposed for allocation as, "Mixed Use". The written statement indicates that:

"9.11 Development in areas of 'mixed use' 9.11.1 There are a number of areas of 'mixed use' outside of Douglas town centre. Some are identified by a site number on the Maps and others are not, for instance Village Walk in Onchan does not have a site number.

9.11.2 Development types within areas of mixed use generally comprise a variety of different but compatible uses. Appropriate new uses may include a mix of shops and some services (financial and professional), food and drink, office and light industry, research and development, tourist and residential uses, and other uses such as clinics or health centres, childcare or education, community facilities, and places of assembly and leisure. Uses which are not compatible with residential development will generally not be supported within the areas of mixed use."

4.6 The Written Statement also indicated that a "Notional number of dwellings" totalling 22 could be erected on the site.

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 There have been a number of applications on the site, which are considered relevant in the consideration of this application:

19/01188/LAW - Certificate of Lawful Development for use of car park - REFUSED

15/00723/B - Erection of four small office units with associated car parking, drainage, hard and soft landscaping works (resubmission of PA 11/00178/B) - APPROVED - It is not considered this application has been commenced and therefore has now expired (25.08.2019).

11/00178/B - Erection of four office units with associated car parking, drainage and hard and soft landscaping works - granted 8th July 2011 (now expired).

09/01977/B - Erection of four office units with associated car parking, drainage, and landscaping - application withdrawn

09/01976/A - Approval in principle for the erection of five office units - application withdrawn.

98/01282/B - Erection of office building with two apartments, car parking and new access road - APPROVED 30th November 1998

89/01503/B - Masterplan of business technology park - APPROVED

88/00946/A - Approval in principle to business science park and hotel and associated car parking - APPROVED

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS 6.1 Highway Services make the following comments: "There is a lack of information posted on-line to assess this proposal and as drawn suggests that it breaches the Transport Policies within the Strategic Plan.

Further details are necessary to show the red line on the site plan and justify the provision of over 60 car parking spaces given accessibility, inclusivity and sustainability objectives and in relation to the Strategic Plan car parking standards of 1 per 50sqm of offices. There is need to explore the opportunities to manage down commuter car use and parking within Douglas. Notwithstanding, for the layout to indicate the pedestrian routes to and from the car park and the provision for the parking for those with mobility impairments, bicycles and motorcycles.

Recommendation: O - Additional details."

6.2 Douglas Borough Council has made the following comments: 26.10.2020 "Douglas Borough Council would kindly ask that both of the above applications can be considered by the Council's Environmental Services Committee at a meeting to be held on the 16th November with our comments to be forwarded to you shortly afterwards. If for any reason it is not possible to provide a time extension to allow this to happen I would kindly ask if you can get back to me at your earliest convenience."

04.11.2020 "Good afternoon, I am writing in relation to the above planning application in light of the recent comments made by the DOI's Highways Services Division.

Douglas Borough Council is in full agreement with the comments made and would kindly ask that the applicant be advised to withdraw the application until they can address the concerns raised. If all of the relevant information had of been provided at the time of the application being uploaded onto the planning portal, the Council would have considered the application at a Committee meeting to be held on the 16th of this month. Rather than simply object to the application due to the concerns raised, we would prefer to allow the applicant an additional period of time to resolve these issues which we hope would give the application a better chance of success.

With this in mind the Council would like to consider the application at a meeting to be held on the 14th December by which time it is hoped all of the current issues will have been addressed. If there are any problems with this request for a time extension I would kindly ask that you get back to me at your earliest convenience so we can arrange an alternative to consider the application."

17.11.2020 "The Council has requested a time extension on the below planning application to allow for it to be considered by the Council's Environmental Services Committee at a meeting to take place on the 14th December. This will allow an additional period of time for the applicant to address the points raised by the by the DOI within their Planning Application Response dated the 2nd November 2020."

7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The principle issues with the application is the land use zoning and whether the use of the site on a temporary basis for car parking is acceptable, the potential visual impact and Highway Safety issues.

The land use zoning / use of site 7.2 The use is not residential nor, does it fit with the uses outlined within the Area Plan for the East (par 9.11). It is therefore not in accordance with the land use designation of the Area Plan for the East.

7.3 The use of brownfield sites for temporary uses raises various questions - the extent that the use of the site as a temporary car park discourages investment in its more permanent development, the likely condition of the site in the interim if approval is not given for a temporary use and the extent to which the latter outweighs the former. The answers to these questions are to some extent conjecture. However, the recently adopted Council of Ministers policy gives a firm view as to how these issues might be considered. Therefore the issue is whether there are exceptional circumstances which would indicate that the 'normal' position as set out in the policy should not be followed.

7.4 The applicants in support of the application have commented that: "The site has remained vacant following the demolition of the Isle of Man Holiday Centre in 2003. A planning application on the site was granted in July 2015 for the erection of four small office units and associated car parking and landscaping works. It should be noted that this application will not seek to propose any changes to the current planning permission (15/00723/B). Notwithstanding this, there is an existing planning permission granted on site and this application would seek for a temporary use until implementation of the planning permission.

The Strategic Plan provides the land use planning framework for the future development of the Island. The core strategic objectives, set out within the IOMSP, highlights the needs to ensure growth is balanced across the Island, with particular reference to the relevance of local area plans in the determination of planning applications.

The Douglas Local Plan (DLP) incorporates saved policies regarding the management and scale of development in Douglas. Within the DLP, the site is situated within the 'Victoria Park' business zone, whereby associated office led car parking is permitted.

Furthermore, Strategic Policy 7 of the IOMSP supports the objectives set out in the DLP, and advocates the development of land to support office and industrial ancillary uses, stating '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'.

It is important to note the proposed temporary use relates to the extant planning permission on site, granted in July 2015. Whilst we acknowledge the Government has recently introduced reforms to the planning system, it is important to highlight that the existing application was approved prior to the adoption of the policy amendment in 2018. This application therefore would not prejudice the reformed policy in relation to temporary car parking use on brownfield sites and as such, should be assessed outside of the reformed policy."

7.5 The Department does not agree with comments that "Within the DLP, the site is situated within the 'Victoria Park' business zone, whereby associated office led car parking is permitted.". The adjacent business park was (and individual offices etc) with parking provision associated with them and contained within the existing business park, not on this site. Further, this line are argument could also prejudice future re-development of the site in question, because if the applicants are arguing the proposed car parking is required for the adjacent business park uses, then perhaps any development of the application site would have an unacceptable impact upon parking in the area. Notwithstanding this, the Douglas Local Plan is no longer in force and as outlined previous the proposed uses now do not meet the criteria for "Mixed Use" development under the Area Plan for the East. Whilst car parking will be required on this site, it will be solely for the redeveloped use on the site. Again the applicants argue that; "In addition, previously approved planning applications have indicated employment with associated car parking has historically been accepted on site. The principle of redevelopment of the land for the proposed use therefore has already previously been established and as previously noted, this application will not seek to prejudice future development on the site."

7.6 Again previous approved on the site (now expired) did approve parking on this site (like most developments), but the parking was associated with the new office development, not to accommodate parking off site. The Department would strongly disagree with the applicants comments on this matter.

7.7 The applicants also appear to be under the belief they have commenced the previous application. They state that:

"…the applicant has already laid the area for car parking and therefore to support this application, further details have been provided highlighting proposed materials and boundary treatments. Consequently, in light of the extant planning permission, the site has already been established as suitable for redevelopment.".

7.8 However, the car parking laid out currently, does not match that of the approved scheme to the extent that if the officers where build, then the majority of the car park in place today would be removed. Accordingly the Department does not consider the previous approved application to have been commenced on this basis.

7.9 Again the applicants have not given any clear reasons for why the site has not been developed or the plans/timescale for its development (noting there is no extant planning approval). The Strategic Plan sets out a broad long term direction of travel, by the promotion of other travel methods. This is reinforced by the policy within the Action Plan which seeks to restrict temporary car parks with immediate effect. The applicant has provided limited justification in relation to need.

7.10 It is therefore considered that the proposal would be contrary to the Council of Ministers Policy and Strategic Policy 10 of the IOMSP 2016.

7.11 Furthermore, while the site remains as a temporary car park; the fact remains the site visually does not add to the character or street scene. Accordingly, further allowing the site to remain as a car park would reduce the likelihood of a prominent brownfield site being brought forward and this would be contrary to Strategic Plan Strategic Policy 1, The Action 61

Plan and the recommendations of the Select Committee Report. Furthermore, the proposal would be contrary to General Policy 2.

Highway Safety 7.12 The comments from DOI Highway Services are noted and relied upon in this regard, who raise concern of lack of information regarding justify the provision of over 60 car parking spaces given accessibility, inclusivity and sustainability objectives and in relation to the Strategic Plan car parking standards. They also comment that there is need to explore the opportunities to manage down commuter car use and parking within Douglas. Concern that there is lack of information in terms of the layout to indicate the pedestrian routes to and from the car park and the provision for the parking for those with mobility impairments, bicycles and motorcycles. Overall, for similar reason already outline the proposal would be contrary to Strategic Policy 10 and Transport Policy 4 & 6 of the IOMSP 2016.

8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Overall; for the reasons indicated within this report it is considered the proposal would be contrary to the Council of Ministers Policy; Strategic Policy 10, General Policy 2 Environment Policy 43 and Transport Policy 4 & 6 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Area Plan for the East . Accordingly, the application is recommended for a refusal.

9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

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

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 15th February 2021

Item 5.8 Proposal : Installation of 36no. ground level solar panels and 4no. air source heat pumps Site Address : Ballanoa Andreas Road Dhoor Ramsey Isle Of Man IM7 4EE Applicant : Mr Adam Meeuwsen Application No. : 20/01258/B- click to view Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer

RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application ______

Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions

C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. No external lighting shall be installed on or around the solar panels.

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

C 3. The solar panels hereby approved shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition in the event that they are no longer used or required for the production of electricity.

Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved solely to meet solar energy and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.

Reason for approval: It is concluded that the development proposed is acceptable when assessed against the relevant policies and the site context. ______

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None ______

Planning Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT. 1.0 THE SITE

1.1 The application site is in two parts, the first is a parcel of land Field 134038 and the second part is the curtilage of Ballanoa, Andreas Road, Dhoor, Ramsey which is a two storey detached property within its own grounds. The sites are located to the north eastern side of the Andreas Road and north of Ramsey.

1.2 Along the roadside boundaries of the site is a significant sod bank (3m+) with significant mature hedgerows/trees. The dwellinghouse and the field in question is completely screened from public views from the Andreas Road.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the installation of a total of 36 solar panels which are split into three separate rows/blocks which when laid out would have an overall total width of 4.8m and a total depth of 14.8m. They are located within Field 134038 to the west of the main dwelling. The solar panels will be placed on support units and will be angled at 30 degrees on frames. The top of the frames would be 2.2m high while the base would be 0.5m above the ground level.

2.2 Four air source heat pumps are also proposed. These (similar appearance as air conditioning units) would be located to the rear of the main dwelling.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site appears to be within two separate designations, the main dwelling and its curtilage is within and area of "woodland", whereas Field 134038 is land not designated for development both under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area, nor is the site within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance.

3.2 Paragraph 12.2.8 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states, "The Department is fully supportive of the need to secure greater energy efficiency in new and existing development and has recently introduced additional energy efficiency requirements in the Building Regulations 2003. Energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources are covered in General Policy 2(m) of the Building Regulations. At the same time the Department recognizes that renewable energy sources can have adverse environmental impacts. The idea of a wind turbine Installation is currently being investigated and considered by the Manx Electricity Authority. Any feasible site is likely to be exposed and have considerable visual impact. There may also be other impacts such as noise. On a smaller scale, the popularity of domestic wind turbines has been increasing in recent years in response to rising energy prices and increasing awareness of climate change. Planning applications for domestic wind turbines are unlikely to require the submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment. The Department will assess any proposals for wind turbine installations by weighing the benefits of using such renewable energy sources against the environmental impact arising in any particular site. It is likely that the visual impact would be less detrimental on a coastal site than on a rural or upland one. Accordingly:

3.3 Environment Policy 22 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states: "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."

3.4 Energy Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states: "Development involving alternative sources of energy supply, including wind, water and tide power, and the use of solar panels, will be judged against the environmental objectives and policies set out in this Plan. Installations involving wind, water and tide power will require the submission of an EIA". 64

3.4.1 Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan identifies developments where an EIA is required. It states in part: (c) Energy industry i. Thermal power stations and other thermal installations ii. Surface storage of natural gas iii. Underground storage of combustible gases iv. Surface storage of fossil fuels v. Industrial briquetting of coal and lignite vi. Installations for the harnessing of wind power for energy production

3.4.2 There is no reference made to the installation of solar panels within appendix 5. The scale is also not considered to be significant enough to warrant an EIA in any case, and the site is not a sensitive site as stated in paragraph 3.1 of this report.

3.5 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 also contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application.

3.5.1 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."

3.5.2 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: (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; (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."

3.5.3 Environment Policy 1 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."

3.5.4 Environment Policy 14: Development which would result in the permanent loss of important and versatile agricultural land (Classes 1-2) will not be permitted except where there is an overriding need for the development, and land of a lower quality is not available and other policies in this plan are complied with. This policy will be applied to (a) land annotated as Classes 1/2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map; and (b) Class 2 soils falling within areas annotated as Class 2/3 and Class 3/2 on the Agricultural Land Use Capability Map.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The application site has not been the subject of any previous planning applications which are considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 The Lezayre Commissioners have recommended the application be approved (29.01.2021).

5.2 Highway Services comment (11.12.2020): "After reviewing this Application, Highway Services find it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network efficiency and /or parking."

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The Department is supportive of proposals to harness renewable energy but must balance this against the other principles of the Strategic Plan, particularly those relating to preventing harmful development in the Island's countryside. In this respect, the provisions of Environment Policy 1 are particularly relevant where it states that within such areas development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted.

6.2 From public views no one of the works would be apparent, given the significant boundary features which run along the Andreas Road. The solar panels are also located as close the residential boundary of the main house as possible. Within the site are gardens/trees. Therefore its location has been chosen presumably to be as close to the main dwelling while also having the most solar gain. A report has been prepared by the solar company which outlines what the solar panels could achieve in this location. As such, the position of the solar panels on the field would not spoil the character of the surrounding countryside, thus the development would comply with Environment Policy 1.

6.3 Since the solar panels would be installed on an agricultural field, the agricultural status of the land to which the solar panels would be installed was assessed. It should be noted that generally solar panels of this design do not necessary result in the loss of agricultural use of the land. They are generally designed so that sheep etc. can still be kept on site as the panels are raised of the ground. The proposal does not propose to fence the land accommodating the solar panels off from the majority of the unaffected field. Even if this small section of field was fenced off, in terms of the amount of agricultural land lost, it would be inconsequential. The applicants comment that:

"The field is currently rented out to a local farmer and as such allows for the entire field to remain being utilised for the sheep that are kept there. No additional fencing would need to be erected to corner the panels area off."

6.4 Accordingly, there is not consider to be any loss of agricultural land (Class 2 - Agricultural Land use capability map for the Isle of Man) enabling the development comply with Environment Policy 14.

6.5 The four heat pumps are located to the rear of the main dwelling and also would not be apparent. Further they are a significant distance away from any neighbouring property to cause an issue of noise. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons, it is concluded that the development proposed is acceptable when assessed against the relevant policies and the site context. It is recommended that the planning application be approved.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 66

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.

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 15th February 2021

Item 5.9 Proposal : Erection of an extension to existing agricultural shed Site Address : Loughan Barn Bretney Road Jurby Isle Of Man IM7 3EZ Applicant : Gordon William Clarke Application No. : 20/01406/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. The buildings must be used only for agricultural purposes.

Reason: the countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of agricultural need. As such the building must be used for the purposes for which it is approved.

C 3. The agricultural buildings hereby approved shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition in the event that it is no longer used or required for agricultural purposes.

Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved solely to meet agricultural need and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside.

Reason for approval: This planning application is recommended for approval as it has proved to be acceptable in terms of the agricultural need satisfying General Policy 3, and the proposed buildings scale, materials, colour, siting and form would be in accordance with Environment Policy 1 and 15.

______

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None ______Planning Officer’s Report

THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE GIVEN AN OBJECTION HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site forms part of the agricultural holding of Loughan Barn, Bretney Road, Jurby. The site and farm buildings are located to the south of the highway and to the south of the farm house and adjacent to an existing agricultural building. The site contains a large agricultural building which is situated on the south east end of the site. This building is a wide span structure with corrugated sheeted roofing and walls that comprise Yorkshire Boarding on the upper section laid over block work which forms the lower sections of the external wall. Attached to this is a modern agricultural building of the same height, span and finished with masonry walls to the lower half and green box profile sheeting to the upper sections.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of an agricultural building measuring a footprint of 27m long x 18m wide and 4.8m (16ft) to the underside of the eaves. To the front elevation (North East) the building would feature an opening with stock gate to match the existing sheds.

2.2 The design of this proposed building is to attach to the east elevation of an existing agricultural building and to tie into the existing eaves level. The building would have pre-cast concrete walls to the lower proportions and the upper proportions cladded with green box profile coated metal sheets. The roof would feature grey fibre cement corrugated roof sheets with roof lights installed along its length of roof. Internally the building would be divided up for stock stalls and feed pens with vehicle access down the middle.

2.3 The agent has stated, the applicant has 17 pedigree Beef shorthorns and 2 Aberdeen Angus in their beef heard, also a number of dairy head of cattle that produces beef cross bred cattle as not all join the milking heard. The plan is to take these at 3 months old and bring them on to 18-20 months and reared inside the proposed building to fatten them up to achieve the best quality product. In addition to these numbers, there are 58 cross bred beef cattle and another 21 not yet weaned. The farm needs to be able to accommodate / house a minimum of up to 100 cattle over the winter. The existing sheds and this application should give enough capacity for the proposed livestock and hay storage.

2.4 Loughan farm is owned and operated by a larger agricultural operation involving a mix of sheep, equestrian use, arable and cattle farming over 1100 acres of land split across its holdings. This section of land (Loughan Farm) amounts to 166 acres with an intention for further expansion.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 In terms of land use designation the application site is located within a wider area of land that is designated as; "white land" or land not zoned for development / agricultural land on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982.

3.3 Spatial Policy 5 states; New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3

3.4 Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate area plan with the exception of; 69

(f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;

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.

3.6 Environment Policy 15 states: Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part.

Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The nature and materials of construction must also be appropriate to the purposes for which it is intended.

3.7 Paragraph 7.13.3 is also relevant:

7.13.3 In recent years there has been increasing demand for new development and buildings in the countryside, particularly for new modern agricultural buildings. Such buildings can have, and in a number of areas already have had an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the landscape, particularly when sited in exposed locations away from building groups and on elevated land. It is important that new development should be compatible with the character of the surrounding area, and the need for new buildings in the countryside will be balanced against the harm that development may have on the particular environment within which it is proposed. In terms of new agricultural dwellings, permission will not be granted unless real agricultural need is demonstrated and will in every case be assessed in terms of need, sensitive siting, design, and size, and be subject to an agricultural occupancy condition.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 PA 87/00417/B for erection of agricultural building, Part of Field 417, Land at Loughan, Jurby - Approved.

4.2 PA 00/02037/B for erection of agricultural building, Part of Field 417, Land at Loughan, Jurby - Approved.

4.3 PA 19/00749/B for Erection of a detached agricultural workers dwelling with detached garage and store - Approved.

4.4 PA 20/00832/B for Erection of new agricultural shed and extension to existing agricultural shed - Approved.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Jurby Parish Commissioners commented (14/01/21) has provided comment on the previous application which was approved, identifies the increase in yard area and parking for 14 vehicles; refers this to an industrial scale of faming, not in the character of the area, comments on highway issues from tractors and narrow roads, sees the expansion to the detriment of the parish.

5.2 Highways Services commented (08/01/21) to advise the do not object.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are; (i) the essential need for the agricultural building; (ii) the impact of the proposed building on the surrounding area.

(i) Essential Need 6.2 The starting point for any development within the countryside (i.e. not zoned for development) is Spatial Policy 5 which links to General Policy 3 paragraph F which allows exemption for agricultural buildings and Environment Policy 15, as the first paragraph requires first the Planning Authority to be satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building, sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside.

6.3 The agent has provided details to confirm the farm & owners of Loughan Farm who has a farm manager who lives on site, with a land holding totalling 160+ acres associated to business, plus further acreage available as part of a wider agricultural holding. The need for the building is to expand on the current farming enterprise and is looking to increase the head of cattle and provide the appropriate accommodation and rearing facilities. From the supporting information the applicant clearly owns a significant head of cattle and with the intention to expand this further. The proposed building is welcomed in principle and is deemed to be in accordance with Spatial Policy 5 and General Policy 3.

(ii) Impact of the proposal 6.4 Having considered the justification, we turn to the siting of the building, Environment Policy 15 notes the proximity of the proposal should be sited as close the farmstead as possible and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure they are in keeping with their surroundings.

6.5 With this in mind, the siting and location of the new farm building are two of the most important factors to consider in the context of this application. It is noted from the submission details the current farm buildings are all clustered together in close proximity to the farm house and are various shapes and sizes with construction being large metal framed building, cladded with corrugated metal sheeting. The chosen location is immediately adjacent to an existing building, would 'tie-in' to the existing on the east elevation and would not appear out of character in its setting. 6.6 It is accepted the building would not be easily visible from the Highway, albeit any distant views would be read in the context of the rural landscape amongst existing farm buildings. In considering the design and scale of the building, it is of a proportionate size and form in relation to the existing buildings within the landscape.

6.7 In terms of the scale, materials, colour, siting and form it is considered this application would be in accordance with Environment Policy 1, and 15 for the reasons stated above.

7.0 CONCLUSION 71

7.1 Overall, it is concluded that the planning application is in accordance with aforementioned Policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and is recommended for approval.

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.