1

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, 18th May 2020, 2pm. To beconducted as a verbal consideration with Members discussing/ determining

matters by remote contact.

1. Introduction by the Chairman

2. Apologies for absence

3. MinutesTo give consideration to the minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 5th

May 2020.

4. Any matters arising

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

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

7. Section 13 AgreementsTo note those applications where Section 13 Agreements have been concluded since the issueof the agenda.

8. Any other business

9. Next meeting of the Planning CommitteeDate to be confirmed

2

Appendix One PLANNING COMMITTEE Meeting, 18th May 2020

Schedule of planning applications

Item 5.1 Boating Pool Kiosk Loch Promenade Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 2BT PA20/00073/B Recommendation : Permitted

Conversion of existing building for use as (Class 1.1 and Class 1.3) and enclosure of structure to provide in door seating

Item 5.2 Beehive Kindergarten Hillberry Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 3JP PA19/01115/B Recommendation : Refused

Removal of condition 6 of planning application 88/00155/B, which stated that the maximum number of children attending the kindergarten at any time must not exceed fifty-five.

Item 5.3 Ohio Field Bernahara Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 3HH PA19/01161/B Recommendation : Refused

Removal of agricultural workers condition on dwelling

Item 5.4 Field 321270 Park Close Glen Vine Isle Of Man PA20/00336/B Recommendation : Permitted

Erection of 3 detached dwellings with associated landscaping and access

Item 5.5 Sunnycroft Rhendhoo Road Jurby Isle Of Man IM7 3HB PA19/01426/B Recommendation : Permitted

Erection of an indoor equestrian arena and store

Item 5.6 Braaid Farm Top Road Crosby Isle Of Man IM4 4HJ PA20/00301/B Recommendation : Permitted

Construction of an agricultural building

Item 5.7 Peel Football Club Douglas Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1LJ PA20/00221/B Recommendation : Permitted

Erection of first floor extension to provide additional sport and leisure facilities (amendment to PA 17/01183/B)

Item 5.8 Boathouse Cafe Mooragh Park Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 3AP

Installation of illuminated signage

3

PA20/00356/D Recommendation : Permitted

4

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 18th May 2020

Item 5.1 Proposal : Conversion of existing building for use as (Class 1.1 and Class

1.3) and enclosure of structure to provide in door seating Site Address : Boating Pool Kiosk

Loch Promenade Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 2BT

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

20/00073/B- click to view Mr Chris Balmer

RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application

______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. The building shall only be used for purposes falling with Use Classes 1.1 (d) (the sale of hot drinks, sandwiches or other cold food for consumption off the premises) and Class 1.3 (selling food or drink for consumption on the premises) of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 2019 or any replacement of that order. Reason: As it has been acceptable that the use of the building for Class 1.1 (d) and Class 1.3 have an overall community gain while other uses within Class 1.1 would not. N 1. All birds, their nests, eggs and young are protected and it is an offence to: o intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild bird o intentionally or recklessly take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst it is in use or being built o intentionally or recklessly take or destroy the egg of any wild bird o intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird. The maximum penalty that can be imposed - in respect of a single bird, nest or egg - is a fine up to £10,000. The bird nesting season is usually between late February and late August or late September in the case of swifts, swallows or house martins. Thorough checks for birds, there active nests and eggs should be undertaken prior to works commencing. If a nest is discovered while work is being undertaken, all work must stop and advice sought from the Ecosystem Policy Team, DEFA. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s)

5

It is considered the proposal would result in an overcall community gain while also ensure the longer term future maintenance and use of the building of interest within the Promenade Conservation Area. Accordingly the proposal would comply with General Policy 2, Environment Policy 35 and Recreation Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is Boating Pool kiosk which is located to the north of the Children's Play area (former paddling pool) along Loch Promenade in Douglas. The building is single storey, with ¾ of the building being open sided structure with the remaining be enclosed and secure. The kiosk is rectangular in shape, constructed with Manx Stone pillars to each corner, with the enclosed section finished in timber cladding. The roof has a level low pitched rook finish in copper. The building (enclosed section) has recently been used as a retail unit selling food/drink. 1.2 Within the vicinity of the site is the Promenade walkway which is at its widest within the Loch Promenade, compared to the remainder of the Promenade. This area is characterised as open areas of hard surfacing (patterned colour tarmac) which abuts the boundary walling of the Marine Gardens to the railings/walling, which is above the Promenade wall, adjacent to the foreshore. Along the boundary walling of the Marine Gardens can be found public seating and bins. Ornate street lights run above and along the walls of the gardens and the Promenade walkway. The walkway walling is also broken up in five parts, where the footpaths and shelters can be found which correspond to Regent Street, Howard Street, Granville Street and Senna Slip giving access to the above streets and Strand Street/Castle Street beyond. 1.3 Loch Promenade and the Sunken Gardens were constructed between 1872 and 1882, prior to which there was no continuous sea wall (Part of the old sea wall can still be seen at the corner of the lane half way down Howard Street, off Loch Promenade). It included the Villiers Hotel, now replaced by Royal Bank House on the corner of Victoria Street. The design of the original buildings had to follow a standard pattern and were subject to approval by Mr Elliston the surveyor appointed by the Town Commissioners and which resulted in its classic unified Victorian appearance. Extensions to the Loch Promenade in the early 1930s added a further 100ft of width to the original 80ft and six sunken gardens, 'The Marine Gardens', were incorporated, designed by John Denman of the British International Horticultural Association. These included seating, shelters, a 200ft boating pool and an illuminated fountain. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the conversion of the existing building for use as Class 1.1 (Shops) and Class 1.3 (Food and Drink) and enclosure of the structure to provide in door seating. The initial application only proposed works to enclosure part of the existing building to be used as a seating area for a café. However, when determining the application it was noted the use of the building did not have planning approval and likely had a nil use given the period the approved use (gardeners room/office) had ceased over 10 years ago.

6

2.2 The applicants confirmed the following: "We have looked through our records and found that the kiosk has been used as the gardener's staff room / office until 2007, when it was then leased to a local company to run as a kiosk and has been ever since. Currently the premises is operating as a Class 1.1 (d) takeaway for hot and cold food and drinks and with the new tenant it would need to included Class 1.3 as well for the sheltered area. Unless just one of these class covers every aspect of the potential tenants business requirements. As the kiosk has been operating as a takeaway since 2007 is it classed as 1.1 or as another Class." 2.3 In terms of physical works the submission would essential infill between the existing stone pillars with glazing with a new pedestrian access to the western elevation and a large bi-folding door to the southern elevation. The new indoor space would be used in association with the existing retail use (currently the Shake Lounge), which currently operators from the existing enclosed section of the building. It is understood a new operator would run from this site. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 While there are no specific planning application associated with the application site itself, the following planning application are considered relevant being application for works which have been undertaken in the area of the site; 3.2 Change of use of retail unit to gardening staff room/office - 02/00275/C -APPROVED 3.3 Erection of play equipment to replace paddling pool - 98/00891/B - APPROVED 4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site is designated as Public Open Space within the Douglas Local Plan 1998. The site is within Douglas Promenades Conservation Area. 4.2 The Douglas Promenades Conservation Area Character Appraisal contains a section on Marine Gardens (p.13) and states: "Marine Gardens During the early 1930s. The scheme to widen Loch Promenade enabled the construction of the Marine Gardens; the formal landscaping of in frontage locations was part of the movement to develop seaside resorts which was popular in the 1920s and 30s, the length and breadth of the country. The design laid out six gardens, five of which were separated by public shelters, with walkways, bedding plants and shrubs sunken below the level of the general footway. Thus shelter from sea winds was afforded to both planting and pedestrians. The project was planned and supervised by Hr John Denman of the British International Horticultural Society on behalf of Messrs Dicksons' Nurseries of Chester. The gardens, enjoyed by visitors and local residents alike, have become a distinctive part of the Loch Promenade frontage and throughout their lifetime have won awards for the quality or their landscaping." 4.3 Environment Policy 35 which states: "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." 4.4 Recreation Policy 2 states: "Development which would adversely affect, or result in the loss of Open Space or a recreation facility that is or has the potential to be, of recreational or amenity value to the community will not be permitted except in the following circumstances: (a) where alternative provision of equivalent community benefit and of equivalent or better accessibility is made available; and

7

(b) where there would be an overall community gain from the development, and the particular loss of the open space or recreation facility would have no significant unacceptable effect on local open space or recreation provision or on the character or amenity of the area." 4.5 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." 4.6 USE CLASSES 2019: "Class 1.1 - Shops Use, where the sale, display or service is to visiting members of the public, for the purpose of — (a) the retail sale of goods other than hot food; (b) a post office; (c) a travel agency or the sale of tickets; (d) the sale of hot drinks, sandwiches or other cold food for consumption off the premises; (e) hairdressing or the provision of beauty treatments; (f) the grooming of pets where no element of kennelling is provided; (g) a florist; (h) the displaying of goods for sale; or (i) the hiring out of domestic or personal goods or articles." "Class 1.3 - Food and drink Use for the purpose of selling food or drink for consumption on the premises (including restaurants, cafés, public houses, wine bars or other such establishments)." 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The Douglas Borough Council have no comment to the application (14.02.2020). 5.2 DOI Highway Services have no objection to the application (18.02.2020). 5.3 The Ecosystem Policy Officer (DEFA) makes the following comments: "I'm not very familiar with this building and therefore I am not entirely aware of the suitability, however as the interior of this building is exposed there is potential for the interior of this building to be utilised by nesting birds. I therefore request that the following advisory note be supplied to the applicants: All birds, their nests, eggs and young are protected and it is an offence to: o intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take any wild bird o intentionally or recklessly take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird whilst it is in use or being built

8

o intentionally or recklessly take or destroy the egg of any wild bird o intentionally or recklessly disturb any wild bird listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird. The maximum penalty that can be imposed - in respect of a single bird, nest or egg - is a fine up to £10,000. The bird nesting season is usually between late February and late August or late September in the case of swifts, swallows or house martins. Thorough checks for birds, there active nests and eggs should be undertaken prior to works commencing. If a nest is discovered while work is being undertaken, all work must stop and advice sought from the Ecosystem Policy Team, DEFA." 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues to consider in the assessment of the application are; the principle of the use/loss of potential public recreational facility; the potential impacts upon the street scene and Conservation Area and the use of the building for Class 1.1 and Class 1.3. Principle of the use/loss of potential public recreational facility 6.2 The proposal would result in the alteration which would enclose a public shelter into a café. Presumably only person who are patrons of the new retails unit (Class 1.1) would be able to sit inside the building. Accordingly, it could be considered contrary to Recreation Policy 2. 6.3 However, a counter argument could be made that the new proposal provides an overall community gain, while also giving a greater level of use of the existing building, which in turn more likely ensure its maintenance and helps its long term future. This was an issue with the recent application for the demolition of one of the existing shelter (replaced with BeeGees statue) to the south of this site, which was once a seating shelter, which had is seats removed in the past due to anti-social behaviour and now didn't really have a use. 6.4 Further the current shelter under consideration is currently mostly used by parents/guardians of children who are at the play area. There are park benches within the play area which are generally used more. There is an argument that this shelter provides shelter in poor weather, albeit when the weather is poor, the children's play area is less likely to be used and therefore the need isn't as great. Potentially, it is a reasonable conclusion that parents would perhaps be more grateful for the proposed enclosed retail (Use Class 1.1) unit, rather than the existing open shelter. 6.5 Overall, it is considered the proposal would result in an overall community gain and therefore comply with RP2. The potential impacts upon the street scene and Conservation Area 6.6 In terms of the visual impact of the proposal there are no concerns. The larger amounts of glazing infilling between the existing structure is arguable very lightweight in its appearance, and would clearly delineate between old and new elements of the building. The new works would preserve and fit with the site and the Promenade Conservation Area and would not have a significant adverse visual impact upon the street scene or the promenade Conservation Area therefore comply with EP 35 and GP2. The use of the building for Class 1.1 and Class 1.3 6.7 Before the last application in 2002 which approved the use of the building as a gardener's store/office, the building was operated as a retail unit. Accordingly, this proposal sees to reinstate this use (Class 1.1) as well as to allow for Class 1.3. These proposed uses have been operating for a number of years, which likely serve visitors of the park and Promenade. It is considered the proposed uses would fit well with area and be an added

9

attraction which can only be of benefit of users of the promenade and park. The fact no objections have been received it worthy to note. 6.8 If required a Condition could be added to restrict the Use of Class 1.1, perhaps to Class 1.1 (d) which would allow the building to be used sole in terms of retail, for the sale of hot drinks, sandwiches or other cold food for consumption off the premises, rather for example as a hairdressers. It is perhaps important to do so, given the argument of the loss of public open space. As indicated above the use as a café fits well with the other uses adjacent/nearby the site. The use as a hairdressers would arguable not and perhaps could then be argued that the overall community gain would be limited. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 It is considered the proposal would result in an overall community gain while also ensure the longer term future maintenance and use of the building of interest within the Promenade Conservation Area. Accordingly the proposal would comply with General Policy 2, Environment Policy 35 and Recreation Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material. 8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status 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.

10

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 18th May 2020

Item 5.2 Proposal : Removal of condition 6 of planning application 88/00155/B,

which stated that the maximum number of children attending the kindergarten at any time must not exceed fifty-five.

Site Address : Beehive Kindergarten Hillberry Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 3JP

Applicant : Beeline Nurseries Ltd Application No. : Head of

Development Management :

19/01115/B- click to view Mr S Butler

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 removal of a condition restricting the number of children on site, or any variation of the number allowed would be likely to adversely affect the living conditions of the adjacent occupiers with particular regard to noise and disturbance which would have an unacceptable impact on their amenity contrary to Strategic Plan policies General Policy 2, Environmental Policy 22, R 2. The removal of a condition restricting the number of children on site, or any variation of the number allowed would be likely to result in additional off-site parking to the detriment of the amenity and safety of nearby residential properties contrary to Strategic Plan policies Strategic Policy 10, General Policy 2, Transport Policy 7

______________________________________________________________

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) (or 4(2)): o 2 Briarfield Avenue - Comment 2 and 2.1 o 4 Briarfield Avenue - Comment 10 o 2 Birch Hill Crescent - Comment 7 o 16 Birch Hill Grove - Comment 9 As they satisfy all of the requirements of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. 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) (or 4(2)): o 9 Briar field Avenue - Comment 1

11

o 5 Birch Hill Crescent - Comment 3 o 3 Briarfield Avenue - Comment 4 o 7 Briarfield Avenue - Comment 5 o 11 Briarfield Avenue - Comment 6 o 13 Briarfield Avenue - Comment 8 o 4 Birch Hill Crescent - Comment 11 and 11.1 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. 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: o DHSC (Registration and Inspection Unit).

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & BUILDING CONTROL 1.0 SITE 1.1 The site represents the existing curtilage of Beehive Kindergarten (Cronkville), Hillberry Road, Onchan, located on the eastern side of Hillberry Road within Onchan. The property is a large detached property with dormer accommodation within the roof space. Attached to the eastern gable elevation is a single storey garage/store. To the rear of the property are a number of extensions and covered walkways between the main building and attached garage building. The ground floor is a nursery whilst the upper floors are residential. The garage is associated with the residential use. 1.2 A separate sister nursery is located at the nearby Shelleigh site. The applicant also owns no 6 Briarfield Avenue, which retains its residential status. A pedestrian access bridge through to the Beehive was previously created through the garden of 6 Briarfield Avenue although this has since been removed. 2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks removal of Condition 6 of Planning Approval 88/00155/B for, "Internal Alterations and extensions to form additional nursery accommodation". The condition states, "The maximum number of children attending the kindergarten at any time must not exceed fifty-five". Condition 5 also indicates that the premises must comply with the requirements of the regulations governing nurseries. 2.2 The applicants highlight that a report on progress towards developing a childcare strategy was presented to the July 2019 sitting of Tynwald which highlighted the shortage of nursery spaces, particularly for under 2's. The report included recommendations which indicate that there is a desire for a range of provision and that a strategic approach was needed to deal with the social and economic issues highlighted by the current shortage of nursery places. 2.3 The applicant argues that the control of the number of children at the site should be left to the Department of Health and Social Care, as per condition 5. They also note that up to 2006 there were a further 6 applications submitted and approved, none of which sought to control the numbers. In particular, the 2006 application for an external playroom resulted in increased space and so should have been expected to increase numbers, and indeed resulted in a further 6 children being accommodated.

12

2.4 The applicant notes that from 1985 to 2006 the maximum numbers permitted by the DHSC have responded to changing circumstances, in part due to the way maximum numbers are calculated (which is based on space standards). The numbers have therefore fluctuated from 29 in 1985, 72 in 1991, 68 in 2005 to 74 in 2006. They note that if the nursery made more provision for under 2's the overall numbers would drop due to higher space standards for this age group. They argue that control of numbers through DHSC rather than planning provides more flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. 2.5 They note that in 1999 for application 99/00022/B the Planning Officer's report note states that the, "number of children attending is a matter for DHSS" (the regulating body at that time) and "Noise for DHI", and this was also reflected in the Planning Authority's appeal statement in relation to application 98/2077/B in relation to the Shelleigh site. They also note that in relation to application 17/00746/B (a different site) the officers report indicated a condition limiting numbers was not necessary as this was a mater best controlled by regulating authority. 2.6 They argue that in 2010 an application was submitted for "Alterations and erection of extensions" which would have resulted in an additional 9 children being permitted by registration. This was refused by committee and therefore illustrates that future growth in numbers can be controlled by restricting building development on the site. 2.7 They go on to argue that numbers of children are controlled by DHSC and environmental conditions by the Environmental Health Unit, and so no planning control is required and indeed could be difficult to enforce when there are separate statutory controls. 2.8 They indicate that they are aware that consideration could be given to attaching different conditions as part of any approval to remove condition 6, and have indicated that they would accept conditions in relation to the following matters. o Restricting the use of the nursery at weekend and Bank Holidays to no use on a Sunday and no more than 6 Saturdays per year and no Bank Holidays other than Senior Race Day. It is understood that there are currently no sessions on a Sunday and normally around 4 Saturdays per year. o Limiting the number of children in the garden to 24 at any one time. It is understood that they currently have ratios of 8 children to one adult, and so 24 represents 3 groups and reflects the current operation. o Provision of a cycle shelter to promote cycling. It is understood that none of the staff currently cycle, although some walk or use public transport. 2.9 The applicant has provided additional information (e-mails of 11.02.20 and 12.02.20, including photographs and additional site plan) which clarifies the following points. 2.10 Times: o Sessions are simply AM and PM with a split around lunchtime. There is a short session - ending at 4 pm which helps to spread the pick-up times - and thus the traffic. It is found that this alleviates the potential for the busy period. Additionally it is evident from the operational pattern that pick ups happen from 5pm also, typically 5-15 is when some workplaces close at 5. The further helps the pick ups to be spread as later pick- ups typically occur around 5-45 to 6pm. o The Beehive start time is 07:45 for a few parents that are having difficulty getting to work on time, but it is more usual for drop offs to commence at 8am. o Saturday morning openings have been occasion, usually fundraisers. Currently there is no restriction on this, but is prepared to accept a condition that limits this to 6 events in a year. The client would be accepting of a condition that limits these occasions to 6 but specific dates should be avoided so as to enable an element of flexibility and for example if the weather "rains off" an event.

13

2.11 Shelleig: o The children at the sister site Shelleig are generally younger age, (Babies to 2 years). They sometimes use the garden but they have their own outside space adjacent the Shelleig. (see photo) This area is to the South of the building adjacent the road, and thus not in earshot of the adjacent residential properties. o The children at Shelleig all enter the facility via the Beehive, which is important for operational reasons and the security of the children. Parents use the drop off area at the Beehive. "Babies" (3 months to 2 years) when they arrive go straight over to Shelleig. The parent carer ration is 1 to 3. Older children when they arrive they are "held" at the Beehive, until such time that the Beehive are up to capacity, and then the children go in groups across to the Shelleig facility. 2.12 Parking: o The Beehive has its own access/egress on Hilberry Road, a drop-off area and a car park (18 spaces), used by staff and customers. Beehive operational vehicles (minibuses) park in the area directly adjacent the front entrance. Shelleig is outside the application site but has c7 spaces and staff can cross between Shelleig and the Beehive. There are 13 staff at the Beehive, 10 of whom travel to the site and 4 of whom drive. There are up to 9 staff at Shelleig, 3 of whom travel by car. o No staff currently cycle to work, but the proposal is to include secure cycle storage, which may encourage this. o At the age group above 2 years old, one carer is required per 8 children. The nursery usually has 3 groups of children in the garden (24 children) at any one time. The applicant has offered a condition to this number (24 ) to be in the garden at any one time. The client wouldn't be willing to accept a restriction in the timing of garden use - other than 8am to 6pm. 3.0 PLANNING POLICIES 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area recognised as being within predominantly residential use under the Onchan Local Plan and the Draft Area Plan for the East. The site is not within a Conservation Area. 3.2 The policies/text of the Strategic Plan (2016) set out below are considered relevant. - Strategic Policy 10 indicates that new development should be located and designed to minimise journeys (especially by car), facilitate pedestrian and public transport journeys and not affect highway safety. - General Policy 2 seeks to allow development provided that, inter alia, it does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; it 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; and does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways. - Environment Policy 22 indicates that development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the amenity of nearby properties in relation to noise pollution. - Business Policy 1 encourages the growth of employment opportunities provided that proposals comply with other policies. - Paragraph 10.5.1 clarifies that community facilities include nurseries. None of the subsequent Community Policies specifically deal with nurseries (Community Policy 5 deals with Schools) but Community Policy 2 sets out a general approach that seeks to locate community facilities so that they serve the local population and are accessible to non-car users. - Transport Policy 7, together with Appendix 7, sets out parking standards. They do not set out a standard for nurseries, although do indicate that standards may be relaxed in some circumstances including where the site is within a reasonable distance of a bus route and it can be demonstrated that a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on-street parking in the locality.

14

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 A number of applications have been submitted in relation to this site prior to 200, as summarised below. - 85/00061/A for approval in principle granted to convert two of the three garages into a play school. - 85/00491/B for approval granted to convert two garages to play school and day centre with associated facilities. This related to an existing attached garage block to the west and set back from the original house. The floor plan shows a play school/day centre and toilets. - 86/00292/B for approval granted for use of ground floor of premises as kindergarten. Condition 2 limits the maximum number of children that can attend the kindergarten at any one time to 40. - 87/00835/A for approval in principle granted for single storey extension and conversion of garage to form additional nursery accommodation. There were no restrictive conditions on the number of children that can occupy the development, although the 1986 condition would have applied. - 87/04382/B for erection of single storey extension and internal alterations. This was for a playroom extension between the original house and current entrance foyer. There were no restrictive conditions on the number of children that can occupy the development, although the 1986 condition would have applied. - 88/00155/B - approval granted for internal alterations and extensions to form additional nursery accommodation. The approval was for a modest single side extension and the larger "Alice" building at the rear. Condition 4 had the effect of cancelling planning approval 87/4382. A new condition regarding the number of children was imposed. Condition 6 limited the number of children attending the children's nursery to 55. - 91/00796/B - approval granted for construction of double garage, workshop and glazed covered link to main building. Condition 4 of the approval limits use of the garage/workshop for the domestic incidental needs of the main house as a dwelling and not by the nursery business. - 92/01696/B - approval granted in August 1993 for internal and external alterations. This included an entry foyer to the nursery and dormer windows in the original house. - 97/00135/B - approval granted in 1997 for erection of glazed extension incorporating entrance. - 98/01409/B - approval granted in 1998 for erection of a car port. - 99/00022/B - approval granted in June 1999 for demolition of two single storey outlets and construction of single storey extension to form kitchen, toilets and laundry. 4.2 Application 10/01838/B was refused at appeal in November 2011 for alterations and erection of extensions. The application stated that it was to improve existing nursery provision. A letter from the agent set out that the numbers of children would increase by 9, as dictated by DSC's guidelines, to 98 children. The demand for additional space was driven by existing parents who bring their children to the nursery looking for additional child care for other family members. In further examination of the numbers, the additional 9 would be above the limit of the Beehive set by DSC rather than that set by Planning in the 1988 application (88/00155/B). In would have resulted in a further 28 children above the planning approval. 4.3 The Inspector's report explores the issues of noise, outdoor play and parking. The Minister refused the application for the following reason: 'The proposal, by reason of the increase in numbers of children and staff, would be likely to result in additional general disturbance and subsequent loss of amenity to residents in the surrounding area'. 4.4 Application 12/00891/B was granted in May 2013 for installation of a gazebo and engineering works to create a children's feature cave (retrospective).

15

4.5 Application 12/01549/LAW for Certificate of Lawfulness to confirm 'operation of children's nursery in breach of condition 6 of planning approval 88/00155/B that restricts the maximum number of children attending the Beehive kindergarten at any time to not more than 55' was refused. The officers report indicated that, "the information provided, whilst detailed, is not sufficiently reliable, precise and unambiguous to reasonably conclude that the breach of planning condition 6 has occurred continuously for 10 years". 4.6 Application 15/00981/B for Amalgamation of the Beehive and Shelleigh Nursery units to operate as a single Kindergarten was withdrawn. Extracts from the officer’s report are included below. "2.4 The current situation is that the number of children who may attend the Beehive is limited by planning condition to be a maximum of 55 under a 1988 approval (see below), but limited by the DSC to be 74. Shelleig is not subject to any planning restriction, but is limited under DSC to 46 children at the current time. This would mean that the current operational limit of both of the nurseries is 55 plus 46, being a maximum of 101. However the applicants openly admit that they frequently operate in accordance with the operational limit set by DSC, which is 120 children. The applicants suggest that the numbers not be limited by Planning, but by DSC. They quote from the Planning Officer's statement for application 98/02077 which sets out that the number of children who can be accommodated is governed by the Department of Health and Social Security. The applicants suggest that the proposal would seek to maintain the numbers at the current level of 120. They state that the current nursery operation works well and has done for numerous years within these guidelines. They state that on a general day to day running the numbers that attend are under this number, but by maintain the registration at this level allows some flexibility of operation. 2.5 The applicant's agent points out that some staff park at 6 Briarfield Avenue and some on the road in Briarfield Avenue which is considered acceptable by Highway Officers. Parking as part of this application would be provided in a more formal way by defining spaces within Shelleig and allocated to staff to encourage them not to park on Briarfield Avenue". "6.1 The application raises the following issues; the implications of amalgamating the nurseries; whether the number of children attending a nursery is a planning matter; the number of children; noise; parking and pedestrian access; and highway safety." "6.6 There is a long established principle that planning should not control matters that are covered by other legislation. This is so that the relevant authorities control matters for which they have the vires, and importantly have the ability to enforce any breach of control. Whilst the principle is clear, the application of this is less so and there are frequently matters that relate both to planning concerns, and fall within the remit of another regulatory body. Examples of these relate to impact on wildlife, noise, crime, highway safety and so on. 6.7 The Department of Social Care have a responsibility to limit number attending nurseries in accordance with their Child Day Care Centres standards. The reason for this is to ensure that premises are safe, secure and suitable for their purpose; that they provide adequate space; are welcoming to children; and offer access to the necessary facilities for a range of activities which promote their development. 6.8 The Department of Social Care's responsibility is to the children attending the nursery, and the amount of internal space available to each child. That is not Planning's concern. Planning regulates the use of land in accordance with Government's Policy that is set out in the Strategic Plan. Consequently planning matters include how a development will impact on its surroundings, residential amenity and/or highway safety, amongst a number of other matters. The number of children attending a nursery will impact, in some way, on the environment in which it sits, and it is those factors that fall within the remit of Planning. Importantly, they are not the concern of DSC.

16

6.9 It is considered that historically there have been a number of occasions where the question of limiting numbers was either not considered because the officer was not expecting it to be a wider issue, or because officers have mistakenly thought that they were not able to consider it, as numbers were already to be restricted by DSC. 6.10 The number of children attending a nursery is a planning matter and is therefore considered below." "6.13 Given this, it would not necessarily be inappropriate for a planning condition to have a maximum number of children being a figure less than the DSC Registration, although consistency for clarity would be useful. 6.14 In terms of this application, the applicants did not put forward a suggested maximum for the number of children. Instead, they suggest that the number is left to the Department of Social Care. Their current limit for the site is, as said above, 120. However, leaving all control to the Department of Social Care, would mean any subsequent alterations, such as the conversion of a garage to a playroom or teaching room would be likely to result in an increase in the numbers of children attending without the need for any planning approval. It is therefore suggested that even if Planning Committee Members were to consider that 120 be an acceptable number, they ought to condition it in order to retain future control. In a later letter from the applicant's agent, the figure of 120 is suggested as being reasonable to them. 6.15 When assessing what an appropriate limit ought to be, members need to consider, not only what the applicant's fall-back position is, but also the implications that any increase in numbers may have on noise and disturbance, on parking and on highway safety". "6.19 The applicant's view is understood, as was the Inspector's view that it would be difficult to control the use of the outdoor area by condition. Nevertheless the same Inspector also indicated that he felt the amenities of the residents was already compromised, a point highlighted by the objectors submission of audio recordings of the noise within their garden. It was therefore considered that the use of the outdoor area, is worthy of further thought. At the moment there is no restriction on its use, and the growth of the nursery over the years from being a simple nursery with baby unit to being a nursery with pre and post school clubs and holiday clubs means that the impact has grown. It is considered that residents should be able to expect some peace and quiet in their gardens at certain times, and consequently conditions regarding the use of the garden are suggested to the planning committee should they determine to approve the application. These include restricting the time of day that children can be in the garden, no use of the garden on a Saturday, Sunday or bank holiday, and restricting the number of children in the garden to be a maximum of 24 at any one time. The residents would like a maximum number of children in the garden at any one time to be 16, however given the reduced hours in the day, this may well be unworkable." 4.7 Application 18/00918/B for Installation of glazing to enclose existing covered area at rear of property and glass to replace polycarbonate roof was approved subject to various conditions including: C2. The development hereby permitted may only be used as a toy store and walkway, it shall not be used for any other use or purpose. Reason: The Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the submitted information and any alternative uses will require further consideration. C3. The garage/store (rear of garage) may be used only for domestic purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwelling as a residence and shall not be used in connection with the nursery use. Reason: The Department has assessed the impact of the proposal on the basis of the

17

submitted information and any alternative uses will require further consideration. 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The representations received can be viewed in-full on-line. The below is a summary of the main points raised. 5.2 DOI Highway Services commented on 23.03.20 (in full): The key highway issues relate to the provision of on-site car parking and dropping off facilities. Existing Conditions It is understood that the Beehive site works in tandem with the next door Shelleig site. The Beehive site can accommodate up to 55 children and has 13 members of staff. The site has around 17 car parking spaces of which 7 are for dropping off and picking up of children. The drop off facility is shared between the two sites. The applicant has provided a plan indicating the car parking layout on the site. It is understood that the Shelleig site can accommodate up to 46 children and has up to 9 members of staff. The applicant has stated that there are 6/7 parking spaces available at this site. The applicant has not provided a plan of the on-site car parking and has stated that this is not allocated at this time. The parking at the site is not included within the 'red line' plan. If this parking is to be considered as part of the application then 6 spaces will be assumed. If the two sites are to be assessed as a single operation then there would be a total of 101 children, 22 members of staff and 16 parking spaces for staff and 7 dropping off spaces. There is no specific car parking standard for the Isle of Man for this type of development and therefore UK parking standards have been used as a means of comparison. By way of example the Bedford Parking Standard 2014 has the following requirements for day nurseries: o 1 space per full time equivalent member of staff plus drop off facilities; or o 1 space per 4 pupils plus drop off facilities whichever is the greater requirement. If the Beehive site is considered in isolation of the Shelleig site, the parking requirement would be 13 spaces based upon staff numbers or 14 spaces based upon the number of children attending. Excluding the drop off spaces, 10 spaces would be available. If both sites are considered together the parking requirement would be 23 spaces based upon staff numbers or 26 spaces based upon the number of children attending. Excluding drop off spaces there would be 10 spaces at the application site (within the 'red line') and possibly 16 spaces if the Shelleig site is included. If the spaces for drop off are to be included in the general car parking, there would be a maximum of 23 available spaces. A site survey was undertaken on Friday 20th March between 15:45 and 17:00 and the following was noted: o Traffic movements in and out of the site were minimal; o The parking availability was not fully visible from the highway but there appeared to an availability of spaces at least in the drop off area; o Some on-street car parking was observed on the west side of Birch Hill Crescent and the south side of Briarfield Avenue; o The greatest intensity of parking on Briarfield Avenue was observed within 100m of the junction with Birch Hill Crescent; and o During the site visit residents indicated parked vehicles on Briarfield Avenue that were understood to belong to nursery staff which was consistent with the parking pattern. A further site survey was undertaken on the morning of Monday 23rd March 2020 between 07:35 and 08:15 and the following was noted:

18

o Notable traffic movements into the site commenced around 07:40 with a peak of activity between 07:55 and 08:00. Following the peak there were drop off movements every 3 minutes on average; o The car parking for drop off movements during the survey period was never at capacity; and o A dwelling situated to the southeast of Shelleig which appeared to be uninhabited was apparently being used for staff parking with 2 cars occupying the site during the survey period. Due to the impact upon vehicle movements on account of the coronavirus the surveys would be unlikely to reflect a period of normal activity of the site. The applicant has provided information in relation to the current travel to work activities of existing staff whereby only 32% travel by car. Whilst this may reflect the situation at the time of the application this figure is viewed as relatively low and could increase significantly over a period of time. Proposals It is proposed that the current limit of 55 children attending the site be removed for the Beehive site but it is not clear to what extent the numbers would increase. Several representations have been made by local residents most of which express concerns about staff parking on-street and that the parking of cars in proximity of the junction of Briarfield Avenue and Birch Hill Crescent presents a road safety issue. It was considered likely that an increase in the number of children attending the site would exacerbate the current on-street car parking issues. It is noted that Onchan and District Commissioners have objected on the grounds of lack of traffic information. The on-site car parking within the 'red line' could be just about acceptable for the existing 13 staff and 55 children using just the Beehive site. When the staff and children of the Shelleig site is added, it is considered that the car parking within the 'red line' would not be adequate. Therefore any addition to the numbers of children and the likely increase in staff would create a further parking demand that could not be contained within the site. Whilst there is availability of on-street car parking, the use of the streets for staff parking would not be acceptable. It is considered that the amount of car parking for staff and drop off activity may be insufficient for the two sites as the situation currently stands and any increase in the requirement for staff car parking could lead to an increase in on-street car parking. It is suggested that the applicant provides further information on car parking with a possible amendment to the 'red line' plan. The applicant may also wish to provide information on the anticipated increase in the numbers of staff with a possible view to a revised condition on the maximum number of children in attendance being imposed. The use of other nearby sites for off-street car parking could be investigated or clarified. Recommendation: Objection 5.3 Onchan Commissioners objected (31.10.19) on the grounds that: - a traffic impact assessment is required in relation to highway safety; - there is noise nuisance to neighbouring properties; and - planning control should take priority over other controls as the Department of Health & Social Care Regulation of Care Act 2013 states, "The law also requires the Department of Health and Social Care to have regard to the standards when making regulatory decisions. The standards do not override the need for providers to comply with other legislation such as that covering … planning requirements" (Consultation 1).

19

5.4 The Commissioners were emailed (30.01.20) seeking confirmation of whether they were aware of any vehicles parking near the site in an unsafe manner and also whether they had considered apply parking restrictions (double yellow lines) to any streets in the area. They provided further comments in response to this and advised that they were aware of vehicles owned by staff parking on Birch Hill Crescent, Briarfield Avenue and Briarfield Avenue cul-de-sacs, and that these have been viewed by their staff at numerous times causing a nuisance, including at junctions causing limited rooms for buses and refuse wagons. They do not feel that double yellow lines are a suitable measure to manage the issue of providing sufficient parking for staff of the two facilities. They reiterate their desire for a traffic impact assessment, question the parking provision and note another similar application elsewhere (Consultation 3). 5.5 The Head of the Registration and Inspection Unit commented (16.01.20 )that the Regulation of Care Act (2013) sets out a specific formula for space with different standards for under 2's) and no restrictions on the use of outdoor space. They state, "These points only look at the welfare of the children and do not consider the wider impact on the local community" (Consultation 2). 5.6 Representations have been received from the owner/occupiers of the following properties: o 9 Briar field Avenue (05.11.19) - Comment 1 o 2 Briarfield Avenue - Comment 2 (13.11.19) and 2.1 (09.03.20) o 5 Birch Hill Crescent (12.11.19) - Comment 3 o 3 Briarfield Avenue (12.11.19) - Comment 4 o 7 Briarfield Avenue (12.11.19) - Comment 5 o 11 Briarfield Avenue (11.11.19) - Comment 6 o 2 Birch Hill Crescent (11.11.19) - Comment 7 o 13 Briarfield Avenue (13.11.19) - Comment 8 o 16 Birch Hill Grove (13.11.19) - Comment 9 o 4 Briarfield Avenue (12.11.19) - Comment 10 o 4 Birch Hill Crescent - Comment 11 (11.11.19) and 11.1 (09.03.20) 5.7 The issues raised in the above: o Use has outgrown the site and is no longer suitable for a residential area o Distinction between DHSC registration role (about children) and planning (about protecting amenity) o Impact on local amenity of noise from children playing outside (noting that this is exacerbated when children from the sister site use the garden at the Beehive) o Impact on local amenity and highway safety of cars being parked on nearby residential streets due to lack of parking (especially for staff) within the site. o Increased children will increase staffing numbers (and concerns that proposed use of cycles is unrealistic given topography of the area) o Impact on highway safety of the increase volume of pedestrians in the area due to drop off/pick up (exacerbated when children from sister site are picked-up/dropped off at the Beehive) and use of entrance onto Hillberry Road, noting that this is busier now than in the past o Various points in relation to planning history - in particular refusals and withdrawn application 5.8 Further comments in light of the amended information indicate a number of inaccuracies in the additional information including provision of photographs showing parking issues. The concerns are reiterated. 6.0 ASSESSMENT

20

6.1 The site is an established nursery. However, given concerns being raised about whether it has outgrown its location it is perhaps reasonable to start by considering the principle of the use. Although the development is not for residential purposes, it is commonplace, and appropriate for nurseries to be provided in residential areas, provided the use complies with other policies of the Strategic Plan 2016. It is therefore considered that the continued or indeed intensified use of the site as a nursery is not, in principle, a departure from the land-use zoning of the development plan. The key issues in the determination of the application are therefore considered to be: o Whether the control of child numbers if capable of being a matter which should be controlled by planning; o The social and economic benefits of increasing nursery provision at the site; o What are the potential impacts of increasing of child numbers (noise, parking and highway safety), and whether these are unacceptable; and o Whether any unacceptable impacts could be controlled by alternative conditions than restricting overall numbers. 6.2 Whether the control of child numbers if capable of being a matter which should be controlled by planning 6.2.1 Paragraphs 6.6 - 6.10 and 6.13 of the officer's report in relation to application are noted 15/00981/B (quoted earlier), as are the comments from the Registration and Inspection Unit in terms of the scope of their powers. It is considered that the control of numbers is capable of being a matter which planning could control. 6.2.2 The applicant makes reference to the 2006 approval for an external playroom and that this should have been interpreted as being an application to increase numbers (noting that the registration body allowed an increase in numbers). It was open to the applicant to apply as part of/alongside the 2006 approval to vary condition 6 of 88/00155/B and they did not do so. This may have been an omission from the application, but clearly the Department assesses the application as submitted. The inappropriateness of conflating planning control and DHSC control is dealt with above. 6.2.3 In terms of flexibility of numbers and the ability to respond to changing circumstances, the imposition of a maximum number of children (due to parking and amenity issues) does not prevent changes to the business model and registration to allow for more under 2's and less children over all (the planning condition is a maximum not a fixed requirement). 6.2.4 The comment made by the Planning Officer in relation to 99/00022/B is noted, however this was the opinion of one officer, and is not a published planning or Departmental policy nor is it Case Law. It is therefore not accepted that one officer expressing a view 20 years ago in some way binds future decision makers. In relation to the 2017 application, the officer's report sets out, "The surrounding area has a mix of uses, including car sales and workshop units, offices, retail, education, healthcare and residential. Diamond House is prominently sited on the corner of Demesne Road and Westmoreland Road, albeit that the part of the building to which this application relates fronts directly onto Demesne Road. The building has something of the appearance of an industrial unit" and later states, "…it is to be remembered that there is already a nursery use on the site and that what is proposed will add to that use in an area where few - if any - residents will be affected. It is therefore considered that the effect of the new use will be not altogether different in terms of noise, traffic generation or other disturbance relative to both the approved hair salon use on

21

the site (which would be removed under the proposals) and also the existing, larger nursery use". 6.2.5 It is therefore a very different set of circumstances to the current application and so of limited, if any, relevance. 6.2.6 The reference to separate controls by Environmental Health is also noted. However, the tests for a statutory nuisance are different (and lower) to what might be a material impact in planning terms (not least as the statutory nuisance test takes account of the lawful use of the site and what a reasonable minimum noise may be). It is therefore considered that scale of operation, potential nuisance and disturbance and travel, parking and visitors are issues that should still be assessed as part of planning and consideration made on a case-by-case basis as to whether control via conditions is appropriate given the nature of the proposal and surrounding area. 6.2.7 One of the main determinants of the acceptability of a proposal will be the scale of the operation. Whilst a proposal involving a small number of children might be acceptable in a residential area, one catering for say 30 plus children could have a serious detrimental effect on residential amenity. 6.2.8 The Department therefore needs to be satisfied that the scale of operation is appropriate both in relation to the specific site and the general neighbourhood. It may be necessary to limit the number of children at the prospective provision and any decision on this will be influenced by the size of the premises and the play areas available. Parking requirements and the proximity of neighbouring houses will also be taken into account. 6.3 The social and economic benefits of increasing nursery provision at the site 6.3.1 The benefits are noted. However, it is also noted that the acknowledgement of an issue by Tynwald resulted in the expressed desire for a strategic approach. There are caveats within Business Policy 2 in relation to complying with other policies. The site is not specifically allocated for nursery use. The applicant has not included any assessment of other sites or advanced an argument that there are no other sites which could accommodate the use. This means that whilst the potential benefits support the application, they are not in themselves sufficient to outweigh any unacceptable impacts on residential amenity. 6.4 The potential impacts of increasing of child numbers (noise, parking and highway safety), and whether these are unacceptable 6.4.1 In terms of noise, it is noted that Noise Pollution is not defined within the Strategic Plan, however could be regarded as harmful or annoying levels of noise. The noise which results from the nursery (sound of children playing) is considered a positive noise by some, however this will depend on personal preferences. Perhaps a more useful test is whether the level and/or nature of noise is not what might be expected within a predominantly residential area. Whilst a residential property might have children playing outside, it is unlikely that there would be 24 children outside on most days for most of the day between 8am and 6pm. It is therefore concluded that the noise disturbance of the use could be greater than might be expected in a residential area and so some level of control is appropriate. 6.4.2 In terms of parking and highway safety it is acknowledged that the site is well located within an existing settlement and residential area so that many customers may be able to walk to the site or access it by public transport. Noise and disturbance can also arise from vehicles visiting the premises notably when parents drop off and collect their children. 6.4.3 The number of people visiting and using a building and how they get to the site can have a harmful environmental impact for others in the surrounding area. The availability of an area on-site to accommodate staff car parking and visitor parking as well as availability of nearby car parking facilities is an important consideration. The degree to which the use would

22

generate additional traffic movements would also be considered in relation to residential amenity and highway safety. Consideration should be given to the availability of public transport in the area as an alternative means of travel. 6.4.4 Based on two staff living on site (as a single dwelling) the usual requirement would be 2 parking spaces. In terms of the map of parking in the Beehive, Five of these are in a potentially awkward configuration with one space being in front of one of the other spaces (and these two cars being in front of the proposed cycle storage). One of the other spaces overhangs the front of another space. Therefore this area is considered to provide four spaces, two of which would be required for the residents. Four are in the area used for mini bus drop off/pick up. Two spaces are shown as drop off. These are discounted as parking for staff. Seven are shown as being in a line (total space 4.5 by 16.2 metres, whilst MfMR would indicate 2.5 x 5 metres per space - so total of 17.5 metres). Again, potentially one space should be discounted. This gives a total of eight spaces for staff parking and a requirement for three. 6.4.5 The comments and objection from highway services is also noted. 6.5 Whether any unacceptable impacts could be controlled by alternative conditions than restricting overall numbers. 6.5.1 The officer's report for 15/00981/B recommended the following conditions: o C 2 The site may not be registered for more than 120 children, including those children who attend the site during the day and any pre or after school clubs; and no more than 110 children may be on site at any one time. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and highway safety. o C 3 The bridge between 6 Briarfield Avenue and The Beehive shall be removed within 2 months of the date of this approval and any access between the two properties must be stopped up. No new access may be created. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. o C 4 The nursery may only operate from Monday to Friday and may not operate on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank/Public Holidays. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. o C 5 The garden of the nurseries may only be used by children between 10 am and 4pm. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. o C 6 No more than 24 children may be in the garden at any one time. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. o C 7 A minimum of 10 spaces shown on plan 15/2465/04 shall be dedicated as parking for parents drop off and pick up; and the spaces shown within the current curtilage of Shelleig shall be kept free for staff. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and highway safety. o C 8 Further details of secure and covered cycle parking shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Planning Authority, within 2 months of the date of this approval and implemented within 6 months of the date of this approval. Reason: To encourage alternative means of transport to the site. 6.5.2 In considering the above in relation to the current application, the following is noted: o It is noted that a condition in relation to overall numbers was still proposed (although increased - in part due to site amalgamation). o In relation to the current application C3 is irrelevant. o A variation of C4 is proposed by the applicant (but with some allowance for use on Saturdays Senior Race Day) o A variation of C5 was discussed with the applicant's agent on 04/02/20 and they indicated that the free use of the garden between 8am and 6pm was required as part of the business and so they would not accept a condition restricting use of the garden to less times (i.e. if such a condition were imposed they would appeal it).

23

o The applicant has proposed an equivalent of C6. However, there have been discussions with the enforcement team and concerns as to how this would be policed in practice. o In relation to Condition 7, it is not clear that there is sufficient and suitable parking, however some form of condition would be appropriate if approval were given to ensure that best use if made of the available parking. o The applicant has proposed a variation of condition 8. 6.5.3 The approach suggested by the applicant in relation to the garden would seem to be aimed at preventing any future increase in impact on amenity, but not to reduce/mitigate it from the current level. 6.5.4 In terms of parking provision, properly laid out and assigned parking spaces would be of benefit, but are unlikely to completely prevent on-street parking. No new parking would be created as a result of the proposals, but the potential to better use what was there. Of course it is open to the applicant to better manage their existing parking for the benefit of their staff, customers and neighbours irrespective of whether this application is approved (although could not be forced to do so) 6.5.5 In terms of the number of sessions and overall vehicle movements, potential approaches have been explore with the applicant, but there does not seem to be a suitable solution to reduce overall vehicle numbers by controlling the number of sessions. 6.5.6 The applicant has provided details of the proposed cycle shelter and given the size and location of this it is considered de minimis (i.e. does not require approval). The applicant is therefore free to provide this for the benefit of their staff irrespective of whether this application is approved (although could not be forced to provide it). 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall it is considered that the current level of operation is capable of having an impact on the amenity of local residents and any increase in the intensity of use may be unacceptable. No measures have been proposed which would significantly reduce the impact from existing (although better management of the existing on-site parking would be helpful). There needs to be a suitable balance between the other material considerations, set out above, against the location of the nursery within a suburban area where residents have a reasonable expectation of peace and quiet within their gardens. 7.2 On the basis of the above, it is considered that on balance the best way to control the impact is through limiting the numbers (noting that this is for different reasons than the registration process) , and so there is no justification for removing the existing condition. Therefore the application is recommended for refusal. 7.3 In the event that the Planning Committee are minded to overturn the recommendation set out in this report and to approve the application, consideration could be given to the following conditions. o C1. Standard 4 Years o C2. The nursery may only operate from Monday to Friday and may not operate on Saturdays, Sundays or Bank/Public Holidays other than up to 6 Saturdays in any one calendar year and on Senior Race Day. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. o C3. The garden of the nurseries may only be used by children between 0800 and 1800. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. o C4. No more than 24 children may be in the garden at any one time. Reason: In the interests of residential amenity. o C5. Within 1 month of this approval becoming final, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department setting out how the car park shall be used and marked out, the car park shall be marked out in accordance with the approved details within

24

1 month of those details being approved and retained as such thereafter. Parking spaces shall remain free from obstruction and available for parking for staff and customers at all times. o C6. Within 1 month of this approval becoming final, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department setting out how the cycle storage shall be provided, the storage shall be provided in accordance with the approved details within 1 month of those details being approved and retained as such thereafter. o C7 Within 1 month of this approval becoming final, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department setting out a travel plan for staff and customers to make best use of available parking, encourage travel to the site by means other than car and to discourage parking on nearby streets. The approved plans shall begin to be implemented within 1 month of those details being approved and continue to be implemented thereafter. 7.4 The exact wording of C2 and/or C3 could be made more restrictive and if the applicant is unhappy with this they could either appeal the decision or not implement the approval. In addition/instead of the above 6 conditions, it would be open to the Committee to attach a new condition restricting the number of children but to set this at a higher level than currently (e.g. allow 74 children). 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

25

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 18th May 2020

Item 5.3 Proposal : Removal of agricultural workers condition on dwelling Site Address : Ohio Field

Bernahara Road Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 3HH

Applicant : Ms Kathryn Revitt Application No. : Principal Planner :

19/01161/B- click to view 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 test for removing the agricultural condition is whether it is shown that the long-term need for dwellings for agricultural workers, and also horticultural workers in this case, both on the particular farm and in the locality, no longer warrants the reserving of the dwelling for that purpose. In this case there are believed to be a number of concerns with the information provided and so it is not considered that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the removal of the agriculture/horticultural condition to this property Ohio Fields. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (in particular Housing Policy 8 and paragraph 8.9.4).

______________________________________________________________

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) (or 4(2)): - Ballachurry Farm Cottage, Bernahara Road, Andreas 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 THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS A MEMBER OF THE DEPARTMENT HAS MADE OBJECTIONS 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The site in question is the residential property Ohio Field, Bernahara Road, Andreas which is a residential dwelling (agricultural workers dwelling) with 0.65 hectares (1.5acres) to the north and south of the dwelling. It sits on the western side of the Bernahara Road approximately 1km south of Andreas Village, and shares a site border with Ohio Cottage to the south. The site is surrounded by trees and a registered tree area.

26

1.2 The bungalow on site is of modern design with two entrances to Bernahara Road and is directly beside the road set back by less than 10m. The dwelling is surrounded by fields - one field is part of the same land ownership as the dwelling, the field on which it is sited. This field is landscaped and features a number of planted trees within. It does not appear to be cultivated or used for livestock grazing. 2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the removal of agricultural workers condition on dwelling. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The site has had a number of planning application made, dating back to 1965 and a total of seven applications for a single dwelling were made on the site and all where refused until in 1981 an application was approved (20.07.1981). The description was for the "Construction of bungalow". This was initially refused, but following the Review Stage the Committee overturned their earlier decision and approved it, subject to a number of conditions including Condition 6 which stated: "The occupation of the proposed dwelling must be limited to persons whose employment or latest employment is or was in horticulture or agriculture in the island and including also the dependents of such persons aforesaid and such tenancy must be subject at all times to enquiry and approval by the Committee." Condition 8 states: "The proposed dwelling must be retained as part of the horticultural holding as defined in the submitted application and must not be sold or let off separately." 3.2 An application was submitted back in 1992 for Ohio Field for the change of use from an agricultural workers dwelling to a private residence. It was refused on review. (92/01386/C). The applicant explained in his submitted Statement that while he built is home in 1981 following the approval and "had been working as a farm worker in the area and with a small market garden at "Ohio Field", but within two years farm workers no longer required in this locality. My market garden was no longer economically viable and went out of business. My Circumstances have changed." 3.3 A Certificate of Lawful Use Application (19/00115/LAW) for the use of the farmworkers dwelling at Ohio Filed as a residential dwelling was recently submitted and refused on the following grounds: "R 1. It is considered that there is contradictory and patchy information regarding the last occupation of the previous occupant, and not enough evidence to support the claim that there was no one living within the property in the last 10 years whose employment or last employment was in agriculture. Whilst it has been stated by some that the original occupant was not an agricultural worker as far as they could recall, no alternative occupation was suggested, when it is considered that archaeological interests were a hobby. There is therefore inadequate supporting evidence that the agricultural condition on the property had been broken." 3.4 Essentially, the last application was refused as the application needed to demonstrate that the property had been occupied for the previous 10 years by a person who was not employed or latest employment is or was in horticulture or agriculture in the island (condition 6). While the Officer at the time accepted that the application had demonstrated the site had not been used for agricultural/horticultural for a number of decades and possibly never. However, the Officer considered given the former applicant/retired farm worker had been living in the property (i.e. retired farm worker whose last employment was in agriculture) up to his death (believed to be 2017). Accordingly, while the currently applicants had purchased

27

the property off the Trust and potentially not occupied the property as per the condition; the property had not been unoccupied unlawfully for more than 10 years. 4.0 PLANNING STATUS 4.1 The site is not designated for development under the 1982 Development Plan Order. The site is not within a Conservation Area. 4.2 Due to the zoning of the site, and the nature of the proposed development, the following Planning Policies are relevant in the consideration of the application:- 4.3 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 provides general policies relating to development in the countryside. It allows for new agricultural dwellings in exceptional circumstances where real agricultural need is demonstrated (Housing Policy 7). In judging whether to allow for new dwellings regard has to be made to various criteria such as; a) The previous or proposed severance of land and buildings; b) The agricultural justification for sub-division of a farm; c) The long-term viability of new or unproven agricultural enterprises such as small holdings, market gardens, or horticulture; d) The extent to which the applicant's employment in agriculture is only part-time; and e) In the case of a retiring farmer, whether the proposal would result in vacation of an existing farm dwelling for agricultural use and whether the applicant would continue to assist in the operation of the farm. 4.4 When granting an approval, Housing Policy 8 requires a condition to be attached restricting the occupation to a person engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture or a widow or widower or such persons or any resident dependants. 4.5 It is paragraph 8.9.4 of the plan that is most relevant to this application and the wording of this is important. It states: 'Such a condition will not usually be removed on subsequent applications unless it is shown that the long-term need for dwellings for agricultural workers, both on the particular farm and in the locality, no longer warrants reserving the dwelling for that purpose.'. 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Andreas Parish Commissioners have no objection (25.11.2019). 5.2 Highway Services have no objection (06.11.2019). 5.3 The owner/occupier of Ballacurry Farm Cottage, Bernahara, have commented on the application which can be summarised as: (18.11.2019) While accepted the history of the site, the fact remains the property was purchased by the applicant as "an investment" and wishes to develop it and realise a profit; the property should have been marketed at the price that the estate sold it then is may well have been within financial reach of a purchaser who actually met the condition (as previous applicant did) and who may have been able to enjoy the residence without need for lifting the condition; any speculation by applicant as to the earnings of an agricultural worker and what they could afford does not discount that a retired farmer wishing a retirement home in the country could possibly have achieved the price which was not tested in the open market. (20.11.2020) Previous application 19/00115/LAW was made by Ballasyr Stud; however the ownership has since been transfer by Ms Revitt who is by local knowledge is connected to the Ballasyr Farm; I am now concerned that in two neighbouring parishes there is one property which is seeking for a tie to be removed (application site) and in the next door Parish of Jurby there is a need for an agricultural workers dwelling being sought (this has since been approved) and a rather

28

substantial dwelling at that; and there does appear to be an element of double standards here which I do feel should be raised. (26.11.2020) Again stress that when consider the application for new agricultural dwelling (19/00749/B) and the current application that the applicant is also a Director of Ballaseyr Stud Limited for both applications; Also through local knowledge the owner Ballaseyr Stud, who may have numerous companies connected or otherwise, has recently purchased a number of farms in the locality (Ballavarry and Lheakherrow) all of which hold considerable acreage and farmhouse(s) and probably with other attached tied agricultural dwellings. Before policy is set aside to allow the erection of new dwelling in the countryside, agriculturally tied or not, perhaps consideration should be given to the whole land parcel owned but the overriding owner, what each holding may "need" and perhaps the whole area be countered with the number of houses available as a whole to see if the accommodation needs of any worker could be satisfied with the buildings already within the wider ownership of the company. 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 When considering applications for the removal of such a condition, the overarching consideration is whether the long-term need for that particular dwelling for agricultural workers, both on the particular farm and in the locality, no longer warrants reserving the dwelling for that purpose. The policy does, therefore, allow for the removal of such conditions or 'ties'. The issue in this case is whether or not the applicants have provided sufficient evidence to show that there is no long term need for an agricultural farm workers dwelling at the site or in the vicinity. 6.2 It should be noted that from the information contained in this and the previous Certificate of Lawfulness application (CLA), it is clear that the site has never been used for agricultural activities (i.e. a farm) and potentially very little, if any, horticultural activities. The Officer who considered the CLA accepted that the actually site was never used as was originally approved to be. Comments included in the current application, include a letter from the then applicants advocate who help prepare planning application in the late 1970's and early 1980's and represented the then applicant in the planning appeals and reviews stages. From the information provided and wording in the conditions (6 & 8) of the approved decision notice for the dwelling; it appears it was approve more for horticultural activities (Market Garden) rather than a farm. The size of the site would also support this view given the land holding was only 0.56ha (1.5acres) which would be farm too small for a farm holding and perhaps more suited to a market garden. 6.3 Were the application made now, it is considered highly unlikely that planning permission would be granted. There are no policies which support the approval of dwellings for horticultural workers and in term of a farm workers dwelling, this would need to be connected with a proven farm holding and would also need to be sited within or very close to the main farm complex. Further, if this application was approved, it would likely have required the market garden be commenced and in operation for perhaps a number of years before the dwelling could be built. This is perhaps why the original application failed, as no such condition was attached, and essential resulted in a new dwelling in the countryside; albeit, given the applicant was a farm worker for other farms as confirmed by his owner letter (dated 14/08/1993) and then became a retired farm worker (possible was retired when he initially moved into the house), he complied with Condition 6, which did include "agriculture" although it could be argued that "horticultural" was the primary use and the main reason the application was approved; albeit this was perhaps not what was envisaged when the application was originally approved by the Planning Committee in 1981. However, the fact remains the word "agriculture" is included, possible to future proof the dwelling and enable future farm workers living in the property. 6.4 Generally, when the Department is considering applications for the removal of an agricultural tie to a dwelling; they would seek the applicant to market at a discounted rate

29

which is affordable to agricultural workers (or anyone who would meet the condition) for a minimum period of 6 months to ascertain the need. This is just one approach to help determine the need of an agriculture workers dwelling, there still needs to be convincing evidence that the need is no longer required. Furthermore, especially more recently with property prices significantly increasing over the last 20 years (approx), it is generally found that this approach is becoming more and more inadequate. In the recent past the Department sought a 25/30% discount on the market price; but was advised by a Planning Inspector this was the incorrect approach as this with most properties in the countryside did not make them affordable to agricultural workers. Accordingly, the approach as mention initially is what is now sought (i.e. the individual property in question should be offered at a rate which an agricultural worker can affordable). It should also be noted that the same Inspector commented that there should be no financial gain from an agricultural workers dwelling; they are approved to meet the essential need for the operation of the farm only. Therefore any party believing they should be able to removal the tie to enable more financial gain, is under a misunderstanding of the reasoning why the dwelling was approved. There does appear from comments made within the applicant's statement that they have potentially made this misunderstanding. This will be explained later in this report. 6.5 The applicant has not marketed the property in question, so this must weigh against the application. It is also understood (or at least no evidence has been provided to the contrary) that the Trust of the original application/owner sold the property to Ballaseyr Stud Limited (or to an associate company) without it being marketing first. So again it would appear no test was undertaken to determine if there was an agricultural/ horticultural worker who wished to purchase the property first. It is not known what the property was sold for. The applicant's statement indicates that the current value is £500,000; albeit they comment that; "Our Client obtained the property recently from Mr Skillan's Estate as an investment property and has carried out major refurbishment. The property as present is valued at £500,000 and carries a rental value in the market of £1650-£1800 per calendar month." 6.6 The fact the applicant has purchased presuming knew that such a condition was attached, and if not presumably a planning search was not undertaken; however, this would have been at their own risk and therefore should not be a material reason which should be taken into account. Further, given they have confirmed that "major refurbishment" has been undertaken, must reasonable be considered that the amount the applicants paid was much less than £500,000, which is its currently value after "major refurbishment". 6.7 In relation to advertising the property the applicants comment that: "It has been claimed by the Planning Department that the property should be advertised for sale as an Agricultural Ownership or Letting Property, with if necessary a reduced valuation to encourage persons from the agricultural sector. This however has been shown recently at appeal not enforceable. However, even if it was considered at a reduced value in terms of sale or rental, the property is well beyond the wage range of an agricultural persons within the sector. Based on current IOM Farm Workers Rates a top employee may obtain a salary of £20-21k per annum. Rental of the bungalow would require a minimum of £19k per annum where as a 25 yrs interest only mortgage would be min £550-£600 per month. So the property is not feasible as an agricultural workers property." 6.8 Again the applicants appear to be missing the key point, in that they are quoting figures on what the market price of the property is today (£500,000) without an agricultural condition/tie attached. As outlined previously, when marketing a property for agricultural workers this should be at a rate they can afford. I.e. using the applicants figures for a salary of £20-21k per annum, which would clearly reduce the numbers the applicants have quoted in term so value of the property and consequently the rental and mortgage required. Further, the property is available to a person employed in horticultural activities as well. There are no comments from the applicants in terms of this potential owner/tenant. The fact

30

the applicants have clearly indicated that this is an "investment property" does raise concern also in terms of this application. 6.9 Arguably, in favour of the proposal is that it isn't especially common even when agricultural workers dwelling are marketed at a discounted rate, especially when they are not near or connected to a farm holding, being bought by a farm worker. A number of farm workers dwellings approved in the 1960's to 1980's are a common feature in the landscape, generally bungalows in isolated positions with little to no land associated with them. It is generally these properties where the Department receives application to remove such ties/conditions. Generally, permission has been approved as there is little or no requirement for them form an agricultural given they are not connected with a farm holding. Accordingly, while the applicant has not advertised the property at a discounted market rate; it could be argued that it falls within this category. A counter argument could be made and this is explained in paragraphs 6.12 to 6.14 of this report. 6.10 It is also important to note the current applicant would appear from comments received; and which have not been disputed by the applicants, is a Director of Ballaseyr Stud Limited. It is also noted that the applicants for the Certificate of Lawfulness application on the same site last year, was made by Ballaseyr Stud Limited and the application for a new agricultural dwelling last year (at Loughan) was made by Ballaseyr Stud Limited also, which is a large agricutural holding. It should be noted that when considering a planning application for a new agricultural dwelling; factors which must be considered are "(a) the previous or proposed severance of land and buildings and (b) the agricultural justification for sub-division of a farm (IOMSP)". When considering the removal of a condition/tie, essentially the reverse must also be considered when determining the long term need for an agricultural farm workers dwelling at the site or in the vicinity. It is not consider unreasonable given the above factors, that there does appear to be a connection with the current applicant and the company (Ballaseyr Stud Limited) who has previously made an application on the site and which is a large agricultural business/holding. It is also important to note that the company was used when seeking approval for a new agricultural dwelling, why it has not been used again in relation to the application site now is unsure. It is also not know if the currently applicant also complies with the Condition 6 (if they live at the property), being an employee of Ballaseyr Stud Limited which appears to be involved in agricultural activities. 6.11 The Department sought calcification on the current land holding (Ballaseyr Stud Limited) and the applicant's agent made the following comments: "Ballavoddan Manor and Ballaseyr Stud, Andreas comprise 235.75 acres. This is for young and retired racehorses plus Shires and Suffolk Punches - it is not part of the other farms though we do have sheep grazing some of the land to keep it tidy. Lhea Kerrow, Andreas comprises 80 acres. It has a farm house which is occupied by the sheep farmer and his family. It also has a bungalow which is occupied by a local retired couple both in their 70s. Ballakesh, Bride 99 acres - no house. This land is used with the sheep farm Regaby Mooar 88 acres - no house. This is next door to and used with the sheep farm Burmah Road Andreas 4 acres - no house. Used with the sheep farm Regaby Ardonan 90 acres rented - no house. Used with the sheep farm. Ballavarry Farm Andreas 185 acres. 2 semi detached cottages both occupied by employees. One employee works full time at the dairy farm and the other works at Lhea Kerrow with occasional assistance at Ballavary. Both are under 30 and desperate to farm. Loughan and Bretney, Jurby East 166 acres - new approved house. We have beef cattle at Loughan and use it for summer grazing for in calf heifers. Bretney is our main Silage crop. We need a house to support this operation and the future farm development. We have 1,000 ewes with 200 ewe lambs following on and look to average 2 lambs per ewe so at times will have over 3,000 head of sheep on our land. We have a milking herd of 180 cows plus young stock following on so have approx. 400 head of cattle on the dairy farm.

31

We have a small herd of Beef Shorthorns (16 head) which we are looking to grow plus we need a home for the beef calves that the dairy cattle produce as not all dairy cattle are put in calf to dairy cows. Someone has to work look after this herd. Our current staff of 4 people simply cannot do this with the stock that they already care for." 6.12 Using this information the Department was able to determine the distance and time taken to drive to each site (Using Google Street). Please note these are not exact, as fields/farms etc to each location may be closer or further than the figures shown. However, it gives a fair representation; The application site is: o 350 m and 1 min to entrance of Ballavoddan Manor and Ballaseyr Stud, Andreas; o 2.9km and 4 min to entrance of Lhea Kerrow (farm), Andreas; o 5.6km and 8 min to Ballakesh, Bride; o 3km and 4 min to Regaby Mooar; o Unknown but likely with a few minutes walk to Burmah Road Andreas (site is on Burmah Road); o 3.3km and 6 min to Regaby, Ardonan; o 650km and 2 min to Ballavarry Farm Andreas; and o 4.7km and 8 min to Loughan (new farm worker dwelling recently approved) and Bretney, Jurby East. 6.13 These figures are important to note. It is also useful to note that the application site is located with close proximity to a number of holdings which the applicant's employer has control with and is a very large agricultural business/holding of around 1000acres. The applicants confirms: "We have 1,000 ewes with 200 ewe lambs following on and look to average 2 lambs per ewe so at times will have over 3,000 head of sheep on our land. We have a milking herd of 180 cows plus young stock following on so have approx. 400 head of cattle on the dairy farm. We have a small herd of Beef Shorthorns (16 head) which we are looking to grow plus we need a home for the beef calves that the dairy cattle produce as not all dairy cattle are put in calf to dairy cows. Someone has to work look after this herd. Our current staff of 4 people simply cannot do this with the stock that they already care for." 6.14 There are further comment sin terms of staffing and additional information on the farm businesses which can be viewed on the planning website. All this information would seem to suggest that Ballaseyr Stud Limited is a substantial farm operations and business with a number of employees involved in the farm activity. It is again perhaps concerning that given Ballaseyr Stud Limited would appear to be very recent owners (they still may be) of the application property; but it has been seen more as an "investment property" rather than a farm workers dwelling; especially when the farm is large and does not appear to be decreasing in size. 6.15 It is noted one farmer workers who currently lives in one of the two cottages at Ballavarry Farm Andreas workers and travels to Lhea Kerrow (4.2km and 9min drive and would go past the application site). Therefore it is presume the distance is acceptable in terms of farm operations, namely cattle in this case. Accordingly, the application dwelling would seem to be in a good location to serve all the farms in the holding. Further, the use of the dwelling is available to horticultural workers also. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 As with most applications of this type they are generally complicated and more difficult to determine. Clearly the dwelling when it was approved and subsequently built in the 1980's; it was not used for the primary use which was accepted by the then Planning Committee as a market garden/horticultural use or in a very limited manner. Also the site was never used for a farming activities; albeit it is not especially clear it was ever proposed to be for such uses. Accordingly, it could be concluded that given the original intended use

32

(horticultural) was never implemented and as the original permission potentially never sought agricultural use on the site, then the Department could be lenient in this case. 7.2 However, a counter argument is that while the horticultural use was never taken up as was likely envisaged and hoped, the Planning Committee at the time wished the dwelling to be used for either horticultural or agricultural activities given they were approving an application which was an exception to planning policy at that time (i.e. against new dwellings in the countryside). This view could be support by the fact the then applicant did not appeal the imposing of the condition, and in fact was able to live in the property lawfully till his passing; given the original applicant/owner was an agricultural worker and either before or after he occupied the property became a retires farmer worker; which again he complied with the condition. Therefore, there was never a breach in the condition; hence why the CLA was refused. Accordingly, the issue of the agricultural condition is now raised given the current application. 7.3 There is the fact, that Condition 6 is in place and is arguably as relevant now as it was when it was approved. 7.4 The test for removing the agricultural condition is whether it is shown that the long-term need for dwellings for agricultural workers, both on the particular farm and in the locality, no longer warrants reserving the dwelling for that purpose. In this case there are believed to be a number of concerns which do not provided sufficient evidence to warrant the removal of the agriculture condition to this property Ohio Fields. Accordingly, it is recommended the application be refused on this ground. 7.5 Should the application be refused, on the grounds that there is no demand for an agricultural workers dwelling in the area, this would of course likely be a material consideration in the event of any future applications for new dwellings. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

33

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 18th May 2020

Item 5.4 Proposal : Erection of 3 detached dwellings with associated landscaping

and access Site Address : Field 321270

Park Close Glen Vine Isle Of Man

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

20/00336/B- click to view 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. The dark green hatched area in the northern part of the site shown on drawing 02, shall remain open and no building, structure, material or vehicle shall be constructed or placed upon it without the prior written consent of the Department. The hatched area shall not form part of any dwelling's residential curtilage. This area shall be fenced off using fencing with at least 100mm clear access above ground level. Reason: to safeguard the ecological value of this part of the site. C 3. Prior to the commencement of any development, site clearance or removal of trees, the applicant must have approved by the Department further details of the following: i. the creation of a habitat pile within the protected area at the northern part of the site ii. the incorporation of bee bricks, bat boxes and bird nest boxes within the development and iii. Precautionary Working Measures for the protection of Common frog. The development must be carried out in accordance with these approved details. Reason: to ensure the maximum ecological gain from the development. C 4. The access hereby approved shall not be brought into use until works have been undertaken to provide the visibility splays shown on the approved plan ITB51616-GA-001C to an adoptable standard. The visibility splay shall be retained clear of all obstructions for the lifetime of the development These sight lines shall be retained clear of all obstruction to visibility greater than 1.05m in height above the adjoining carriageway for the lifetime of the development. Reason: to ensure the free and safe use of the highway.

34

C 5. No dwelling shall be occupied until all areas shown on the approved plans to be used by vehicles including driveways and vehicle parking spaces have been fully laid out, surfaced and drained such that loose materials and surface water does not discharge or transfer onto the highway. These areas shall not be used for any other purpose thereafter. Reason: to ensure the free and safe use of the highway. C 6. No tree shown to be retained in the drawings and as referred to in condition 8 below, shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of the occupation of the buildings for their permitted use, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. In the event that the retained trees become damaged or otherwise defective during the construction phase due to events outside of the applicant's control the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented. Reason: to ensure that trees marked for retention are not removed, in the interests of maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated. C 7. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved including site clearance, the protective measures detailed in the Tree Protection Plan (drawing TP-4220 R2) and Arboricultural Method Statement, prepared by Manx Roots and submitted in support of the application, shall be fully installed and implemented and retained for the duration of the construction process. Reason: to ensure that trees marked for retention are adequately protected, in the interest of maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated C 8. Notwithstanding the plans approved, trees identified in the submitted Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Statement as 3001, 3002 and 3013 must be retained as part of this development. Reason: to control the unnecessary removal of trees in the interests of maintaining the character and appearance of the area. C 9. Prior to the removal of any tree, a survey for the presence of bats or their roosts must be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist and appropriate mitigation measures provided if such should be found. Details of this must be approved in writing by the Department prior to the removal of any tree and the development implemented in full accordance with the approved details. Reason: to ensure that the development accords with Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan. N 1. No approval is hereby granted to the erection of any sales board which will be considered under different legislation - the Control of Advertisements Regulations 2013. N 2. The applicant is recommended to liaise with the Department's Ecosystems Policy Office in respect of compliance with the Wildlife Act 1990 in respect of the protection of breeding birds, protected species and Invasive Species. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) The development is considered to accord with General Policy 2, Environment Policy 4, Transport Policy 7 and Strategic Policy 1 of the Strategic plan and the provisions of the Residential Design Guidance.

35

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

The owners of 15, Glen Vine Park should be afforded Interested Person Status as they satisfy all of the requirements of the Operational Policy on IPS 2019 and are not referred to in paragraph 4(2) of the Procedure Order referred to in the main statement, section 8.

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THERE IS AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is Field 321270, Glen Vine Park, Glen Vine. The site is almost square and has an area of approximately 0.74 acres. To the northwest of the site is a detached property ("Fieldhead") set within large grounds accessed from Peel Road. This is a two storey dwelling with a hipped roof and a first floor window in the elevation which faces the application site which are only partly screened by the existing boundary vegetation. To the southwest are the properties Oddfellows Cottage, Vine Cottage, Ballabeg Cottage and Westway. All of these front onto Peel Road. A pedestrian lane runs from the point at which Glen Vine Park terminates down to Peel Road. To the south are nos.16, 17 and 18 Glen Vine Park. To the northeast is no.15 Glen Vine Park. 1.2 Number 15, Glen Vine Park is a dormer bungalow with rooflights in the plane facing towards the application site and a large window which can be seen in the Officer's Photographs which are on the website. There is substantial vegetation between this property and the application site which is lower: the site falls from north east to south west by 4.5m over 55m although a clearing when the window referred to above has a clear view across the valley to the south west. 1.2 The boundary to the lane contained some established trees although there is a break of 7m or so towards the higher end. The boundary with Fieldhead is formed by a hedge with some trees at the south western end. This is to be reinforced by native planting - blackthorn, hawthorn, field maple, holly, beech, honeysuckle and rose as is the boundary with the residential properties which front onto the Main Road. The first few trees to the south west of the existing access appeared to be dead at the time of the site visit. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Detailed approval is sought for the erection of three dwellings with vehicular accesses from Glen Vine Park. Whilst planning approval has been granted for the principle of two dwellings previously, the current three are arranged at 90 degrees from the previous two, so that they are facing south west - the rear of the dwellings fronting onto the main road - rather than facing towards the lane. The same wildlife buffer zone is provided (see Planning History below) although they share the same point of access onto Glen Vine Park. 2.2 The nearest point of the built development to 15, Glen Vine Park is just over 20m away. Fieldhead will be 15m to the closest point of the nearest proposed house and the properties fronting onto Main Road will be at closest, 36m away. 2.3 The houses are a little unimaginative in that two are identical and the third, nearest to Fieldhead, has different proportions and different pitches of roof on the annexes. This is also slightly less long but has a longer rear projecting garage.

36

2.4 All three houses will be finished in dark grey concrete roof tiles, render and stonework on the walls and black rainwater goods and fascias. 2.5 Trees to be removed are in two categories: those which are needed to be removed to facilitate the development (5 - reduced to 2 following discussion with the applicant) and those which are being removed in the interests of good husbandry (9). Those originally proposed to be removed to facilitate the development sit at the front of the site alongside the lane and are one holly, one ash and three sycamore, all Category C. An Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been prepared by Manx Roots, dated 4th February, 2020 which inspects the trees and makes recommendations for pruning and tree removal in the interests of good arboriculture. The development, including changes of level, have been shown along with protection areas for the retained trees which are outwith any areas for excavation, deposition of earth or building. The applicant has agreed (24.04.20) to retain trees 3001 and 3002 but that 3003 (that closest to the cul de sac) is growing into the bank and is unstable and causing shading issues for the owners of number 15 who would prefer to see it removed. The applicant now agrees to retain tree 3013. 2.6 A transport statement has been provided by i-Transport and dated 20th February, 2020. This describes the highway network and the provision of visibility splays onto the lane of 2.4m by 15m in both directions with visibility of 2.4m by 22m in each direction at the junction of the lane with Glen Vine Park. It also describes the provision of 2 parking spaces per dwelling each space having dimensions of at least 3.25m by 6m. This would enable the proposed integral garages to be converted to additional living accommodation under Class 26 of the Permitted Development Order 2012. It clarifies that refuse collection will occur from the lane as it currently occurs. 2.7 A sales board has been shown on the plans: this will need to be considered under the Control of Advertisements Regulations 2013 not this planning application. 2.8 A Protected Species Report has also been prepared by Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy Services and dated February 2020. This refers to the non-statutory Wildlife Site at the Marown Telephone Exchange some 350m away and the Central Valley Phase 2 site with poor connectivity with the site. It identifies the wet ditch along the north eastern boundary as a significant ecological feature as well as a number of parts of some of the trees which could provide potential roost sites for bats. 2.9 It recommends a series of controls and requirements: 1. Any trees to be removed must first be subject to an inspection for bat roosts 2. Any lighting must adhere to best practice to minimise impact on bats that roost, commute or forage in or in close proximity to the site 3. A bat roost feature should be incorporated into each property 4. Shrubs and bushes must be removed outside of the bird breeding season (typically March to August inclusive) and where undertaken within the season, there must be a pre-clearance nest check and any nests safeguarded until young have fledged and independent of the nest. 5. New hedge planting should incorporate native woody species that are matched to soil conditions and beneficial for food, shelter and nest sites for a range of species (hawthorn, rowan, sessile oak, holly, elder, ash and honeysuckle) 6. The 6m habitat strip must be retained. 7. Site clearance should be undertaken outside the frog hibernation period (November to January) and if undertaken within this period the interior of the site should be cleared in the warmer months (April to September) during minimum daytime temperatures of 15 degrees or higher. 8. If any common frogs or lizard are encountered works must stop and advice sought from DEFA.

37

9. The ditch must be cleared of silts and leaf litter to a new depth of 200-300mm and arisings placed on bank tops to enable invertebrates and frogs to return to the ditch. Such excavation should be undertaken during the low risk period August to September and if this is not possible, the project Ecologist will undertake a pre-works assessment of risk to frogs and recommend a low risk working method and supervise excavation. 10. Encroaching vegetation should be cut back in the winter months to prevent canopy closure and degradation of the open water habitat. This should be periodic and subject to checks. 11. A habitat log pile must be created within the ecology zone for a sheltering habitat. 12. Any fencing to demarcate the ecology zone must have at least 100mm clear access above ground level. 13. Bee bricks must be integrated into each new dwelling structure. 14. Prior to any other clearance, Schedule 8 species must be identified, removed and incinerated. 2.10 The applicant suggests that the development will not result in any net loss to ecology and the reorientation of the houses will result in better living conditions for the occupants. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 In 1988 the erection of 3 loose boxes and tackyard was approved under PA 88/01154/B. 3.2 Of far more direct relevance, however, are two more or less identical applications for two dwellings on the site - 11/00474/A and 15/00224/A). these dwellings were shown orientated such that their front elevations faced south east towards the lane with the wildlife buffer area alongside the side of the house on plot 2. The approved schemes included a 6m-width protective buffer to the northeast of the site to accommodate wildlife concerns. The approvals were subject to the conditions which required the standard submission of reserved matters with a certain time (that time has now passed), and three specific conditions: 3. The hatched area shown on drawing P-03B, shall remain open and no building, structure, means of enclosure, material or vehicle shall be constructed or placed upon it without the prior written consent of the Department. The hatched area shall not form part of any dwelling's residential curtilage. Reason: to safeguard the open areas of the development in the interests of visual amenity. 4. No site works or clearance shall be commenced until protective fences which conform with British Standard 5837:2102 (or any British Standard revoling and re-enacting BS 5837:2012 with or without modification) have been erected around any existing trees as shown in drawing P-03 B... Unless and until the development has been completed, these fences shall not be removed and the protected areas are to be kept clear of any building, plant, equipment, material, debris and trenching, with the existing ground levels maintained, and there shall be no entry to those areas except for approved arboricultural or landscape works. Reason: to safeguard the areas to be landscaped and the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site. 5. The existing trees and hedges shall be retained in accordance with the approved details. Any retained tree or hedge which within five years of the approved development being occupied or completed (whichever is the later) dies, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced by a similar species, or a size to be first approved in writing by the Department, during the next planting season, or in accordance with a programme of replacement to be agreed in writing with the Department. Reason: to safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.

38

4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES 4.1 The application site is located within an area that is designated by the 1982 Development Order as Existing Residential Use (incorrectly described in the earlier applications as Proposed Residential). On the draft Area Plan for the East the site lies within an area of Existing Predominantly Residential Use. 4.2 Within the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, General Policy 2 is relevant. This provides guidance for the consideration of development proposals on land designated for development. It states in part: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (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". 4.3 Since the approval of the last application, the Department has introduced Residential Design Guidance, 2019. This provides advice about the design of new residential development and the means of assessing the impact of this on existing adjacent dwellings. This refers to paragraph 4.3.8 of the Strategic Plan and to local distinctiveness and the need to take into account the characteristics and nature of the surrounding area whilst not stifling new ideas, encouraging new buildings to acknowledge and incorporate the best qualities of existing residential areas. It encourages variety and to avoid the use of the same building types to add interest as well as making the best use of sites which are sustainable and encouraging active travel. 4.4 The RDG also provides advice on how the impact on existing residential properties may be measured, generally recommending that elevations with windows and doors which face directly another property should be at least 20m apart and there is also advice on which windows are more sensitive to impact than others and also in the design of new dwellings, regard should be had to the character of the existing area, to local distinctiveness and that development should "tell a story" of the evolution of the area. 4.5 Strategic Policy 1 encourages sustainable development in terms of location and optimising the use of developable land. 4.6 Environment Policy 4 protects ecology, particularly protected habitats and species. 4.7 Transport Policy 7 requires the provision of appropriate amounts of car parking with each dwelling requiring two full sized car parking spaces (identified in other documents as 6m by 3.25m). REPRESENTATIONS

39

5.1 Highway Services note that the private driveway will remain private and the occupants should be informed of their rights and responsibilities therefor. They do not object to the application subject to the imposition of the following conditions: 1. The means of vehicular access to and from the site shall be only as shown on the approved plan ITB51616-GA-001 C. Reason: to ensure the free and safe use of the highway. 2. The access hereby approved shall not be brought into use until works have been undertaken to provide the visibility splays shown on the approved plan ITB51616-GA-001C to an adoptable standard. The visibility splay shall be retained clear of all obstructions for the lifetime of the development These sight lines shall be retained clear of all obstruction to visibility greater than 1.05m in height above the adjoining carriageway for the lifetime of the development. Reason: to ensure the free and safe use of the highway. 3. Development shall not be occupied until all areas shown on the approved plans to be used by vehicles including streets, driveways and vehicle parking space have been fully laid out, surfaced and drained such that loose materials and surface water does not discharge or transfer onto the highway. These areas shall not be used for any other purpose thereafter. Reason: to ensure the free and safe use of the highway. 4. The garages hereby approved shall be kept available and used as garages for the parking of motor cars for the benefit of the occupant of the dwelling for the lifetime of the development. Reason: to ensure the free and safe use of the highway. 5. Prior to the commencement of construction works, details of Electric vehicle Charging Points and cable enables parking spaces to be provided shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the development and thereafter retained in accordance with the approved details. Reasons: in the interests of promoting sustainable travel opportunities. They also advise a note as follows: In order to discharge condition (...) of this permission it is necessary to obtain separate approval of the specification and construction details. This requires the applicant to enter into Highway Agreement under Section 109(A) of the Highways Act 1986 (18.03.20). 5.2 Marown Parish Commissioners oppose the application on the grounds that the development would result in unnecessary tree felling of "mature trees in fine fettle" and consider that the retention of the protected zone may go some way towards protecting frogs but may not be sufficient. They take issue at the applicant's description of the site as previously approved but consider that the previous approval has lapsed so there is no current approval, albeit that the land is designated for residential development. They consider that the conclusion of the previous officer that the proposal for two dwellings was not out of keeping in terms of density, inter alia, the increase to three dwellings makes the proposal an over-development of the site (16.04.20)

40

5.3 DEFA Arboricultural Officer does not object to the application, recommending two conditions: 1. No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed during the development phase and thereafter within 5 years from the date of the occupation of the buildings for their permitted use, other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars. In the event that the retained trees become damaged of otherwise defective during the construction phase due to events outside of the applicant's control the Department shall be notified as soon as reasonably practicable and remedial action agreed and implemented. Reason: to ensure that trees marked for retention are not removed, in the interests of maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated. 2. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the protective measures detailed in the Tree Protection Plan (drawing TP-4220 R2) and Arboricultural Method Statement, prepared by Manx Roots and submitted in support of the application, shall be fully installed and implemented and retained for the duration of the construction process. Reason: to ensure that trees marked for retention are adequately protected, in the interest of maintaining the amenities of the area and to ensure the visual impact of the development is mitigated (16.04.20). 5.4 DEFA Ecosystems Policy Officer expresses concern that the Protected Species report determines that some of the trees to be removed contain potential roost features and therefore, prior to determination, a bat roost survey should be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecologist and a report detailing the findings, including appropriate protection plans and mitigation, should be submitted to the Planning Directorate for written approval prior to the determination of the application. They suggest that surveys should be undertaken in line with Bat Conservation Trusts Bats Surveys for Professional Ecologists - Good Practice Guidelines (3rd Edition 2016) and should identify appropriate locations for the erection of bat boxes on the trees to be retained in in each of the new properties. This should be controlled by a planning condition. They refer to the Wildlife Act and its provisions for the protection of bats and seek a low level lighting plan which directs light away from boundaries and also require details of nest boxes for birds so that the development results in a no net loss of ecology/habitat from the development. They also require conditions regarding Precautionary Working Measures for Frogs, the implementation of the enhancement measures of the ecology zone as set out in paragraphs 6.13-6.18 of the Protected Species Report and dealing with Schedule 8 species. They also recommend an advisory note about breeding birds and lizards and the provisions of the Wildlife Act 1990 in these respects (24.04.20). 5.5 The owners of 15, Glen Vine Park comments that the Protected Species Report submitted with the application recommends the deepening of the ditch by an excavator which they believe will lead to further erosion of the bank which has previously collapsed in a couple of places and has had to be repaired, at great expense, by them. They explain that at the moment, they clear the ditch once a year or so by hand which is quick and effective. They also don't believe that it would be possible to have an excavator access the ditch without causing substantial damage and destruction of the south side of the ditch, which should be avoided (23.04.20). ASSESSMENT 6.1 The site is designated for residential use and development and is highly sustainable, being within walking distance of a primary school, public transport, church and shortly not far from a local shop which is under construction (17/00852/B - Crosby). The principle of residential development here is therefore not objectionable and indeed planning approval has been granted for housing here previously.

41

6.2 The issues are whether the development as now proposed would have any adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, whether the loss of trees is acceptable, whether the impact on the ecology of the area, on highway safety or on the living conditions of those in nearby residential property are acceptable. There is no policy requirement for affordable housing or public open space due to the low number of dwellings proposed. Character and appearance of the area 6.3 Whilst the Commissioners suggest that three dwelling is too many and that this results in overdevelopment because the officer reporting on the previous application considered two dwellings was not out of keeping with the area in terms of density (and other impacts), it does not automatically follow that any change in the number of dwellings will negate that conclusion. There must be evidence of harm through over-development and no evidence to this effect has been provided. Three dwellings with associated and acceptable access, parking and amenity space can clearly be accommodated on the site with similar ratios of buildings to plots, sizes of gardens to the properties immediately to the north east, west and south west. 6.3 The issue of density needs to be balanced against the need for development to make the best use of sites (Strategic Policy 1a and 1b) and increasing the density of development on sites which are sustainable and in settlements, will reduce the eventual need for greenfield land to be used to satisfy future housing need. As such, the density of three dwellings is considered acceptable and the layout of the site as proposed, also acceptable. 6.4 The area is very varied in terms of the style and size of buildings with Glen Vine Park mainly being dormer bungalows in its western part but with larger dwellings to the east and the A1 TT Course largely accommodating two storey dwellings of very differing sizes. The two distinct parts of Glen Vine Park demonstrate the evolution of the area (as referred to in the RDG) and this proposed development would continue this evolution along with the modern tall glazed window in 15, Glen Vine Park which adds a modern element to an otherwise fairly typical dwelling of its time. The proposed dwellings are attractive and will not, it is considered, have any detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area, and would be in accordance with General Policy 2 and the Residential Design Guidance. Loss of trees 6.5 The applicant has agreed to retain two trees at the entrance - 3001 and 3002 - and 3013 which sits within the site but distant from any proposed buildings: as such, the trees to be removed to facilitate the development are 3003 and 3004. Tree 3003 appears to be unstable, 3004 contributes little to the amenity of area (see penultimate photograph on the website under Planning Officer's Photographs). The remaining trees identified as being removed in the Arboricultural Report are so proposed for arboricultural reasons and the Department's Arboricultural Officer had no objections to the application, which included the removal of 3001, 3002 and 3015 which are now to be retained. Ecology 6.6 Whilst the site is designated for development and has previously had approval for a development, albeit of a lower number of units than are now proposed, it is very important that development does not compromise the ecological value of the site and regard should be had to the provisions of the Wildlife Act 1990 which provides protection for a variety of flora and fauna. The development could potentially harm the ecology of the area in a number of ways: the removal of trees which have potential roost sites (unfortunately the Protected Species report does not use the same numbering system as the Tree Protection Report so it is not possible to be precise about which trees are to be removed compared with those which are described to have roost potential, however, it would appear that there is none photographed in the PS Report which is to be removed although 3003 is referred to).

42

6.7 Ecosystems Policy Office has requested that a survey of the trees to be removed (now only three) is undertaken prior to the determination of the application to ensure that there are no roosts within them. Any approval will be valid for four years before development may start and if a bat roost survey is done prior to determination, and development did not commenced until two or three years later, the results of the survey would be irrelevant. As such, in this case, it is considered more relevant to attach a condition which requires that the survey is undertaken prior to the felling of any of the trees hereby approved which will ensure that the survey is the most up to date and relevant for the purpose. 6.8 Ecosystems Policy Office has also requested that the provisions of paragraphs 6.13 to 6.38 of the Protected Species Report are implemented in accordance with the document. This includes (6.13) the excavation of the ditch with which the owners of 15, Glen Vine Park take issue for the reasons set out above. It is also relevant that the development will not affect this area of the site and as such, it could be successfully argued that the requirement of the applicant to undertake these works is not related to the development and therefore not acceptable as a condition. In addition, the works to maintain the ditch appear to be being undertaken already by the owner of the neighbouring land and the condition, particularly as it relates to 6.13 would appear to be unnecessary. It is therefore considered that the requirement for the ditch to be deepened by excavator should not be included in any condition, but that the remaining requirements - the logpile, the type of fencing are included in a condition, along with the provisions for precautionary method statements for frogs and Schedule 8 species. An advisory note about the provisions of the Wildlife Act 1990, which this refers to other legislation and should properly be dealt with through correspondence with the applicant by the relevant authority which administers the Act, would be helpful in respect of breeding birds and lizards. The development comprises three dwellings and there is no indication that any lighting is proposed. Such, if installed would be domestic lighting within each plot which does not usually require planning approval: anything more significant would not be able to be installed under the provisions of the Permitted Development Order 2012 as it would not be erected by or on behalf of a public authority so would require planning approval and would at that time, be assessed on the basis of its impact on ecology. Highway Safety 6.9 The conclusion of the Department of Infrastructure is that the development is acceptable, subject to conditions. A number of these conditions are not considered appropriate to include: the installation of electric vehicle charging points is not a policy requirement of the Development Plan or any Planning Policy Statement and in any case, for a development of three houses, any electric vehicle charging points are likely to be installed within each plot and may be of a scale that they may not be considered to be development (many are the size of a small wall mounted hosereel and some vehicles are simply plugged into an existing domestic plug socket within a garage or via an external socket). 6.10 The suggested condition about the access only being able to be as shown in the drawing is unnecessary as any other form of access is not shown on the drawings and would require planning approval and the loss of trees. 6.11 The suggested condition about the garages being reserved for car parking is also contrary to the Strategic Plan which requires only two spaces being provided per dwelling, which are provided on each of the driveways. The requirement of further spaces being reserved in the garages would therefore be requiring a standard above what is required by the adopted policy and is not considered acceptable. 6.12 The condition which requires the accessways being made up should remove the reference to "street" and all requirements for further matters to be approved, should refer to the Department, not the local planning authority. The note does not appear to be applicable as no specific works are referred to.

43

Living conditions of those in adjacent property 6.13 The properties most likely to be affected at Fieldhead and 15, Glen Vine Park and no objection has been received from the owners or occupiers of either property. Indeed, those at 15, Glen Vine Park has commented but confines their concerns to matters relating to the maintenance of the ditch. It is clear from correspondence from the applicant, that they are in continuing discussions with this neighbour about the development. 6.14 Using the guidance in the RDG, the dwellings will be more than the required 20m distance from the nearest point of 15, Glen Vine Park which is set higher than the site and the highest dwellings will be 2.4m lower than the tallest part of the existing dwelling. The dwellings will have an impact on the view from the south west windows in the existing property but will not be so close as to affect the outlook using the assessments in the RDG. CONCLUSION 7.1 The development is considered to accord with General Policy 2, Environment Policy 4, Transport Policy 7 and Strategic Policy 1 of the Strategic plan and the provisions of the Residential Design Guide and is supported. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material. 8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

44

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 18th May 2020

Item 5.5 Proposal : Erection of an indoor equestrian arena and store Site Address : Sunnycroft

Rhendhoo Road Jurby Isle Of Man IM7 3HB

Applicant : Mrs Ro Baggs Application No. : Principal Planner :

19/01426/B- click to view Mr Chris Balmer

RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application

______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. There shall be no external lighting of the external arena hereby approved. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area. C 3. The external arena and stable building hereby approved shall be for private equestrian use only and not for any commercial or private livery use. Reason: The application has been considered on the basis that the external arena and stable building are to be used for private use only and not for any other purpose. C 4. No development shall take place until full details of soft and hard landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include details of new planting (including tree planting) showing, type, size and position of each. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the store/indoor arena, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. Details of the hard landscaping works include footpaths and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development. C 5. The external walls, roof, doors and door frames shall be a dark green/olive green colour and retained as such thereafter. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

45

C 6. The building must be used only for equestrian purposes. Reason: The countryside is protected from development and an exception is being made on the basis of equestrian need. As such the building must be used for the purposes for which it is approved. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) It is considered that the planning application is in accordance with General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1, 19 and 21 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT 1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site comprises the curtilage of Sunnycroft, Rhendhoo Road, Jurby, which is a modern detached dormer bungalow which incorporates a two storey converted barn to its north gable end wall. To the west of the dwelling area number of garages and outbuildings which vary from modern construction to more traditional stone barns. The site is surrounded by agricultural fields. 1.2 The site is located on the western side of the Rhendhoo Road and south of Jurby East. The site is accessed via a gated entrance from the Rhendhoo Road with a driveway running westerly direction (approximately 70 metres in length) to the dwelling and which then runs thought the complex of buildings to the field which the proposed works would be located (i.e. part of field 214407. 2.0 PLANNING POLICIES 2.1 The application site is not designated for development under the Isle of Man Development Plan Order 1982. The site is not within a Conservation Area; nor within an area zoned as High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance. 2.2 Due to the site location, zoning and the type of proposal, the following policies are relevant for consideration:- 2.3 General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);

46

(e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage." 2.4 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." 2.5 Environment Policy 19 states: "Development of equestrian activities and buildings will only be accepted in the countryside where there will be as a result of such development no loss in local amenity, no loss of high quality agricultural land (Classes 1 and 2) and where the local highway network can satisfactorily accommodate any increase in traffic (see Environment Policy 14 for interpretation of Class 1 and 2). 2.6 Environment Policy 20 states: "There will be a presumption against large scale equestrian developments, which includes new buildings and external arenas, in areas with High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance unless there are exceptional circumstances to override such a policy." 2.7 Environment Policy 21 states: "Buildings for the stabling, shelter or care of horses or other animals will not be permitted in the countryside if they would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside in terms of siting, design, size or finish. Any new buildings must be designed in form and materials to reflect their specific purpose; in particular, cavity-wall construction should not be used." 3.0 THE PROPOSAL 3.1 This application seeks approval for the erection of an indoor equestrian arena and store. The proposed store building (13.2m x 14m x 5.2m) would be attached to the southern elevation of the existing stable block building. The larger indoor equestrian arena would then be attached to the new store building, having a rectangular footprint, having a depth of 20 metres, a maximum width of 60 metres with a height of 5.9m. no roof lights are proposed within the new roofs of the buildings. The indoor equestrian arena essentially run parallel with the existing complex of buildings, including the dwelling "Sunny Croft". Landscaping/tree planting is proposed to the east and south of the site to provided additional screening from the Rhendhoo Road, which is 95+m to the east of the indoor arena. 3.2 The applicants have provided the following comments in support of the scheme: "The Application is for a solely private use equestrian indoor arena for dressage training / house exercising for their daughter who competes in the UK Dressage Discipline and has relocated back to the Island to be with her parents, after the untimely death of her brother Stuart Baggs. The property currently has 9 horses with stabling and paddocks. However tack, food stuff storage and the required UK Dressage Indoor Arena size requirements are lacking, hence the requirements as outlined in the application.

47

The Arena size is based on the required for Dressage UK / World competing /training requirements. Such competition standard horses need to be exercised and trained in the required arena size daily. This is a necessity for horses and rider if they are to compete with other UK /World class events. This without the necessary indoor facilities can be extremely difficult on Island over the autumn / winter months. The indoor arena size has been proposed purely on the necessary space for the dressage discipline, with an eaves level of 4.85m clearance at the edge of the equestrian surface in the location of the structural steel framing. This is fine for the dressage use, where as show jumping would be more at 60 x 30m area and eaves of 5.5m. The proposals have been kept to a minimum size to facilitate training and the tack / food stuff storage requirements. The materials of the building are kept to the standard agricultural shed colours and the shed could in the future if ever required be used for general agricultural farm husbandry / hay & sillage. A large existing shed of this nature already exists on the adjacent farm nearby. Sunnycroft already has a long term history of private equestrian use. As indicated the proposal is to include new large scale tree planting and hedgerow establishment in coordination with DEFA & Woodland Trust. There is , nor would be any commercial use or public access for livery. The applicants are quite happy that such conditions are attached to any approval on this basis." 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 There have been a number of previous planning application on this site; however, none are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application. 4.2 The applicant has benefited from planning approval on a different site for a similar proposal under consideration now; albeit the application was not implemented and it is understood they sold the previous site; purchasing the current application site; 4.3 Erection of an extension to existing outbuilding to provide stables and creation of an outdoor manege arena - Field 224122, Adjacent To Croit E Crye, The Curragh, Ballaugh - 17/00078/B 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Department of Infrastructure Highways Services do not object (on10.01.2020). 5.2 Jurby Parish Commissioners have no objection (on 03.02.2020). 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issues to be assessed in the consideration of this application are whether the impact of the development upon the surrounding area is acceptable; whether the proposal is acceptable in terms of highway safety; and whether the proposal would cause an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of existing properties. 6.2 The Strategic Plan seeks to direct new development towards existing settlements in order to protect the amenities of the Island's countryside. There is however a number of exceptional forms of development that can take place in areas that are not zoned from development either because their location is essential or because they result in little or no harm.

48

6.3 Equestrian development, by virtue of its requirement for land, is generally located within rural areas. However the main consideration from a planning perspective is whether the development would have an unacceptable impact upon the character and amenities of the countryside. WHETHER THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT UPON THE SURROUNDING AREA IS ACCEPTABLE 6.4 The proposed building is sized to accommodate a standard 60m x 20m dressage arena as would be used in competitions throughout the UK and indeed the world, and which is required to allow the applicants daughter and her competition standard horse to train. Such horses need to be exercised and trained daily, which can be difficult on the Island in the winter months, and this is the reason for the indoor arena and therefore the application. This gives the reasoning for this sizeable building. Pre-application advice was had with the applicant’s agent to discuss the proposal, but also the siting of the dwelling. It was judged that the site chosen was one of the best locations, being adjacent to the existing complex of buildings; similar to you would expect when considering agricultural buildings of this size and seeking such buildings being close to existing farm buildings. 6.5 Furthermore, the main view of the site and new indoor arena would be from the Rhendhoo Road to the east; albeit given the Manx sod grass banks to the roadside along the Rhendhoo Road, these would help reduce the potential visual impacts. There are locations where the building would be noted, albeit the views are more likely to be the gable end of the arena which being 20m in depth has less of a visual impact i.e. compared to north/south elevations being 60m. The orientation of the building was chosen for this reason. Further, when viewing from the north along the Rhendhoo Road, the existing buildings on the site would in the most part screen the arena. When viewed from the southeast from the Rhendhoo Road, the arena would be visible in places, but would essentially just block views of the majority of existing building on site i.e. blocking existing built development, rather than blocking open clear views of the countryside. Further, the design of the building and its finish is a common form of development within the area/countryside, appearing as an agricultural barn. The proposal also included substantial landscaping being planted to the eastern and southern elevations of the new building, which in time will also reduce the impact of the building in the landscape. Overall, while the building will be noticeable from some locations; it is not considered for the reasons indicated above that it would adversely affect the countryside nor have a detrimental to the character and appearance of the countryside. WHETHER THE PROPOSAL IS ACCEPTABLE IN TERMS OF HIGHWAY SAFETY 6.6 The proposal would be for the applicants own private use only and for no other commercial use. Accordingly, given this private use the traffic generated would not be noticeable. A condition can be attached which requires the building being used for private use only. Highway Services have considered the scheme and have no objection. WHETHER THE PROPOSAL WOULD CAUSE AN UNACCEPTABLE IMPACT UPON THE AMENITIES OF EXISTING PROPERTIES 6.7 Given the distance the building is from any neighbouring property and landscaping between; it is not considered the proposals would adversely or significantly affect the amenities of any neighbouring property to warrant a refusal. OTHER ISSUES 6.8 The site in terms of soil classification is Class 3A and therefore the proposals would not result in the loss of high quality agricultural land and therefore in this respect complies with Environment Policy 19. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the reasons outlined above it is considered that the planning application is in accordance with General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1, 19 and 21 of the Isle of Man

49

Strategic Plan 2016 and it is therefore recommended that the planning application be approved. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

50

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 18th May 2020

Item 5.6 Proposal : Construction of an agricultural building Site Address : Braaid Farm

Top Road Crosby Isle Of Man IM4 4HJ

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

20/00301/B- click to view 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. The agricultural building hereby approved shall be removed and the ground restored to its former condition in the event that it is no longer used or required for agricultural purposes. Reason: The building has been exceptionally approved solely to meet agricultural need and its subsequent retention would result in an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside. C 3. The building 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 4. The building must be finished in dark green cladding as described in the application and retained as such thereafter. Reason: to reduce the visual impact of the building in the landscape. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) The development complies with General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1 and 15.

______________________________________________________________

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):

51

[provide the address] as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4): [provide the address] 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 [provide the address] is not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy [provide the address] as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and/or [provide the address] as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THERE IS AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL THE SITE 1.1 The site is a piece of land which accommodates Braaid Farm - a house with a small feed shed located at the entrance to the site from a road which is a public right of way which leads from the Top Road (A23) towards footpaths through Beary Mountain and Colden. The holding also includes land to the north, east and south and a small parcel of land including and opposite the applicant's home address although the site includes Braaid Farmhouse. 1.2 Braaid Farmhouse was built as a replacement of the former dwelling on this site in the mid 2000s and due primarily to its external finish (light coloured render) the dwelling can be seen from a wide range of places some distance away. 1.3 The applicant does not live at Braaid Farm (the application site) but at another dwelling some distance away. He recently applied for permission for an agricultural building to the south of his residence on the A23. This application, 18/01157/B, was refused and is referred to in the Planning History section of this document. There is a current application for that same site (20/00216/B) and where that applicant is not the current applicant. 1.4 The area surrounding the site is generally very open and undeveloped. There is an ASSI to the north of the application site (Eary Vane) and outside of the land owned by the applicant. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of an agricultural building. This will be 20m by 12m and 6.1m high - larger than that proposed in the earlier application (12m by 7m and 4.6m high), but

52

finished in the same green sheeting including the roof. The building will accommodate 227 sq m of floorspace, sufficient to house 135 pregnant ewes including feeding space. 2.2 The building will be located alongside the existing feed store which is significantly smaller (approved under 13/91183/B). 2.3 The application includes reference to correspondence with DEFA's Agricultural Directorate's Field Officer who observed in July, 2018 that the holding amounted to 60 acres of farmland which would be capable of accommodating 135 sheep and their lambs. Housed lowland sheep require a prescribed amount of space during pregnancy and 190 sq m of space would be required plus additional space for feeding/troughs. 2.4 Following discussions with the Agriculture Division of the Department and concerns raised regarding the height of the proposed building, it has been revised to be 4m to the eaves and 5.1m to the ridge and with the same floor area. The external finish has also been amended, now timber boarding on the upper part to provide ventilation. This will be stained olive green to match the remaining metal cladding and door. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site is not designated for a particular purpose on either the 1982 Development Plan Order or the draft Area Plan for the East and is outside of the Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. On both there is a high voltage electricity line which runs through the site. This is outside of the area of the proposed works. 3.2 There is therefore a presumption against development here as set out in Environment Policy 1 which protects the countryside for its own sake. General Policy 3 sets out exceptions to this and this includes development which is essential for the conduct of agriculture. Environment Policy 15 provides further advice on this topic as follows: "Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part. Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The nature and materials of construction must also be appropriate to the purposes for which it is intended. Where new agricultural buildings are proposed next to or close to existing residential properties, care must be taken to ensure that there is no unacceptable adverse impact through any activity, although it must be borne in mind that many farming activities require buildings which are best sited, in landscape terms, close to existing building groups in the rural landscape." PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The most relevant previous application on this site is the one for the feed store referred to above. 4.2 The refused shed off the A23 is relevant. This was proposed for storage of implements associated with the current application site and was refused for reasons relating to the separation of the building from the main land holding and whilst the inspector makes reference to the benefits to animal welfare from the building, he notes that there are

53

agricultural buildings at The Braaid Farm that could be used and he considered that what was proposed represented the applicant's preference rather than demonstrable agricultural need. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Marown Parish Commissioners have no objection in principle but object to the size of the building which is 10% larger than the size advocated by the Field Officer of the Department (16.04.20). ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues in this case are whether there is sufficient agricultural need to override the presumption against development here, whether the building is of an appropriate size and design for its purpose and whether the development would have an acceptable environmental impact. Agricultural need 6.2 There is agricultural land associated with this proposal and the advice of DEFA in respect of agricultural need based upon sheep farming is that 190 sq m of space is needed. In addition, he suggests that space should be provided for a trough and feeding space. What is proposed is 250 sq m. Further consultation with the Department's Agriculture Division confirms that the additional space to provide feeding facilities, is reasonable (30.04.20). Size and design 6.3 As stated above, the size of the building is considered acceptable given the advice of the professional officers in the Department. Its design is similarly now acceptable, having been amended to provide ventilation. It is a standard agricultural building which will not look out of place in the landscape. Whilst the house is highly visible from most directions, the barn will be darker in finish and thus less visible. Environmental Impact 6.4 The building is some distance from the ASSI and within an existing curtilage. There is no evidence that the building is in a sensitive are or would have any adverse impact on the environment. CONCLUSION 7.1 Whilst there is concern about the justification for the size of the building, the advice from the professional officer in the Department indicates that the size of the building is reasonable for the agricultural activities proposed, and as such, it is considered that the building complies with General Policy 3, Environment Policies 1 and 15 and the application is supported. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material. 8.2 The decision maker must determine:

54

o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

55

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 18th May 2020

Item 5.7 Proposal : Erection of first floor extension to provide additional sport and

leisure facilities (amendment to PA 17/01183/B) Site Address : Peel Football Club

Douglas Road Peel Isle Of Man IM5 1LJ

Applicant : The Tommy Clucas Memorial Fund Application No. : Principal Planner :

20/00221/B- click to view 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. At times between 0830hrs and 1700hrs on days when the QEII School is open to pupils and on Sundays between 0930hrsand 1300hrs, the first floor accommodation hereby approved may not be used at the same time as the existing sportshall or football pitch on the site, other than for spectating or other purpose associated with the use of the existing sportshall and football pitch on the site, except when the sportshall or first floor accommodation hereby approved is in use in association with school which uses QEII School for parking. Reason: to ensure that there is sufficient safe and convenient car parking available to all users of the site. The QEII car parking areas which is used as overflow parking for the site is not available during these times. Schools using the hall will use no parking on the site, either walking or travelling by bus to the site. C 3. The roof must be finished dark grey or black roof tiles. Reason: to enable the building to sit comfortably in its context. N 1. The applicant is encouraged to ensure that the use of the additional facilities hereby approved does not lead to an increase in unlawful or inappropriate parking, through information provided to users of the facility as to where they should park and also the management of the various facilities on the site, to ensure that if all are used at the same time, there is sufficient parking for all. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) The development accords with General Policy 2 and paragraph 10.2.1 of the Strategic Plan.

______________________________________________________________

56

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

None

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THERE IS AN OBJECTION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of the Peel FC which incorporates the Tommy Clucas community facility and including the sports field and the clubhouse. The Tommy Clucas facility is a community hall which can accommodate sports and recreation as well as sports coaching and children's parties and was built under 12/00325/B and approval granted for an extension under 17/01183/B. The hall sits alongside the football clubhouse although the two facilities are inter-accessible. 1.2 Photographs are provided on the website of the existing site which illustrate the visibility of the existing building, particularly the gable, from the main road. What is visible is what looks like a flat roofed building with the pitched roof of the seating area visible to the right. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is an extension of the building, similar to that approved in 2017, incorporating a pitched roof instead of a flat roof and minor alterations to the layout including the incorporation of a wheelchair platform lift. The most visible profile - the north east - can be seen on plan 33 ("A2 Proposed Elevations and Sections Pitched Roof.pdf" on the website). 2.2 The approved scheme saw the extension having a flat roof and flat roofed link which all sat below the ridge height of the main sportshall. What is proposed takes the clubhouse roof 2.5m higher than that of the sportshall and 3m higher than the link which is now proposed to have a pitched roof. The new roof will be finished in Marley Modern tiles of an unspecified colour. 2.3 The supporting information explains that they would like to have some soft play facilities for pre-school children but such that this is aside from the sports hall facilities so that the former does not have to be cleared away to enable the latter to go ahead. Also, the astroturf is unsuitable for children's play unless covered. Having additional facilities for the classroom part of any coaching would also be useful. An additional clubroom facility would be useful so that it can be used when the football clubroom is already being used. 2.4 Western Vikings RUFC and Valkyrs Hockey Club use the adjacent school pitches but not their changing facilities and would like a clubroom but the Peel FC one is often already used. Better use of the sportshall could be made if there were dedicated refreshment facilities and a sitting area would enable parents and carers to watch their children whilst not actively taking part in any of the activities. 2.5 The additional floor area is not expected to generate any additional users who would need parking other than the targeted additional daytime use when there is adequate parking available. Overspill at weekends takes place in the adjacent school car park. They also note that the site is on a well served bus route. 2.6 The roof tiles chosen will be able to withstand being hit by a football which can happen. Whilst the pitched roof option is being proposed, whether the applicant can afford it is

57

another matter and if and when this application is approved, both the flat and pitched roof options will be put out to tender to see which is affordable. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated as Football Ground on the Peel Local Plan of 1998. 3.2 As such, the following parts of the Strategic Plan are relevant: General Policy 2: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape and (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality " (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 and (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them." 3.3 "10.2 Sport and Recreation 10.2.1 The Sport and Recreation Strategy 2002-2012 - "Planning for Sport" sets out a vision for the continued development and growth of sport on the Island and the benefits that this will bring. The Island is fortunate in that over the recent years a network of sporting facilities has been provided across the Island. The Sport and Recreation Strategy envisages improving on these both in terms of sport development and, as appropriate, new facilities." PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The most relevant previous decisions are referred to in section 1 above. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Peel Town Commissioners oppose the application on the basis that there is insufficient car parking associated with the existing or proposed facilities and it relies upon QEII School for parking when it is not in use. This was raised as an objection to 17/01183/B (16.04.20). 5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services have no objection (10.03.20). ASSESSMENT 6.1 Many of the issues resulting from this application - the impact on highway safety and car parking and the principle of extending the building - were dealt with in the 2017 application. A note was attached to that approval as follows, following concerns about the impact on car parking and highway safety: "The applicant is encouraged to ensure that the use of the additional facilities hereby approved does not lead to an increase in unlawful or inappropriate parking, through information provided to users of the facility as to where they should park and also the management of the various facilities on the site, to ensure that if all are used at the same time, there is sufficient parking for all." The following condition was also attached:

58

"At times between 0830hrs and 1700hrs on days when the QEII School is open to pupils and on Sundays between 0930hrsand 1300hrs, the first floor accommodation hereby approved may not be used at the same time as the existing sportshall or football pitch on the site, other than for spectating or other purpose associated with the use of the existing sportshall and football pitch on the site, except when the sportshall or first floor accommodation hereby approved is in use in association with school which uses QEII School for parking. Reason: to ensure that there is sufficient safe and convenient car parking available to all users of the site. The QEII car parking areas which is used as overflow parking for the site is not available during these times. Schools using the hall will use no parking on the site, either walking or travelling by bus to the site." 6.2 The latest application will essentially provide the same development in terms of use and floorspace. 6.3 The appearance of the extension is much better than that of the 2017 application inasmuch as it will now have a pitched, tiled roof. This is to be encouraged. 6.4 Whilst Peel Town Commissioners have adopted the same stance as they did with the previous application, no additional information or evidence has been produced and as such, it would be unjustifiably inconsistent to come to a different conclusion than was reached in the case of that earlier application. No appeal was sought in respect of that approval. CONCLUSION 7.1 The use of the school and the football club do sometimes result in vehicles being parked on the highway adjacent to the site. This is not unlawful as there are no restrictions on on-highway parking in this areas. The scheme remains unchanged from that approved in 2017 other than the elevational treatment which is improved on the previous scheme. As such, the application is considered to accord with the relevant Strategic Plan policies and the application is supported demonstrating consistency with the earlier decision. A condition should be attached to require that the roof tiles are a dark grey or black colour to minimise the visual impact. 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 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

59

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 18th May 2020

Item 5.8 Proposal : Installation of illuminated signage Site Address : Boathouse Cafe

Mooragh Park Ramsey Isle Of Man IM8 3AP

Applicant : Conrod Limited Application No. : Principal Planner :

20/00356/D- click to view Mr Chris Balmer

RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application

______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions C 1. The advertisement(s) hereby granted consent shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice. Reason: To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented advertisement consents. This application has been recommended for approval for the following reasons(s) The proposed development is considered to comply with the relevant policies of the Strategic Plan - General Policies 2, 6 and 7.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT RECOMMENDED FOR AN APPROVAL 1.0 SITE 1.1 The application site is the Boathouse Café at the southern side of Mooragh Park, Ramsey. The café is adjacent to and below the level of North Shore Road, overlooking Mooragh Lake. The building is single storey, with painted render and a part hipped, part flat roof. There is a tower feature at the western corner which also features a hipped roof. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the installation of signage. Two of which are illuminated by downlights. These are located on the tower section of the buildings. The remainder of the signs are not illuminated, these include outside barriers and two small signs to the entrance of the building. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There is no planning history materially relevant to this application.

60

4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The application site is in an area designated in the Ramsey Local Plan 1998 as Public Open Space. 4.2 The Control of Advertisements Regulations 2013 make it clear that the only considerations which can be applied to applications made under them are in the interests of amenity and public safety. In the case of amenity, such things as the general characteristics of the area need to be taken into account along with the presence of any features of historic, architectural, cultural or similar interest and the public safety should consider the safety of any person using a road, railway, tramway, harbour or aerodrome including the obscuration of any traffic sign or similar. 4.3 Due to the designation of the site and the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider the following polices of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016: 4.3.1 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; 4.3.2 General Policy 6 states: ‘Within our towns and villages, the display of external advertisements will be permitted on the site or building to which they relate provided they: (a) are of a high standard of design and materials and relate well to the building and site on which they are to be displayed; (b) are in keeping with and do not detract from the surrounding area; and (c) are located so as not to cause a highway safety hazard’. 4.3.3 General Policy 7 states: ‘Within our towns and villages, the display of external advertisements on sites or buildings other than those to which they relate will not generally be permitted’. 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Ramsey Town Commissioners have no objections to the application (20.04.2020). 5.2 Head of Health and Safety comments (07.04.2020): "There are no concerns with this application in terms of its infringement/proximity to a hazardous installation, the installation has now been decommissioned. The mapping is due to be updated to remove this site from the constraints layers." 5.3 DOI Highway Services comment (29.04.20): "The proposal is acceptable in highway terms with the proposed signage unlikely to cause a distraction. The illuminated sign should meet brightness standard on being lit by a down light. Accordingly, Highway Services DNO" (do not oppose). 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issue to be considered in the assessment of this application is the impact of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the individual property and street scene. 6.2 It is considered that the proposed signage would not result in a harmful impact on the existing building, when considered in its context. The materials of the proposed signage that

61

would be used and the descriptions and design of the signage would relate well to the buildings use as a cafe. 6.4 The installation of the proposed signage is judged to be in keeping with the surrounding area and would therefore not result in a harmful impact on the character of Mooragh Park/North Shore Road. The siting of the proposed signage is not deemed to cause a highway safety hazard. 6.5 Overall, it is concluded that the planning application is in accordance with General Policies 2, 6 and 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 On the basis that the proposed development is considered to comply with the relevant policies of the Strategic Plan, a recommendation of approval is made. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2013 (As Amended), the following persons are automatically interested persons: • The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant’s agent; • Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material; • The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. • the Highways, Ports and Railways divisions of the Department of Infrastructure. 8.2 The decision maker must determine: • whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than those explicitly listed above) are material; and • whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status.