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, 27th July 2020, 10.00am, in the Ground Floor Meeting Room of Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas 1. Introduction by the Chairman 2. Apologies for absence

3. Minutes To give consideration to the minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 13th July 2020. 4. Any matters arising 4.1 Minutes from 13th July 2020 To note that the IP Status for Item 5.26 had been erroneously recorded in the Minutes as - “No representations were received from anyone whom the Planning Committee was required to consider for the affording of Interested Person Status” whereas it should have been recorded as - “The members considered the late contribution from the IOM Natural Historical and Antiquarian Society and agreed not be granted interested person status as they do not comply with the requirements of the Operational Policy on IPS and are not mentioned in paragraph 4(2) of the Procedure Order 2019.” with the Minutes to be amended accordingly. 5. To consider and determine Planning Applications Schedule attached as Appendix One. 6. Site Visits To agree dates for site visits if necessary. 7. Section 13 Agreements To note those applications where Section 13 Agreements have been concluded in the period 6th July 2020 to 20th July 2020 8. Any other business 9. Next meeting of the Planning Committee Set for 10th August 2020.

2

Appendix One PLANNING COMMITTEE Meeting, 27th July 2020

Schedule of planning applications

Item 5.1 Sewage Works Breeze Hill Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7DL PA20/00082/B Recommendation : Permitted

Erection of replacement sewage treatment works with associated landscaping and bridge for vehicle access

Item 5.2 Cranleigh Ville Glen Road Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7AB PA19/00243/B Recommendation : Refused

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of three dwellings with associated works and access (in association with (19/00244/CON)

Item 5.3 Cranleigh Ville Glen Road Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7AB PA19/00244/CON Recommendation : Permitted

Registered Building consent for the demolition elements relating the application 19/00243/B

Item 5.4 Ballagarey Nurseries Greeba Avenue Glen Vine Isle Of Man IM4 4ED PA19/01396/B Recommendation : Permitted

Erection of seven detached dwellings with integral garages including access roads, drainage and landscaping

Item 5.5 Skeddan Veg Fort Island Road Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TZ PA20/00514/B Recommendation : Permitted

Erection of a detached replacement dwelling with integral garage

Item 5.6 Field 425318 & 424873 Friary Farm Main Road Ballabeg Castletown Isle Of Man PA20/00553/B Recommendation : Permitted

Erection of an agricultural workers dwelling with associated vehicular access

Item 5.7 17 - 21 Market Street Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 2PA PA20/00427/B Recommendation : Permitted

Conversion of office (class 2.1) / commercial building involving door / window alterations, installation of glazed entrance frontage, lift shaft and roof lights to create a health and wellbeing centre (class 4.3) for people over 50 years old

3

Item 5.8 Home Of Rest For Old Horses Cafe Bulrhenny Richmond Hill Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 1JH PA20/00526/B Recommendation : Permitted

Erection of extension to cafe with associated ramp access

Item 5.9 Technical Site The Old Airfield Braust Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 4JB PA20/00544/B Recommendation : Permitted

Erection of welfare unit and toilet block (retrospective)

4

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 27th July 2020

Item 5.1 Proposal : Erection of replacement sewage treatment works with

associated landscaping and bridge for vehicle access Site Address : Sewage Works

Breeze Hill Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7DL

Applicant : Manx Utilities Authority Application No. : Principal Planner :

20/00082/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 mitigation works defined in the Invasive Plant Eradication Technical Note dated April, 2020 and Common Lizard Mitigation Strategy dated May 2020 must be implemented in full. Reason: to ensure compliance with Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan. C 3. Prior to the commencement of any work on the construction of the proposed bridge, the applicant must have approved by the Department a scheme for the prevention of increased flood risk to the south side of the bridge (boat park) and Riversend and Croit-e-Vey and the development must be undertaken in full accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: to ensure that no properties experience increased risk of flooding from the proposed works. C 4. The hours of construction for the proposed facility hereby approved shall be no earlier than 0730hrs in any day and no later than 1800hrs in any day and where ground pile drilling for civil engineering purposes is to be undertaken, this may not be earlier than 0900hrs or later than 1700hrs. Reason: to protect the living conditions of those close to the site. C 5. Prior to the commencement of any building work on site or in connection with the proposed bridge, the applicant will conduct full building condition surveys on adjacent properties along the length of Minorca Hill, Tent Road and Old Laxey Hill where the property owners provide the necessary access, during the construction phase of the project, before and after the project to address any issues which may arise with the surveys copied free of charge to any residents to request them.

5

Reason: to mitigate any impact of structural damage from the implementation of the proposed development. C 6. Prior to the operation of the facility as proposed, a planting schedule for all of the areas of proposed landscaping, include species and size of plants together with a maintenance schedule for the subsequent five years, must be approved by the Department and the development undertaken in full compliance with these details. Reason: to ensure that the development has a satisfactory visual and environmental impact on the area. C 7. The development hereby approved shall only be lit in emergencies or during maintenance works other than the low level lighting posts as shown in the application. Reason: To avoid light pollution C 8. No temporary bridge may be constructed until such times as the details including the materials, appearance, position and timing of its introduction and removal - thereof have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these details. Reason: no details of the temporary bridge have been provided within the application. Reason for approval: On balance, the proposal, which accords with the Tynwald approved Regional Sewage Treatment Strategy and which will enable the bay to accord with European legislation, and which is not considered to have so great an impact on the surrounding area and its residents to justify a refusal, is considered worthy of support and is recommended for approval subject to conditions which have been referred to in the report

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations: Manx Utilities Director of Public Health 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): Riversend Chalet Laxey Laundry, Glen Road Old Ballachrink Farm, Breeze Hill 1, Victoria Terrace, Glen Road Burnside, Minorca Hill Cranford, Breeze Hill Spring Villa, Glen Road Harbourside Cottages, Tent Road Sandhurst Cottage, Minorca Hill Harbour House, Tent Road

6

La Mona Lisa Restaurant, Glen Road The Old Bakery, Tent Road 2, Rosedene Cottages, Glen Road Cumbrae, Ramsey Road Ballaclague House, Baldrine - owners of Woodside, Breeze Hill The Granary, Ramsey Road Ard Finwork, Ramsey Road Baytrees, Lower Cronk Orry Langley House, Ramsey Road Stanleyville, Minorca Hill 3, Chapel Terrace Corley Rock, South Cape Shore Hotel Brew Pub Ballannette, Baldrine - responsible for the St. Nicholas Chapel and Burial Ground Nyn Ayrn, Old Laxey Hill Bwaane Beg, Quarry Road Gull Cottage, Minorca Hill Cooryn Varrey, Pinfold Hill Glen Cairn, Tent Road St. Jude's Lodge, Old Laxey Hill Bridge Cottage, Minorca Hill The Rowans, Minorca Hill Cushag, Shore Road Grenaby, Fairy Cottage Beach Cottage, Back Shore Road Harbour View, Back Shore Road St. Nicholas House, Breeze Hill Sycamore Cottage, Glen Road Ballacollister Grange Thie ny Dreeym, Ballacollister Road 44, Ard Reayrt Strooanville House, Fairy Cottage Lewin's Cottage and The Shed 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 4(2): Ballacallum, Ballaragh Road Clarum, Ballaragh Garden House, Clay Head Road, Lonan South Grawe Farm 8, Parsonage Road, Ramsey 2, The Wharfside, Peel Kerrowdhoon, Maughold Green Oak, Clay Head Road Baldrine Manor, Baldrine The Mount, South Cape Thie my Chree, Old Laxey Hill Ballacoan, Glen Roy Westdene, Croit-e-Quill Road Mouette, Clay Head Road

7

The Spinney, Baldrine 9, Victoria Park, Douglas Moose Lodge, Clay Head Road, Baldrine Ellan Vannin, Baldrine Grawe, Laxey 1, Hillary Close, Onchan The Wonder House, Maughold 5, Croit-e-Quill Close 2160 NE 53rd Street, USA 128 New Cross Road, London 67, Kingstone Avenue, West Sussex Thie ny Mara, Glen Road 2, Glen View Sea Peep and Glebe Cottage, Maughold the Laxey rate payer who did not provide an 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 THE DEVELOPMENT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN ADDITION TO THE SCALE OF REPRESENTATIONS OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSAL INCLUDING THOSE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND AS THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL THE SITE 1.1 The site is a parcel of land which lies on the northern side of Laxey Harbour and incorporating a section of space above the river linking the site with the southern side of the harbour - Tent Road. The main part of the site abuts Breeze Hill on its western boundary but also running alongside a number of residential curtilages, those of Thie yn Droghad, Riversend Chalet and Croit e Vey between the site and the harbour; Cranford and Ballachrink Cottage to the north and the access on the southern side of the river/harbour sits alongside Old Harbour House. 1.2 The site currently accommodates three holiday chalets and a larger timber unit. There is also a sewage holding tank located underground at the south eastern corner of the site. 1.3 The site is relatively flat closest to the harbour before rising sharply at the north and eastern sides in the form of treed and vegetated brooghs. 1.4 A public footpath runs through the site PROW 359 and the Raad ny Foillan long distance footpath runs up Breeze Hill, past the site. PROW 359 runs from the Raad ny Foillan, east across the site, up steps and then branches into two directions, one back to the Raad ny Foillan just above Old Ballachrink Farm and the other path leading east across the headland. THE PROPOSAL 2.1Current disposal 2.1.1 Proposed is the development of the site to provide a sewage treatment facility which will serve Laxey and the surrounding area which sits uphill from the village. The current situation regarding sewage treatment is that there is an outfall tidal sewage treatment holding tank built in 1912 on the application site which collects raw sewage and discharges the same to sea via an 18 inch cast iron outfall 120m to the east side of and beyond the harbour breakwater. The

8

existing system is combined or partially combined surface and foul water from the catchment area. 2.1.2 Currently, during storm events a significant amount of surface water is included in the foul flows to the holding tank. The flow quantity is roughly equal from north and south of the river. Much of the system is fed by gravity although there is a small private pumping station on the southern side of the catchment and a publicly maintained one on the northern extent of the network. 2.2 The proposed development 2.2.1 In order to meet the European Bathing Water Quality Directive 2006, a full treatment process is required which will achieve discharge consent parameters of Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) of 40mg/l and Suspended Solids (SS) of 60mg/l. Storm flows will be attenuated for a minimum of 1 in 30 year storm events and will be screened to 6mm and treated with ultraviolet radiation (UV) before being discharged via the existing outfall. 2.2.2 The facility will incorporate two Integrated Rotating Biological Contractor Units (IRBCs) to treat the sewage, an underground pumping station with storage tank for storm storage and to lift flows to the new IRBCs, an inlet works and control building for screening and distribution of flows and housing an odour control plant, a UV treatment building to treat storm flows along with new roads within the site, drainage, kiosks, landscaping and a new bridge over the Laxey River across the harbour to provide site access, the existing access onto Breeze Hill being retained but not used for access to the new stw. 2.2.3 The existing chalet building on the site will remain. The applicant has not yet decided for what purpose this will be used and would welcome suggestions from the public on what this could be used for. 2.2.4 The site will involve engineering to create a larger flat area, excavating part of the lower slopes of the northern part of the site and removing five trees, one where the proposed IRBCs are to be located and the others further towards the entrance to the harbour to facilitate the provision of the UV building. 2.2.5 The structures on the site will include two IRBCs which are each 4.2m wide and 27m long and which sit 3.15m above ground level, the lower 1.3m being surrounded by exposed aggregate walling and the upper part having guard railings around the angled dome shaped roof which is finished in green sheeting. The IRBCs will be screened by a 3.6m high stone wall which wraps around the southern side of the southern IRBC. 2.2.6 The inlet screen building will sit to the west of the IRBCs. This building is L shaped with the longest length being just over 18m and the longest width being 8.8m. The building 3.8m to the eaves and 5.35m to the ridge. The roof will be finished in slate and the walls in traditional hand built stonework. This will be visible from the other side of the harbour. 2.2.7 The UV building is a hipped roofed building whose finish materials are not specified on the plans but is inferred that they will be slate and stone. The internal floor area is raised above ground level by 0.85m and the overall eaves height above ground is 4.2m and the ridge level 6.2m above ground level. A small chimney sits on the northern pitch. The northern and eastern elevations have no windows or doors and the southern elevation has two large doors within it. A low stone wall will be built in front of the building which will not screen it and the majority of the southern elevation will be visible from the other side of the harbour. 2.2.8 The bridge will rise to a surface level which is 0.75m higher than the level of the boatyard and dropping down to 0.4 lower to the level of the site. The sides of the bridge are simple stone walls up to 2.5m above the level of the bottom of the bridge. A temporary bridge is shown on the Proposed Overall Site Layout drawings (C0506 P5) although no specific details are provided

9

of this other than it being described as a "Mitchell" bridge or similar which is a simple metal route used for temporary access (one was used in Peel whilst the Mill Road bridge was reconstructed). 2.3 Alternative sites 2.3.1 A number of other sites were considered in 2008 before the application site was selected as the most appropriate. The initial 40 were reduced to 35 then 23 having regard to available space, accessibility, infrastructure, zoning, ecological and conservation constraints and landscape designations. The Dalrymple further review of this concluded that four areas remained, comprising ten individual sites. These areas were South Laxey Promenade, Central Laxey Promenade, Old Glen Mill and behind the Shore Hotel. The follow on review of the Dalrymple report undertaken by Manx Utilities concluded that the clusters at the Old Mill and behind the Shore Hotel were not viable due to developments in the intervening years and also due to the footprint required for an IRBC works. The Laxey Promenade were then discounted due to consequential interference with the car parking facilities and more recent redevelopment of the café and it was considered that the development would have a detrimental impact on the use of these areas, removing tourist facilities here and this area would involve substantial pipe-laying from the existing sewer network on the northern side of the harbour and Minorca Hill under the river and across the promenade to link into the proposed works. They considered that a similarly expensive pipe-laying exercise would be needed to pass the treated effluent back under the river and into the existing outfall which was a lesser cost option than installing a completely new one. This process thus concluded that the cluster which included the old café at the southern end of the promenade and adjacent land, the current sewage storage tank area and the land adjacent to the holiday chalets, as the preferred option. Subsequent to this, this end of the promenade has become very popular due to the opening of the new café here and also the old café site has experienced significant land slides and for these reasons this area was removed from the list of viable sites. Of the remaining sites in Cluster A, the original storage tank option was not large enough to accommodate anything other than the most basic and crude form of treatment facility which would not have satisfied the water bathing directive and this then required more land alongside and the combination of the chalet site and the former storage tank site was considered to be the best option. 2.3.2 The final reviewed facility options looked at five options: the application site, a site at Everlasting Bends (to the north of the application site, alongside the A2), the basketball court site on Glen Road, the alternative of pumping sewage to Onchan or to the Baldrine STW. 2.3.3 The Everlasting Bends site was dismissed as it would necessitate an additional intermediate pumping station compared with the application site, and a substantially larger pumping facility at the application site. Two new junctions and access roads would be needed to serve the facility and operational costs would also be higher due to the additional pumping station, power demand and further location of the outfall compared with the application site. 2.3.4 The basketball court site on Glen Road would still involve screening and storm storage, storm flow UV treatment and odour control plant at the application site along with a greater pumping distance and therefore higher operational costs. This would also necessitate the closure of Glen Road for 2-3 months whilst the pipes were laid and shorter closures of Breeze Hill, the bridge and the bottom of Minorca Hill: due to the size of the pipes, a full road closure would be needed and power would need to be brought from the other end of Glen Road with additional interruption of traffic flow over the road to be excavated. 2.3.5 The option of pumping to Onchan would involve using the application site for storage, UV treatment of storm flows and a pumping station together with three additional pumping stations en route to Onchan and a pumping main with distances of 100m vertically and 8.5km horizontally. There is a risk of septicity in the flow due to summer flows being relatively low and as such chemical dosing will be required. Road closures will be required to lay the pipework as at least some of the route will be in the highway.

10

2.3.6 Pumping to Baldrine too involves screening, storm storage and UV treatment at the application site but the cost of pipework would be approximately half of that to pump to Onchan but would involve some of the same road closures (Old Laxey Hill and the A2) but as well with closures along Clay Head Road. Both options for pumping to other settlements involve higher operational costs compared with the application site. 2.3.7 They consider that the local environmental, health and safety impacts of all five options are similar but in terms of a total lifetime cost and qualitative assessment perspective, the application site is the preferred site and options which require pumping involve far higher operational costs over the life of the project due to the substantially increased power requirements. The applicant believes that the application site option can be satisfactorily screened and "will have minimal impact on the day to day life of Laxey residents". Visual screening of the Everlasting bends site would be less successful due to the exposed hillside location. Whilst the basketball court site on Glen Road could be screened more successfully, it would involve the removal of a recreation facility with little hope of finding an alternative of equal or better quality (Recreation Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan). They anticipate this option meeting with "significant opposition" from members of the public as the area has been developed for primarily recreational purposes. They conclude that the option with the least impacts to local residents and the environment is that relating to the application site. Further studies 2.3.8 Separate to the 2008 study, Manx Utilities commissioned an independent review of the Regional Sewage Treatment Strategy for the Laxey area and recommended that it was their preference to construct a sewage treatment works and discharge to a new or extended and refurbished sea outfall (subject to further investigation and design). The requirement for this independent review was a recommendation by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in their report on 'The Renewal of the Island's infrastructure for the Collection and Treatment of Sewage (IRIS) 1991 to 2007'. It is also a requirement of the 'Procedure Notes for the Management of Construction Projects' which form a part of the Government procedures set out in the document 'Isle of Man Government Financial Regulations'. 1.2 This report provides an Independent Review of the strategy adopted by Manx Utilities for delivery of Phase 2 of their capital programme to provide sewage collection and treatment for the Island's sewage effluent. This capital programme is known as the Regional Sewage Treatment Strategy (RSTS) Phase 2. 2.3.9 The purpose of this report was not to assess the various sites for their suitability to accommodate a new stw but to review the more general approach of regional or central treatment. The report refers to the application site as follows: "6.13 It was reported to the IPT meeting of the 9 November 2016 that Laxey Commissioners were made aware that the existing chalet site at the harbour (known locally as 'The Cairns') was being offered for sale. Since this is the location of the existing marine discharge point (and collection point for the Laxey sewerage network), Manx Utilities began the process of purchasing the site for their potential future use. 6.14 I understand purchase of the site was completed on or around the 2 October 2017. 6.15 There has not been any further cost comparison exercises undertaken since the submission of the Business Case report in 2009. With the purchase of The Cairns last October, there has been a presumption that development of a sewage treatment works at this location will be the most economically viable option for sewage treatment of the Laxey catchment." "10.49 The recent acquisition of the additional land at 'The Cairns' in Laxey harbour has provided a genuine and realistic option for the provision of a local sewage treatment works in Laxey. The location, from a drainage perspective, is perfectly optimised being at the terminus of the existing Laxey sewerage network and upstream of the existing storage tank (to be replaced) and the existing outfall (to be inspected and assessed).

11

10.50 Operational vehicles already attend this location and, aside from potential short-term issues associated with construction traffic (which might be capable of mitigation by the use of sea transport) will not have a deleterious impact on the harbour operation. 10.51 In order to secure a planning consent for the proposed treatment works site it is possible that elements of the process may need to be accommodated within an aesthetically designed building sympathetic to the surrounding harbour, although conversely the building may be capable of making a design statement which would be a welcome addition to the waterfront at Laxey. 10.52 There is of course always the risk that planning consent is not secured for the construction of a treatment works site at The Cairns. If this was the case and given the work on investigating other potential sites within Laxey which has previously been undertaken by Dalrymple's and others, it seems unlikely that planning consent would be any easier to obtain elsewhere within Laxey. 10.53 Consequently under such a circumstance it has to be assumed that the fall-back situation is likely to be the transfer of flows to the Queens Promenade Pumping Station in Douglas and onward transmission to Meary Veg STW." "10.56 Within the context of a financial consideration (only), my recommendation for Laxey is: Recommendation R3(a) If planning consent is secured for The Cairns the preferred solution is to construct the sewage treatment works here and discharge to a new (or extended and refurbished) sea outfall (subject to further investigation and design development). Recommendation R3(b) If planning consent is not secured for The Cairns the solution to transfer flows to Meary Veg STW remains available. However in view of the significant CAPEX and OPEX costs associated with this option, coupled by the deleterious effect on the downstream hydraulic capacity in the Douglas catchment (or the prospect of even higher CAPEX and OPEX costs to address these issues), it is recommended that other potential treatments sites closer to Laxey are investigated." 2.4 Access 2.4.1 A trial was undertaken to see how tankers would cope with the existing access from Breeze Hill. Even using the smallest tanker, this risked damaging residential property opposite and there was difficulty with the pinch point on Breeze Hill. As such, a new bridge is proposed over the Laxey River landing on the southern side of the harbour. This will also allow access to the northern bank of the river where compensatory boat spaces could be provided to make up for those lost where the bridge joins the harbour. They advise that the public were consulted on the design and appearance of the bridge and what was preferred was as is proposed in the application. 2.4.2 They clarify that the vehicles to use the site will be a 3,000 gallon tanker with steering rear axle to service the weekday sludge removal. This is 1.5m shorter than the single deck bus which uses Minorca Hill and would follow that route. Potential closures of Minorca Hill or a small number of days' inclement weather could be accommodated at the site with a catch up operated in the subsequent days when the tanker can access the site. Once weekly visits by a smaller vehicle will occur for the removal of screenings. Two or three times a year a larger, 8 wheel Vactor vehicle will need to visit the site to remove debris build up in the storm tank. This also has a steering rear axle and is 0.43m longer than the bus but has been successfully used at more restrictive sites than the application site. They note the existing traffic calming measures already on Minorca Hill and that the construction workers would come to the site between 0730 - 080-0hrs and leave between 1600-1800hrs and construction traffic would avoid peak periods and school collection and drop off points. Within the site there would be a single direction route.

12

2.4.3 Part of the proposal involves the permanent diversion of the existing footpath which crosses the site, moving it to the southern boundary of the site, skirting around the proposed buildings and returning up to meet the existing route to the east of Croit-e-Vey and running to the north of this, Riversend Chalet and Thie ny Droghad to meet Breeze Hill. 2.5 Marine Water Quality 2.5.1 The sewage from the Laxey catchment area is currently discharged untreated to the coast: during wet weather storm conditions sewage is also discharged directly to the Laxey River from a combined storm overflow located near Laxey Bridge. The applicant has undertaken a detailed coastal dispersion modelling assessment to assess the potential impact of the proposed scheme on the bathing water quality at Laxey and Garwick beaches: it is expected that an improvement in coastal water quality will result. 2.6 Noise and Vibration 2.6.1 S noise and vibration assessment was undertaken that determined that due to the relatively low noise climate of the area allowable construction noise limits calculated using the ABC method defined in BS5228 would indicate an onset of a potentially significant daytime effect at 65dBA for construction works which will be addressed in the Construction Environmental Management Plan. A detailed BS4142 assessment identified no potential adverse noise impacts at the nearest sensitive receptors as a result of the operation of the proposed plant and equipment. The EIA advises that noise and vibration would be considered during the detailed design and construction of the development to ensure they are suitably controlled. 2.7 Odour 2.7.1 The application explains that the facility will include odour control units to ensure minimal odour is generated from the site. A detailed model has been used which revealed that the operation will affect the nearest receptor sites slightly or negligibly in terms of changes of odour and the odour effects are therefore considered to be not significant in accordance with the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM 2018) guidance. Continual monitoring will be undertaken throughout the life of the facility. Any odour releases during maintenance such as tank desludging where enclosures would need to be opened for the health and safety of operators and maintenance staff would be short term and temporary. The design basis of the odour control has taken into account abnormal conditions beyond what can reasonably be anticipated which may disrupt the biological treatment processes, however, it is expected that such event and any resulting odour, would be only occasional and short-term in duration. 2.8 Ecology 2.8.1 The application states that desktop and field surveys have been undertaken to assess the potential impacts on ecology and nature conservation including consultation and data assessed from Manx Birdlife, the Manx Government, Manx Wildlife Trust, the marine officer in DEFA and Manx Biological Recording Partnership. 2.8.2 They report that the woodlands to the north of the site are of regional value due to their rarity on the Island and the proposed development will have some impact on them due to direct loss of buffer vegetation and increased exposure of trees to the marine environment. They report that the Laxey River is of county level importance and must be protected from indirect pollution impacts from construction and operational impacts through the design of the scheme. They consider that there will be no significant impacts predicted regarding protected species due to the footprint of the scheme which retains the habitat of primary importance for reptiles and birds - i.e. in the adjacent woodland and the careful timing of the site clearance works. They advise that actions from the ecological enhancement and management plan for this retained habitat would be key in ensuring that the sewage treatment works has an overall positive ecological impact. 2.9 Landscape

13

2.9.1 The application acknowledges that the site lies within a Conservation Area which is of high national landscape value and the proposed development would have some landscape and visual impact on the site due to its prominence and location within the local harbour setting. They consider that due to its high sensitivity there would be some significant impacts, particularly during construction however, it is not considered that there would be any detrimental loss of existing features within the site as the existing buildings are not considered to be sympathetic to the local Conservation Area and the new development would provide an opportunity for constructing buildings and walls that are in character with the local area. 2.9.2 They consider that the woodlands to the north of the site fall within the Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance and the proposed development would have some impacts on that with the loss of some vegetation however, the majority of this woodland will be retained and protected during construction and it is not considered that the development would have a detrimental impact on the adjacent landscape character of the Area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance nor the coastal area due to the position and use of materials in the proposed new structures. 2.9.3 They advise that the existing public right of way will remain in situ with the same connectivity to the village. They suggest that by year 15 following the establishment of the planting the majority of significant visual impacts identified mainly in relation to receptors close to the site and with direct views into the site would be reduced. 2.10 Cultural Heritage and Archaeology 2.10.1 They advise that no heritage asset was found within the site boundaries but note that the site lies within the Conservation Area of the village and the Laxey Pipe Factory would be affected as there are views of the site from these assets and the site forms part of their settings. Mitigation would be incorporated into the design of the site to include some screening and the new bridge would be designed to be sympathetic with the other assets either too far away or screened from view by landform, buildings or existing vegetation. 2.10.2 They suggest that the site could have been one which was a focus for human activity due to its position and that archaeological remains may exist on the site. Consultation with Manx National Heritage has confirmed that a watching brief at a minimum should be undertaken including any work done to any major sewage pipe tranches in accordance with the requirements of the Strategic Plan. 2.11 Community 2.11.1 Manx Utilities will liaise with the local community to reduce the impact of the construction phase and during this there will be short term impacts to the harbour and boat parking in terms of loss of boat park spaces and changes to the amenity of the area. There may be periods of closure of the footpath as it crosses the site during construction. They suggest that the character of the area through which the footpath runs will change however, they consider that with the proposed reinstatement and repair of the path at the eastern end the development will offer positive benefits. The provision of the bridge will provide positive amenity benefits to the area and a new service boat parking area will also be provided at the north west of the new bridge. There will be a marginal increase in the traffic using Minorca Hill and Old Laxey Hill to access the site but in their view road congestion and loss of amenity due to HGVs will have negligible impacts and no significant impacts on the local labour market or economy are anticipated. 2.12 Marine Water Quality and Ecology 2.12.1 The applicant considers that the proposal would bring about a betterment to the existing conditions for the proposed Marine Nature Reserve and for both Laxey and Garwick bathing waters. 2.13 Ground Conditions and Hydrology

14

2.13.1 The applicant explains that they have obtained background information to determine the history of the site, former and current land uses, geological and hydrological setting and environmental sensitivity. They undertook an intrusive ground investigation and a conceptual model was developed of the potential contaminant linkages. Due to shallow ground water dewatering may be required and care needs to be taken to remove any asbestos in the roofing of the chalets to be demolished. 2.14 Traffic Assessment 2.14.1 The assessment concluded that the development will generate no significant residual transport related impacts on the local highway network and surrounding area for both operational and construction activities, supported by the implementation of integral mitigation to facilitate all additional transport related movements. 2.15 Lighting 2.15.1 The applicant confirms that there will be no permanent high level street lighting during the hours of darkness anywhere on the site and the bridge will not be illuminated to facilitate fish migration: access on the bridge will usually be restricted to daylight hours. 2.15.2 Low level lighting posts have been included around the IRBCs to assist in safe access in the event of an emergency. These are positioned below the level of the site walls so will not be visible except to someone standing by the entrance gate and will not normally be illuminated. If necessary, portable lights could also be used in an emergency event. Lighting diagrams are provided. 2.16 Flood Risk 2.16.1 An initial high level Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has been carried out which indicates that the south east corner of the existing site is susceptible to fluvial and tidal flooding on extreme 1 in 200 year tidal events and to a lesser extent, fluvial flooding for 1 in 100 year events. To counter this, the finished ground level of the site will be 5.2m AD02 - 200mm above the maximum predicted fluvial level plus 30% for climate change. The IRBC floor level, the Inlet Works Building and the UV Building thresholds are all above the level reached during extreme tidal events water levels. 2.16.2 The raising of the ground levels by approximately 1m in the se corner of the site may result in slight displacement of some flood plain area, however the impact of this is considered to be negligible. 2.16.3 The FRA identified a potential surface water flow path down Breeze Hill and through the western side of the site before discharging into the river. The proposal incorporates a new surface water sewer to pick up these flows and will discharge them downstream of the existing weir structure at the end of the river. This will reduce flood risk for Breeze Hill and the site. 2.16.4 The proposed bridge will result in increased predicted flooding within the boat yard and in the area of Riversend and Croit e Vey chalets for more extreme fluvial and tidal events. The increase in water level is anticipated to be dealt with as part of the Laxey Flood Alleviation Scheme that is currently underway and if this scheme has not progressed prior to the start of the construction of the application development then stand alone flood protection of any impacted properties will be undertaken before the proposed bridge construction commences. 2.16.5 The bridge has been designed to ensure access and gradients to the existing boat park are maintained to the satisfaction of the Harbour Master. In the rare event that water levels in extreme tidal events exceed the soffit level of the new bridge, the bridge will be closed and all access to the site will be via Breeze Hill. 2.17 Waste

15

2.17.1 A site waste management plan will be formulated for the demolition of the chalets and the construction of the facility with the majority of the soil and concrete waste to be removed can be recycled on site. Appropriate surveys for asbestos in the existing buildings, will be carried out and in all respects the contractor will adhere to the Waste Strategy 2018 and Waste Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan. 2.17.2 Operational waste from the screening process will be combined into the Meary Veg recycling process from where it will go to the Energy From Waste Plant. Sludge collections will be incorporated into the Meary Veg operation where it is dried, pelletised and then burned at the EfWP. 2.18 Consultation 2.18.1 A series of meeting were held with the local authority, the public, the Planning Directorate, the Harbour Master and Fisheries Directorate of DEFA. 2.19 Further submissions 2.19.1 Further information was received on 21.05.20 and 01.06.20 to address issues which have been raised. This information takes the form of: Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy Services Report on Invasive Plant Eradication Technical Note Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy Services Report on Common Lizard Mitigation Strategy Manx Utilities Reply to technical queries raised at a Garff Commissioner Public Meeting held 3rd March, 2020 concerning the proposed Laxey Sewage Treatment Works - Planning Application 20/00082/B and Manx Utilities Assessment of comments made by respondents to Planning Application 20/00082/B - the proposed Laxey Sewage Treatment Works 2.20.1 Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy Services Report on Invasive Plant Eradication Technical Note 2.20.2 This considers the Three Cornered Leek, Hybrid Bluebell, Himalayan Balsam, Alexanders, Montbretia and Hottentot Fig all of which are Schedule 8 species and their location on the site have been identified. The report identifies methods of eradication - largely digging out to an appropriate distance and incineration or deep burial, being left to wilt and die on site with monitoring for 1-3 years afterward to ensure no re-establishment. 2.21 Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy Services Report on Common Lizard Mitigation Strategy 2.21.1 This acknowledges the existence of a breeding population of lizard on the site and note that whilst the proposed gabion baskets would offer effective habitat, this is prone to flooding and poorly connected to the higher value habitat on the embankment. They consider the population on the site to be relatively small due to the limited available habitat about the base of the embankment. The risk to lizard habitat is the encroachment of the works and construction activity into the base of the embankment and increase shade post-development. 2.21.2 They have identified a receptor site in the existing south facing embankment along the northern third of the site as the most appropriate and this is shown in the original proposed site plan 10019771-ARC-XX-XX-DR-C-0506 P5 and this area must be enhanced prior to the translocation of any animals, the enhancement being the reduction of shade casting trees by 25% by removing, coppicing and crown reduction of existing trees and this will consider any DEFA licensing and legal constraints in terms of protected fauna (bats, birds and lizards). Also this enhancement will include the creation of a woodland ride (a cleared pathway) in the south east corner of the woodland through to optimal lizard habitat to the north east of the site and the creation of a single artificial hibernaculum with accompanying larger stones or logs for basking sites in proximity to be located on the woodland edge of the embankment and an example of how this could be formed is provided in the document. They suggest that existing site materials (cobbles, boulders and rubble) could potentially be recycled to form part of the structure. In terms of the removal of further trees, the applicant has confirmed by e-mail dated

16

15.06.20 that they have no intention of removing any further trees beyond those which are shown on the plans. In addition, they suggest that it may be possible to retain some of the trees adjacent to the footpath up the side of the embankment although this cannot be definitively established until it is reviewed on site in conjunction with DEFA and the applicant's arborist when the project civil engineer contractor is appointed. They include with the e-mail an update from the Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy which confirms that the reduction in canopy recommended in their report could be achieved through crown reduction and coppicing, not tree removal. They also clarify that the "woodland ride" is proposed to create habitat connectivity to the extensive lizard habitat to the east and this may have impacts on slope stability and would need to consider the existing ecological value of the trees involved and again would be achieved through crown thinning and coppicing and not tree removal. This is not an immediate requirement for enhancement but should be considered as part of the longer term management of the area. 2.21.3 The report advises that in order to maintain favourable conditions for common lizard, post development site vegetation management for the receptor site needs to be built into the on-going site management plans, existing grassland should be cut in the non-active season (November to January) on a three year rotation (one third cut each year) and the areas around the hibernaculum maintaining an element of cover for Spring emergence. The current extent of bramble scrub should be retained for sheltering habitat but the cutting regime should be used to control any further encroachment into the more open habitat: all on-going site management must be detailed in a Site Environmental Management Plan and at least 5 years of post-development monitoring of the receptor site agreed to establish the success of the translocation and inform any changes in management required involving a walked transect and daytime observation including a seasonal spread of spring emergence, breeding and late season migration toward hibernacula. 2.21.4 Once the receptor site is ready site clearance must be undertaken to render the site as clear of risk to lizards as is reasonably practical and site clearance should be undertaken as follows: On warm, sunny days (ambient 10 degrees or higher) a destructive search of all suitable refuges including the gabion baskets, should be undertaken to allow any sheltering lizards to disperse into neighbouring cover. Dismantles refuges should be removed from site or in suitable receptacle in accordance with RAMS and upon completion of the above vegetation clearance can commence, undertaken in a south to north direction starting at the river edge to encourage animals out of the impact zone into the receptor site. After 48 hours of good weather which will allow animals to relocate into the receptor site, a reptile proof barrier should be erected along the entire southern boundary of the receptor site, shown in the document, to prevent lizards returning to the operational footprint of the development. The existing hard standing will prevent the site being fully fenced to exclude lizards but their re-entry along the river or from the entrance is unlikely once vegetation has been suitable cleared and site operations commence. Then, using artificial refugia (0.5 sq m of corrugated bituminous material) a trapping programme must be undertaken to relocate any animals remaining in the site interior to the receptor site and this must be undertaken in accordance with best practice and they refer to two UK documents. 2.21.5 An ecological clerk of works must be appointed to oversee site operations and ensure necessary compliance and implementation of the mitigation strategy. 2.21.6 Reasonable Avoidance Measures (RAMs) for Common Lizard are identified in Appendix IV of the report. 2.22 Manx Utilities Reply to technical queries raised at a Garff Commissioners Public Meeting held 3rd March, 2020 concerning the proposed Laxey Sewage Treatment Works - Planning Application 20/00082/B

17

2.22.1 They identify a series of questions which were raised at a public meeting as follows: There needs to be an assessment of the effect on properties on Minorca Hill and Tent/Shore Road of vehicle movements including the weight and size of the vehicles. Whether pathogens were released into the atmosphere by RIBCs or any other ancillary equipment after research had been seen that this would be the case and the effects on this need to be assessment on public health in the facility. A member of Tynwald asked that Manx Utilities report on situations in the UK where the geographical/topographical situation was similar to Laxey and how sewerage was dealt with there - the consultant from JBA stated that he would provide examples from Cornwall and the Severn Valley. 2.22.2 The presentation given to residents in 2018 and information provided within the application confirm the operating situation explained above in 2.15 and DoI have advised that they do not consider the potential damage likely to be caused to the road surface by the proposed vehicles to be any worse than that caused by a bus. 2.22.3 The applicant will conduct full building condition surveys on adjacent properties along the length of Minorca Hill, Tent Road and Old Laxey Hill during the construction phase of the project, before and after the project to address any issues which may arise with the surveys copied free of charge to any residents to request them. 2.22.4 In respect of the query about atmospheric odour pathogen release by the IRBCs, the applicant advises that where odours are released from IRBC sewage treatment works, they are mostly composed of hydrogen sulphide (bad eggs smell), Armines and Mercaptans (like a cabbage smell) which are given off by bacteria involved in the sewage process. The odour does not contain any pathogens or bacteria. The odour control units contain a blend of different activated carbon medias which are designed to remove the odorous compounds by way of chemisorption (a chemical reaction which binds the odorous compound to the media).They refer to studies which have found a link between close proximity of a sewage treatment works and increased levels of gastroenteritis as a result of the exposed open-tank treatment processes employed by the works assessed in the studies. The process here is fully covered and does not produce any aerosol due to the slow moving nature of the treatment process. Manx Utilities have 18 stws on the Island and 70 pumping stations, 24 of which have odour control equipment: there have been no known health issues related to any of these facilities. 2.22.5 They provide IRBC locations in the UK where the situation is similar to Laxey: these are Slatpon stw in Devon, St. Just in Cornwall, Croyde in Cornwall, Lynmouth in Devon, Edale in Derbyshire, Booilushag in the Isle of Man, Langar cum Barnstone in Nottingham, Upper Sapey Worcester, Port Lewaigue in the Isle of Man, Kirk Michael in the Isle of Man, Keisale cum Carlton in Suffolk, Trewern in Welshpool with photographs and basic information for each and other sites in the Isle of Man - Patrick, Glen Mona, Glen Maye, Dalby. And 2.26 Manx Utilities Assessment of comments made by respondents to Planning Application 20/00082/B - the proposed Laxey Sewage Treatment Works 2.26.1 They confirm that the proposal will replace the existing storage tank on the site and is thus a replacement facility. 2.26.2 In respect of disruption to property access via the boat park, the applicant confirms that full liaison and coordination with local residents will take place before work is commenced in order to minimise inconvenience and disruption to adjacent residents: work in the boat park for the bridge approach slopes and abutments will be preceded by any necessary work required to

18

improve the flood defences at the periphery of the area that may be required to allow the work on the bridge to commence. 2.26.3 In respect of children's safety in the boat park during the construction phases, the applicant advises that the appointed Civil Engineer contractor will ensure that the site perimeter and working areas are secured at all times and the contractor and Manx Utilities will be working with local schools to brief staff and pupils on the dangers of construction sites. 2.26.4 The applicant advises that they will work with local businesses, residents and Commissioners to keep them informed on planned activities and working areas and any major traffic movements during construction in order to minimise any disruption to their activities. 2.26.5 In terms of access difficulties on Tent Road, the applicant advises that where practicable plant and material may be arranged via landing craft, barges or other marine equipment that may be available or procured for these purposes by the contractor. Other larger articulated vehicles will be escorted to the site at times designed to minimise any impact on local traffic. Operational tanker movements will be set to run outside school opening, closing and lunch times where possible. 2.26.6 Where it has been suggested that the works will not enhance the sensitive Conservation Area, the applicant advises that the scheme has been designed to match other former commercial natural stone buildings on the opposite side of the river and will disguise the function of the facility so that to the casual observer it will appear to be a group of simple, traditionally styled buildings linked by a boundary wall and faced with plenty of trees and shrubs. They suggest that the proposed bridge will have natural stone facings and has been designed following local resident feedback to have a recognisable resemblance to an old traditional stone bridge of the type traditionally associated with Laxey. They add that the bridge will provide a short cut for pedestrians to the Cairn footpath which will cut down time taken to cross from one side of the harbour to the far side lighthouse by around ten minutes. 2.26.7 Whilst there have been concerns expressed about privacy, the applicant notes that the site will not normally be manned and even during major maintenance operations which may happen every 5-10 years, operating staff will not be any higher than a commercial vehicle cab. They advise that vehicles transiting Minorca Hill are no higher than a single decker bus so similarly will not create any problems with privacy not already addressed by the proximity to public highways. Week day tanker movements will involve operators at ground or cab level and should not result in any issues of overlooking or loss of privacy. 2.26.8 In respect of concerns about flooding, the applicant advises that the flood mitigation and prevention measures for the boat park and the Cairn site will be constructed prior to the construction of the site and access bridge. A new surface water culvert will be provided from Breeze Hill into the river to reduce flood risk to properties on the Cairn and Breeze Hill which currently occurs whether or not the proposed development is implemented. Flood mitigation measures will also be created along the boat park boundary to similarly reduce the risk of flooding in these areas and to fully offset any minor local flow diversion effects created by the bridge approach slopes and the slope of the boat park down to the river wall edge upstream of the existing slipway may also be enhanced. These details will form part of the flood defence project for the area which is currently underway. 2.26.9 In terms of perceived risk of flooding from the proposed bridge the applicant confirms that it has been designed following extensive analysis by one of the UK's foremost flood risk consultancies who have undertaken critical analysis of many locations throughout the UK and further afield. Based upon this work the width and elevation of the bridge has been set to take full account of 100 year plus 30% plus global warming effects of fluvial flow. Tidal effects on a 200 year likelihood return indicate that the approaches to the bridge will be partly submerged but this is not considered problematic as the site does not require permanent access and the

19

inner harbour would be closed during such incidents. The bridge height has been set following detailed assessment of extreme fluvial events. 2.26.10 In terms of the risk of pollution from the site flooding, the applicant advises that the IRBCs are above affected level and the facility will continue to operate even if the area surrounding the site were under water. The new storm tank will present a lower risk of local storm spillage than the existing due to its larger capacity and the provision of new pumps will enable it to be emptied more quickly. 2.26.11 The applicant acknowledges that the site is shown on flood maps as being susceptible to flooding - surface water and fluvial flooding but as stated above, the structures have been designed, positioned and levels set so as to be able to operate even if the area surrounding the site were submerged. The Independent Laxey Flooding Report will be published and any works proposed in that to the boat park will be incorporated into the development. They explain that the wall proposed on the development is not intended to resist flooding but is to mitigate the visual impact of the proposed structures 2.26.12 In terms of damage to Minorca Hill and adjacent properties, the applicant advises that they have consulted DoI about potential damage and they recommend that the use of vehicles with road friendly pneumatic suspensions present no additional risk to that of buses using the same route. AS noted previously, surveys will be undertaken post and pre construction. 2.26.13 In terms of noise, operational vehicles are not noisy and comply with all IOM commercial vehicle silencing requirements. Sludge suction activities on the site would not normally exceed 65Dba at the site boundary during normal working hours and any operational maintenance which may result in operational noise will not be undertaken without prior notice to adjacent residents. The applicant accepts that during the construction there is likely to be increased noise on the site but this will be controlled to occur within normal site working hours - 0730 - 1800 Monday to Friday and 0730 - 1300 on Saturdays with no working on Sundays or outside these hours unless the work is connected with activities where they can only be undertaken under certain tidal conditions and in these conditions, residents will generally be informed by the contractor at least 24 hours in advance. Any noise from piling will be reduced through the use of the type of drill which rotates to cut rather than hammering which results in a more constant type and actions will be taken on the site to further mitigate this by immersive suppression or local sound absorption features built around the drill head or at the site boundary. 2.26.14 Dirt and dust will be suppressed using normal water sprays and where there is a risk of vehicles dropping mud on the road, vehicle wash down stations will be provided on the site exits to ensure that this is minimised. Where necessary road sweepers will be employed during the day. 2.26.15 They advise that all vehicle movements will comply with local licensing, weight and operational restrictions and will be timed to be outside school opening, closing and lunchtimes. 2.26.16 The impact of construction vehicles will be mitigated by, where possible, the utilisation of seaborne transportation of larger items of plant or construction materials. 2.26.17 In terms of the impact on the footpath the applicant accepts that the footpath will be formally changed and signed, the surface improved. The location of the buildings has been chosen to be limited to the easternmost part of the site as far from Breeze Hill as possible and as stated previously, they consider that the design and landscaping will result in something that looks to the casual observer as a series of stone walls and slate roofed buildings as the only discernible things.

20

2.26.18 They consider that careful specification and operation of the site and odour control facilities should mean that the site is not noticed by the public and will not affect the pubs and restaurants and cafes along Glen Road, Tent Road and the Promenade and there will be a shorted, improved pedestrian route to the headland overlooking the harbour and the site will be shielded by considerate and extensive planting which will mature on the site over time behind the works. 2.26.19 They consider that the provision of an environmentally considerate and effective sewage treatment system integrated into the existing infrastructure ensures that the disruption to Laxey residents is minimised and the odour control measures should mean that the site is not noticed by the public. Whilst they cannot guarantee that no smell will ever be detectable the works will include an odour control facility which means that effectively no smell will emanate from the site under normal conditions. The odour control system is based upon a negative air pressure system which extracts the air from the facility and passes it through an odour control package - typically a large activated carbon media vessel. The air is then released from a chimney stack from the plant, the discharge ducts to this will be equipped with sensors for hydrogen sulphide and will alert the operator and control staff to the degradation of the filter media which may require replacement. Normally through the maintenance regime at the facility will mean that the media will have been replaced before the reduction of the efficacy of the media is apparent. Whilst reference has been made to the Balladoole site which experiences issues of odour, the applicant advises that that site has no odour control facility as this was not considered necessary at the time of the development of that site. 2.26.20 The UV treatment allows the facility to fully meet the 2006 EU Water Bathing Directive and it is not required to be operated outside the bathing season. The IRBC treatment is effective and allows the effluent to meet the discharge licence granted by DEFA. UV is a tertiary process to remove any remaining bacteria from storm effluent during the bathing season. The UV system is sufficiently powerful to be able to treat storm flows - this technology is in use elsewhere and has been demonstrated to be effective in storm conditions. The operating conditions and required effluent quality is independently set by environmental considerations that are detailed in the Discharge Licence issued by DEFA and the site will be operated to meet those requirements. They consider that the effluent discharged from IRBCs is as clean as from the Meary Veg treatment works and in some cases is a higher standard. 2.26.21 The railway has been suggested as the most appropriate means for the laying of pipes but is not considered appropriate by the applicant and the pump away option is not the selected one for reasons set out in the Supplementary Information document. 2.26.22 It has been suggested that a document - "Impact on the Quality of Life When Living Close to a Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant" - confirms that pathogens will be released from the plant has been considered by the applicant and they advise that the site which was the subject of that study was 50 times the size of what is proposed in Laxey and utilised a different system which used uncovered tanks aerating the sewage for treatment and the conclusions of that report are therefore not applicable to the present proposal. A second paper, "Impact of a Sewage Treatment Plant on the Health of Local Residents" presented an analysis of residents in the vicinity of a mechanical-biological plant featuring an activated sludge treatment process with a mechanical section of the plant which lacked clarifiers and bioreactors which is also incomparable with what is proposed at Laxey. 2.26.23 They confirm that the proposed process will not emit odourless carcinogens and the process is not anaerobic so will not release hydrogen sulphide. 2.26.24 They consider the application will enhance the Biosphere and the Harbour ecosystem by removing the presence of raw sewage from the discharge pipe. They advise that there is no known risk to public health from the closed IRBC process and no part of the plant will be to the detriment of public health. There will be no contamination effects on the land as a result of the

21

proposal and all sewage stored on the site will be in sealed concrete tanks and pipelines are similarly sealed. No materials from the process are allowed to contact the surrounding ground area. Screenings are removed in movable bulk containers and sludge is held within the IRBC units until removed by tanker. 2.26.25 The applicant confirms that they have undertaken a risk analysis of the project but that it is not included in the application. Whilst the proposal will not address the issues at Garwick, this is considered to be a separate issue and not necessary to be dealt with in this application. 2.26.26 They confirm that the site of the treatment works is the same size as that discussed at the public meeting although the area for the bridge is now included. 2.26.27 Whilst there are concerns that a second bridge will not look right so close to the existing one, the applicant suggests that there are frequent examples in locations such as Scotland and the Lake District of road bridges close together. 2.26.28 Whilst there is a suggestion that Laxey has been treated inequitably compared with other parts of the Island, the applicant states that Laxey has been afforded a full, fair, reasonable and impartial assessment in direct comparison with Ramsey, Peel, Port St, Mary, Port Erin, Castletown and Douglas. They also suggest that this comment fails to understand the unique position of Laxey as being the only town in the Island built along a very steeply sided valley where the entire sewerage infrastructure has been constructed since the late 1890s within that valley. They consider that with these constraints the proposed works provide a practical, economically viable and sustainable solution for the future without burdening future generations with significant operating costs. 2.26.29 They explain that all operational costs have been based upon the direct generational cost of 6p per kWh which is substantially in favour of the pump-away option: if the full retail price per kWh were applied (17p) this would almost triple the operating cost for the pump-away system. They have discounted the land purchase costs in all of the site considerations, if they had been included they would have considerably added to the pump away option. Manx Utilities advise that they are obliged to present what is believes is the most economical, sustainable and deliverable solution rather than just the cheapest solution. 2.26.30 They confirm that the site will not be used for the storage of any other items amongst other reasons, as it is not large enough to accommodate this and the access and manoeuvring space required for the tanker. 2.26.31 In respect of other types of solution in other places, the applicant suggests that the IRBC solution is recommended for this location and the proposed location is the existing confluence of the entire main piped sewage system for the Laxey valley. They suggest that to locate the facility elsewhere will still require a storm storage tank, screens, UV facility, storm outfall and larger pumping station to be located at the Cairn. This would still require sludge removal and screening service vehicles and will be the equivalent construction for the current proposal less the IRBCs but with a large pumping station in addition. 2.26.32 They do not consider that the works will adversely affect any third party's ability to insure their assets and they consider that the location and operation of the facility should not prejudice the enjoyment and use of adjacent lands. They are not in a position to discuss any alteration in property values as a result of the proposal 2.26.33 They consider the increase in CO2 emissions from the single daily tanker movements to be insignificant and in the future electric vehicles will become the norm. 2.26.34 Extending the sea outfall to further disperse raw sewage would be technically feasible but a very costly operation which would potentially contravene the EU's Urban Waste Water

22

Treatment Directive and not be in line with the provision of secondary sewage treatment processes (planned) for the other Isle of Man catchments and would also adversely affect the Biosphere status as it does not remove untreated sewage but simply disperses it. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Laxey and Lonan Area Plan 3.1.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan as Tourism and Leisure and on the draft Area Plan for the East as Tourism. The site is also within the Laxey Conservation Area. The site lies within a risk zone for both tidal and flooding on maps published by Manx Utilities and detailed flood risk investigations reveal that the site is at risk of fluvial, surface and groundwater flooding. The accompanying Written Statement for the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan identifies the site as one for potential tourism development, suggesting that the site would benefit from a landscaping scheme and some further thought in terms of new or re-development. It then states that this site will only be considered suitable for bona fide tourist use and not one which is or could be used for other purposes. It states that the site is very prominent and important in the context of the harbour. It also notes that the site may be susceptible to flooding and that it may have interest for nature conservation but that development will involve the laying of a new foul sewer direct from the site to the holding tank at the head of the outfall sewer with separate surface water sewers. 3.1.2 The Plan also recommends (paragraph 3.4) that positive consideration is given to the redevelopment of the Lower Cairn site for tourist purposes and the control of harbour-related operations such that these do not compromise the amenities of tourists whilst bearing in mind that the harbour is a working harbour for fishing and pleasure craft. 3.1.3 Paragraph 3.10 states, "The chalets in the village are situation on the other side of the harbour in an area which is generally seen as part of the brooghs or rough lower reaches of the headland. Development here would not generally be permitted as this contributes greatly in its natural form to the amenities of the harbour which is a popular place for locals and tourists to visit. As such, whilst the Department may be prepared to accept development which would support the tourist industry in this part of the village and where this re-introduces public access to the site, it would not accept that this is a site where permanent residential accommodation or other non-tourist use or development could be undertaken." 3.1.4 The local plan contains a number of policies which could be considered relevant to the current application: L/TRT/PR/2 SITES IDENTIFIED FOR TOURISM "…On this basis, the land which has as part of this area been designated for purposes of tourism has been properly considered as being appropriate only for these purposes and as such should be retained for purposes associated with tourism and not released for other uses". L/TRT/PR/1 - LAXEY HARBOUR "Encouragement will be given to proposals for the enhancement of Laxey Harbour such that this is more attractive to visiting vessels and tourist-related activities: this should not however be at the expense of resident and local boat-related activity." L/TRT/PR/8 - LOWER CAIRN SITE "3.24 THIS SITE IS CONSIDERED SUITABLE ONLY FOR PURPOSES RELATED TO TOURISM AND WHERE DEVELOPMENT IS CONFINED TO THE WESTERN PART OF THE SITE WITH THE REMAINDER APPROPRIATELY LANDSCAPED AND WITH PUBLIC ACCESS THERETO. NEW BUILT STRUCTURES MUST BE DESIGNED TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF THE PROMINENT AND NATURAL CHARACTER OF THE SITE. PERMANENT ACCOMMODATION WILL OT BE APPROVED ON THIS SITE IN ANY FORM." L/HR/P2/3

23

"8.7 NO DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROVED WHERE THIS WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE APPEARANCE OR QUALITY OF THE RIVERS WITHIN THE AREA OR THE WILDLIFE WHICH THE RIVERS SUPPORT. CLOSE CONSULTATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FORESTRY SHOULD BE UNDERTAKEN TO PROTECT THE INTERITY AND QUALITY OF THE WATER AND THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT AS THE AUTHORITY FOR THE ISLAND'S RIVERS. ATTENTION SHOULD ALSO BE PAID TO THE MEANS OF DISAPOSAL OF SURFACE WATER SUCH THAT OVERLOADING OF SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE AREAS DOES NOT OCCUR AND DOES NOT AFFECT THE AREA'S WATER COURSES." L/OSNC/PR/6 - LOSS OF TREES "11.21 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FELLING OF TREES PLANTED FOR COMMERICAL PURPOSES, THERE WILL BE A GENERAL PRESUMPTION AGAINST THE REMOVAL OF TREES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA INCLUDING INSTANCES WHERE THIS IS PROPOSED IN ORDER TO FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT." "12.1 Laxey currently suffers from an aged and substandard sewerage infrastructure which experiences infiltration by surface water (which reduces overall capacity) and which is not presently, in the case of the Glen Road sewer, capable of accepting any more effluent." "12.4 There has been concern expressed regarding the condition of Laxey beach and pollution thereof. This may be due to a number of factors including windblown litter, flotsam and jetsam from commercial shipping and pleasure craft, litter from activities on the beach, possible pollution of rivers and watercourses from farming and commercial/industrial activity as well as pollution from sewage discharges via the sea outfall. The resolution of the problem of pollution of the beach and the bay therefore falls with various sources including the implementation of the IRIS scheme enforcement of DAFF, DTI, local authority and DLGE legislation". 3.1.5 The draft Area Plan for the East makes no site specific comments on the application site. 3.2 Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 3.2.1 The Strategic Plan has a number of policies which are relevant to this application: Strategic Aim: To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage. Strategic Policy 1: Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services. Strategic Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3. Strategic Policy 3: Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by: (a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character. Strategic Policy 4: Proposals for development must: (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings(1), Conservation Areas(2) , buildings and

24

structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest; (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance. Strategic Policy 5: New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies. Spatial Policy 5: New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3. Whilst the site is not designated for the proposed use, it is relevant to consider the provisions of General Policy 2 which should be applied to all development, regardless of its location in respect of land use zoning: General Policy 2: Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (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. General Policy 3: Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);

25

(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. Environment Policy 3: Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value. Environment Policy 4: Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect: (a) species and habitats of international importance: (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites. (b) species and habitats of national importance: (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats; (1) Wildlife Sites are defined in Appendix 1 41 (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or (iv) National Trust Land. (c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats. Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward. Environment Policy 7: Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria: (a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality; (b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted; (c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and (d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species. Environment Policy 10: Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any

26

application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4. Environment Policy 11: Coastal development will only be permitted where it would not: i) increase or transfer the risk of flooding or coastal erosion through its impact on natural coastal processes; ii) prejudice the capacity of the coast to form a natural sea defence; and iii) increase the need for additional coast protection works except where necessary to protect existing investment or development. Environment Policy 13: Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted. Environment Policy 22: Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of: i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater; ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution. Environment Policy 23: When considering alterations and improvements to existing facilities the Department will require that consideration be given to the potential adverse impact of the proposed changes to existing neighbours. Environment Policy 24: Development which is likely to have a significant effect on the environment will be required: i) to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment in certain cases; and ii) to be accompanied by suitable supporting environmental information in all other cases. Environment Policy 24: Pollution-sensitive development will only be allowed to be located close to sources of pollution where appropriate measures can be taken to safeguard amenity. Environment Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development. Transport Policy 4: The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan. Transport Policy 6: In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users. Transport Policy 8: The Department will require all applications for major development to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment. Transport Policy 13: Development in or around harbours should neither compromise the ability of the harbour to accommodate other commercial or recreational users in a viable manner, nor be detrimental to the character of those harbours of historic interest. Transport Policy 14: Any proposed schemes likely to impact upon the ecology and/or archaeology of a harbour or the nearby coastline should be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment.

27

Waste Policy 1: Waste management installations, including landfill sites, civic amenity sites and facilities for the bulking up, separation, recycling, or recovery or materials from waste will be permitted provided that: (a) there is an acknowledged need for the proposal in accordance with the approved Waste Management Strategy; (b) there is no unacceptable adverse impact on local residents in terms of visual amenity, dust, noise, or vibration or as a result of the traffic generated thereby; (c) there would be no unacceptable adverse effect on: i. landscapes, geology/geomorphology and features of special interest or attraction; ii. Ancient Monuments or their settings; iii. Registered Buildings or their settings, or features of architectural importance; iv. the character and appearance of Conservation Areas; v. sites of archaeological interest; vi. sites containing species or habitats of international, national or local importance; vii. land drainage and water resources; viii. areas of woodland or the Island's timber resources; or ix. designated National Heritage Areas. (d) the proposal is acceptable in terms of access arrangements and highway safety; (e) in the case of landfill sites working shall be in accordance with a phased scheme of restoration and landscaping; (f) the proposal does not sterilize other significant mineral deposits; and that (g) the proposal will not have an unacceptable adverse impact on airport safety by, for example, increasing the risk of bird strike. Landfill will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that there is no alternative method for managing that waste. An application involving the installations or facilities referred to in this Policy will require the submission of an Environmental Impact Assessment. 3.2.2 The Strategic Plan also contains Appendices on Floor Risk Assessments and Environmental Impact Assessments both of which conclude that the application should be accompanied by a FRA and an EIA. 3.3 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man requires that development proposals within a Conservation Area are determined whilst having regard to the special characteristics of the Area. 3.4 A significant flooding event occurred in Laxey in October, 2019 although the application site was not flooded as a result of the issues further upstream. As a result an independent review (the Arup Report the Cabinet Office report for which is undated) was established which has reached the following conclusions: RECOMMENDATION 1 We recommend greater priority is given to preparing to deal with flood risks and flood resilience The Isle of Man Government should ensure that greater attention is given to the preparing for and dealing with flood risk than has occurred previously. Potential floods impact directly on over 10% of the Island's population, 4000 properties and a have a forecast of £900m potential flood damages over the present century. The cumulative flood impacts will also change as the effects of climate change are realised and because of increases in population and economic development. RECOMMENDATION 2 We recommend that the governance of flood risk management across the Island should be reviewed. This should include: o appropriate exercise of supervisory duties under the Flood Risk Management Act 2013; o the Duties and responsibilities for flood risk across MUA, DoI and DEFA;

28

o the consideration of a Committee/Board to help establish and monitor the effectiveness of flood risk management plans and practices whose members are recruited to reflect different interests and the aspiration of the population. RECOMMENDATION 3 We recommend that the current provision of resourcing for flood risk management is reviewed. This would best be undertaken in parallel with any governance changes (in Recommendation 2 above): o It should include the adequacy of budgetary provision to meet the duties of the Flood Risk Management Act 2013 and other guidance notes and to promote good flood risk management practices. o It should also look at staff resourcing arrangements in terms of fragmentation across departments and the balance of knowledge and understanding which is currently held within commercial organisations. o It should consider greater clarity of responsibility to all on how the provisions of the Flood Risk Management Act 2013 should be discharged. RECOMMENDATION 4 We recommend greater urgency in delivering the National Strategy on Sea Defences, Flooding and Coastal Erosion 2016. o We recommend that more senior and high-level scrutiny is assigned to oversee delivery of the Strategy. Perhaps with the Flood and Coastal Action Group (FCAG) being the officer working group seeking consent for its progress and plans from the Committee/Board suggested in Recommendation 2. o We recommend that the national strategy should be renewed and refreshed for appropriateness at timely intervals. At a frequency of no more than every 10 years would be wise for a substantial update, and perhaps with a lighter review once every 5 years. For example, the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) is regularly publishing new guidance with the next Assessment Report due in 2022 and similarly the strategy needs to consider changes in climate impacts and accord with the social and economic needs of the Island. RECOMMENDATION 7 We recommend that closer attention is given to addressing the risks of potential debris blockage to vulnerable zones across the Isle of Man. The Environment Agency Blockage Management Guide, published in November 2019, describes what we consider to be good flood risk management practice. In summary we recommend: o Identifying all the glens and river valleys where there is a potential for debris blockages to trigger significant flood impacts. o Identify and resolve specific features of the watercourse system in these zones to reduce the risks of snagging and catching significant volumes of woody debris. o Establishing a regular routine of inspecting and dealing with potential causes of flood blockage. o That a sense of balance and proportionality in approach is achieved which minimises the risk of future flooding but also does not destroy the natural beauty and ecology of the glens. RECOMMENDATION 8 We recommend closer attention is given to instances of surface water flooding on people and property, and that the MUA should exercise their supervisory duties under the FRM Act in 2013 this respect. MUA should encourage DoI and other organisations and landowners to take actions which the authority deems reasonable and proportionate. Other recommendations were made in respect of flood insurance, communication and responsibility for enforcement. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site has been the subject of applications for alterations and extensions of the chalets there and 10/01463/B proposed fencing alongside the footpath and was permitted. REPRESENTATIONS Local authority

29

5.1.1 Garff Commissioners ask for a further period of time to consider the application on 19.02.20 and 24.02.20. On 26.03.20 they indicate that they have requested further information from the applicant regarding an assessment of the properties on Minorca Hill and Tent and Shore Roads of the vehicle movements, further information on other, similar facilities in the UK and further comment on the release of pathogens into the atmosphere. They feel unable to comment on the application until this information has been provided. They also express concern over the inability for there to be gatherings of people to attend the Commissioners' meetings to hear this matter to be discussed, due to CV19. 5.1.2 Garff Commissioners submit further comments having had the opportunity to meet and discuss the application, on 16.07.20. They recommend that the application is refused as they consider the size, scope, layout and density of the development would be overbearing and visually intrusive on the harbour area and beyond, that there is no guarantee that there will not be an odour nuisance, that there are traffic issues and loss of amenity for local residents and the proposed bridge could represent a flood hazard with the site itself prone to flooding which in turn could result in highly noxious substances being released into the sea/harbour - all considering that the site is within the Conservation Area and of the highest value in terms of tourist/visitor/residential amenity and that the CA status of the site reflects the unique nature of the surrounding landscaping, riverscape and harbourscape. Members felt that the development would have a generally detrimental impact on the unique nature of the area and would be at odds with the backdrop of the headland and heritage aspects of the built environmental dating back centuries when Laxey had importance for industry and mining. Whilst noting that the impact could be mitigated by the stone walls and planting as viewed from Tent Road, the impact from the headland above which could not be mitigated. They are of the view that no development should be be permitted here and that the proposals were "contrary to key aspects of policy in such documents as the Strategic Plan etc". Whilst they agree that there is a need to cease the emission of untreated sewage into the sea but the argument of over-riding national need can only be accepted if all other options have been appropriately and effectively considered. They are of the view that other options should be considered and that this site should only be considered as a last resort. 5.2 Highway Services have not commented at the time of writing. 5.3 DEFA Environment Directorate confirm that they have already been in discussion with the applicant regarding the discharge licence application and note that the works have been designed to achieve "excellent" bathing water status under the effluent standards which will be implemented for the 2021 bathing water season as agreed by Tynwald in 2019. This application is therefore an improvement on the current situation where raw sewage is discharged into the marine environment which increases bacteria loading and may cause bathing water failures during the monitored season. They confirm that Inland Fisheries have engaged in discussions with the applicant regarding the mitigation of any effect on fish populations and providing that lighting of the bridge and banksides avoids light spill onto the river no permanent, detrimental impact on fish populations is envisaged. Whilst there is potential for the construction phase of the bridge to impact on fish migration and habitat, the applicant has provided assurances that contractors' method statements would be agreed with Fisheries prior to the commencement of works. Inland Fisheries require that the approval of method statements including timing, be made a condition of planning approval should it be granted. Ecosystems Policy Office require a number of mitigation plans in respect of protected species and Reasonable Avoidance Measures (RAMS), information on the eradication of Schedule 8 species and the appointment of an Ecological Clerk of Works for the duration of the pre-construction and construction phases. Finally, they wish to advise the applicant of the provisions of the Wildlife Act in respect of the protection of breeding and nesting birds (20.03.20).

30

5.4 Manx Utilities were specifically approached to comment on the flood risk implications of the proposal. They advised on 06.04.20 that they have no comment however the Flood Risk Team have been working closely with the project team for the sewerage treatment works in Laxey. We have reviewed all flood risk assessments, modelling analysis around the proposed new bridge and proposed mitigation strategies. 5.5 DEFA Assistant Arboricultural Officer confirms that the one willow, three sycamores and one birch show poor form for their species and there is no objection to this. They note that the remaining trees are situated on a steep bank to the north and no activity is proposed in this area and to see that no unforeseen root or tree damage happens, he would recommend that a tree protection plan that shows a definitive Construction Exclusion Zone (CEZ) (14.02.20). 5.6 Manx National Heritage were contacted for their comments on 26.03.20 but no comments have been received. 5.7 The Director of Public Health was contacted for her views which were as follows: "As Director of Public Health I would not expect to be a consultee on planning applications for sewage/waste water treatment plants since these are required to operate within a legal and regulatory framework to ensure that they do not pose a threat to public health. From the information submitted, I cannot identify any factors that would create a particular concern in respect of this application. I have however copied in Ian Mansell to cover the Environmental Health aspects. The particular query about enteric pathogens and aerosol generation has been appropriately covered in the MUA response document" (29.06.20). 5.8 Local residents 5.8.1 A significant number of residents who live in Laxey and Lonan and some further afield, have commented on the application and these contributors and their representations are summarised below. Where there are multiple comments from the same address on the same date, the date has not been repeated but the comments included in the summary: 5.8.2 Comments received from occupants of property within Laxey who have indicated how they would be affected by the proposal: Riversend Chalet (07.02.20) Laxey Laundry, Glen Road (18.02.20) Old Ballachrink Farm, Breeze Hill (25.02.20, 26.02.20, 16.03.20, 12.07.20) 1, Victoria Terrace, Glen Road (25.02.20) Burnside, Minorca Hill (25.02.20, 26.02.20) Cranford, Breeze Hill (25.02.20) Spring Villa, Glen Road (25.02.20) Harbourside Cottages, Tent Road (25.02.20, 26,02.20) Sandhurst Cottage, Minorca Hill (26.02.20) Harbour House, Tent Road (26.02.20, 27.02.20) La Mona Lisa Restaurant, Glen Road (25.02.20) The Old Bakery, Tent Road (28.02.20) 2, Rosedene Cottages, Glen Road (01.03.20) Cumbrae, Ramsey Road (01.03.20) Ballaclague House, Baldrine - owners of Woodside, Breeze Hill (02.03.20) The Granary, Ramsey Road (04.03.20) Ard Finwork, Ramsey Road (04.03.20) Baytrees, Lower Cronk Orry (07.03.20) Langley House, Ramsey Road (10.03.20) Stanleyville, Minorca Hill (10.03.20)

31

3, Chapel Terrace (12.03.20) Corley Rock, South Cape (13.03.20) Shore Hotel Brew Pub (15.03.20) Ballannette, Baldrine - responsible for the St. Nicholas Chapel and Burial Ground (15.03.20) Nyn Ayrn, Old Laxey Hill (15.03.20, 16.03.20) Bwaane Beg, Quarry Road (16.03.20) Gull Cottage, Minorca Hill (17.03.20) Cooryn Varrey, Pinfold Hill (17.03.20) Glen Cairn, Tent Road (17.03.20, 20.03.20) St. Jude's Lodge, Old Laxey Hill (18.03.20) Bridge Cottage, Minorca Hill (18.03.30, 15.05.20) The Rowans, Minorca Hill (18.03.20) Cushag, Shore Road (18.03.20, 19.03.20) Grenaby, Fairy Cottage (19.03.20) Beach Cottage, Back Shore Road (19.03.20) Harbour View, Back Shore Road (19.03.20) St. Nicholas House, Breeze Hill (19.03.20) Sycamore Cottage, Glen Road (20.03.20) Ballacollister Grange (20.03.20) Thie ny Dreeym, Ballacollister Road (20.03.20) 44, Ard Reayrt (20.03.20) Strooanville House, Fairy Cottage (08.06.20) Lewin's Cottage and The Shed (13.07.20) 5.8.3 Comments from residents outside Laxey or where there has been no indication of how they would be affected: Ballacallum, Ballaragh Road (18.02.20) Clarum, Ballaragh (23.02.20) Garden House, Clay Head Road, Lonan (26.02.20, 28.02.20) South Grawe Farm (25.02.20) 8, Parsonage Road, Ramsey (25.02.20) 2, The Wharfside, Peel (28.02.20) Kerrowdhoon, Maughold (28.02.20, 09.03.20) Green Oak, Clay Head Road (07.03.20) Baldrine Manor, Baldrine (07.03.20) The Mount, South Cape (09.03.20) Thie my Chree, Old Laxey Hill (09.03.20) Ballacoan, Glen Roy (10.03.20) Westdene, Croit-e-Quill Road (10.03.20) Mouette, Clay Head Road (15.03.20) The Spinney, Baldrine (18.03.20) 9, Victoria Park, Douglas (18.03.20, 15.06.20) Moose Lodge, Clay Head Road, Baldrine (19.03.20) Ellan Vannin, Baldrine (18.03.20) Grawe, Laxey (19.03.20) 1, Hillary Close, Onchan (20.03.20) The Wonder House, Maughold (20.03.20) 5, Croit-e-Quill Close (30.05.20) A Laxey rate payer who did not provide an address (18.07.20) 5.8.4 Comments from residents who do not live on Island: 2160 NE 53rd Street, USA (20.02.20, 25.02.20) 128 New Cross Road, London (26.02.20) 67, Kingstone Avenue, West Sussex (26.03.20, 30.03.20) Summary of points raised

32

5.8.4 There is an acknowledgement that there is a need for the existing situation of discharging raw sewage into the sea to be changed, however the proposed scheme would give rise to the following issues: i. Increased flood risk to the area and in particular, local properties which have never flooded and many residents wonder whether Government will be prepared to fund the costs of any damage caused. It is also noted that the site itself floods and no decision should be taken until the results of the Arup Independent Flood Review Report is published. It is suggested that as flood measures are being taken on the site, the capacity of the site to accommodate flood water and this will be diverted elsewhere. ii. The development will result in an adverse visual impact in an area frequented by tourists potentially reducing the viability of the village's shops, cafes and services and particularly from above where the proposed landscaping will not screen the buildings iii. The development will not be appropriate in a Conservation Area iv. The development will result in an adverse impact through smell on the surrounding area including local residences, particularly noting that the closest part of the development to Old Ballachrink Farm is the odour control unit v. The proposed development will result in an adverse impact through noise on the surrounding area including local residents vi. The health of local residents will be affected and the Director of Public Health should be consulted prior to a decision being taken vii. The development will adversely affect the enjoyment of the footpaths in the area viii. The facility will be adversely affected by tides and the river ix. The development will result in disruption to the car parking facilities in the area and local people will have to walk further from their parked vehicles to the properties x. The facilities may be affected by discharges from upstream businesses (detergents, for example) xi. It should be confirmed that the development will not adversely affect the old site of the St. Nicholas Chapel and Burial Grounds xii. The vehicular traffic associated with servicing the development will adversely affect highway safety which is of particular concern as the route passes the access to a primary school. xiii. The vehicular traffic associated with the operation of the facility will result in an increase in emissions due in part to the steepness of Minorca Hill and which is contrary to the Climate Change strategy and will add to the degradation of the roads xiv. A more remote site would be more appropriate and comparison has been made with the MU's solution for sewage treatment in Peel which involves a site outwith the town as well as other parts of the Island which are served by works remote from the nearest main settlement xv. The development will not improve the situation at Garwick which links with Laxey Bay xvi. Extending the system to pump the sewage to Onchan and link into the IRIS system would be more appropriate even if more expensive and could accommodate Garwick and could utilise routes already in Government ownership (railway line for example)

33

xvii. Concern is also expressed that the description of the works is misleading as there is no sewage treatment works on the site so what is proposed cannot be a replacement xviii. Comments are also made regarding Interested Person Status which they assume will be limited to two adjacent residences implying that the decision to award IPD has already been made (this decision happens only when the application is determined but in any case the Department's Operational Policy states that where an EIA is required the 20m distance for assessing IPS is not relevant. xix. Comment is also made that the application should be considered by the Planning Committee not the Council of Ministers and it is to be determined by the Planning Committee. xx. Comments are made that the development will devalue properties in the area: this is not a material planning consideration. 5.8.5 Submissions in support of the application i. The owner of 2, Glen View, Laxey writes in support of the application, noting that Laxey and Lonan were never proposed to be part of the IRIS scheme and the cost and disruption of laying pipework to connect the area to the rest of the system would have more of an impact on businesses than would the current scheme. She considers that visually the site has always been an eyesore where traditionally buildings have always been stone or render finish and she considers that the scheme has been well designed to fit into the landscape. Her only concern is the nature of some of the landscaping which appears to be fast growing evergreen species in places and she considers that these are out of keeping and may also suffer from the exposed coastal location. Species such as hebe may be better. Whilst she notes that there can never be any guarantee that there will be no smell, no-one expressing objection seems particularly concerned at the current situation where raw sewage is going into the sea and that there could be a risk of odour from that, although she has never personally experienced it. She believes that all necessary steps are being taken to ensure that no odour arises from the proposed facility. The existing tank is situated within the flood risk area and does not appear to have caused any problems and she advises that she has not seen the site flood in the 30 years she has lived in the area. If it had, one wonders why the chalets were sited there. She is of the view that the existing bridge presents more risk of causing a flood as this is lower than the adjacent banks on the south side. If water levels reach the top of the bridge deck water could get around the bridge and spread out in the same way it currently does in the boat park. She considers the additional traffic associated with the operation of the facility to be negligible and the timing of such movements could be controlled by condition and the former weight limit on Old Laxey Hill should be reinstated to prevent heavy vehicles using this route. In her view, noise levels carry upwards and will be more apparent at South Cape than adjacent to the site in Glen Road and around the shore. She recommends a condition which prevents noisy operations such as drilling and piling before 0800hrs rather than 0700hrs as suggested (28.02.20) ii. The owner of Thie ny Mara, Glen Road, Glen Road offers his support for the application, considering that the alternatives are poor and involving massive amounts of energy, vibrations and will increase smells in the area and notes that the current tanks create odour with onshore winds. He considers the traffic generated will be less hazardous than those carrying gas supplies. He considers that the proposed landscaping will reduce the impact on the environment in a positive way for the village (09.03.20). iii. The residents of Glebe Cottage, Maughold comment that recent improvements to the systems serving Port Mooar and Port Lewaigue where the, albeit underground facilities are quite hard to find and smell. They consider that this is the obvious location for Laxey and the South of Lonan as other opportunities will require a lot of pumping and cost. They hope that the modern treatment plus a reasonable long undersea outfall will work clear of public discern (18.02.20).

34

iv. The owner of Sea Peep, Peel, supports the application, objecting as a rate payer to the expense of pumping the sewage uphill and considering that there has always been odours associated with the existing holding tank. He also makes comments on Interested Person Status and the ability of public speaking at any Planning Committee meeting (18.03.20). ASSESSMENT 6.1 The principle of development 6.1.1 The site is designated for development but not the type of development which is proposed in the application. What is proposed is therefore contrary to the Laxey and Lonan Local Plan and the draft Area Plan for the East which state that this site should be used and developed for tourism. 6.1.2 General Policy 3 applies literally to development on land which is not designated for development which is not applicable here. However, it is relevant that this includes provision for development "recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative". 6.1.3 The Town and Country Planning Act 1999 sets out what the decision maker shall have regard to in the determination of planning applications and this includes: (a) the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; (ab) any relevant national policy directive under section 2A; (b) any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3; (c) such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and (d) all other material considerations. 6.1.4 As such, Manx Utilities' Regional Sewage Treatment Strategy and in particular Phase 2 which was adopted by Tynwald along with an approval for funding to complete this Strategy (March, 2019) is a material consideration here. This Strategy approves the provision of independent STWs for Peel, Laxey and Baldrine to "stop raw sewage being pumped into the Irish Sea". Whilst clearly not the only means of draining Laxey of its sewage, it is the means approved by Tynwald both in terms of procedure and cost. 6.1.5 Notwithstanding the assessment of the actual impact of the proposed works, it is considered that, having regard to the RSTS, the principle of the development of a STW here is acceptable, given the importance of having a fit for purpose sewage treatment system and the need to accord with the European Water Quality Directive 2006, which is also a material consideration. It is also considered that a STW for Laxey is of overriding national need, considering that Tynwald was required to approved the Strategy which sets out how sewerage will be provided for this part of the Island, along with others. 6.1.6 In terms of alternative sites, the applicant has identified a number of these and reasons why they were discounted. There is no evidence that any one of the sites would have less of an environmental impact and indeed the majority of correspondence that discounts the present scheme suggests that piping the sewage south is the preferred option, fully accepting that this is a more costly option. The applicant is clear that to locate the facility elsewhere will still require a storm storage tank, screens, UV facility, storm outfall and larger pumping station to be located at the Cairn. This would still require sludge removal and screening service vehicles and will be the equivalent construction for the current proposal less the IRBCs but with a large pumping station in addition The Regional Sewerage Treatment Strategy is clear that for Laxey, Baldrine and Peel these settlements will have systems introduced where the sewage is treated locally and that it is not transferred somewhere else to be incorporated into the IRIS system. Furthermore, pumping the sewage will incur energy costs which would be contrary to the Climate Change Strategy which has to be weighed against the costs or harm of the current proposal.

35

6.2 Impacts of the development: i. impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area (EP35 and PPS 1/01 GA/2) ii. visual impact on the character and appearance of the area (GP 2b, c, e and g) iii. flood risk (Eps 10 and 13 and GP2l) iv. highway safety (GP2 h and i) v. impact on tourism (Laxey and Lonan Local Plan and draft Area Plan for the East) vi. impact on ecology (Eps 4 and 7 and GP2d) vii. impact on trees (EP3 and GP2f) viii. impact on the living conditions of those in residential property in the area in terms of: a) odour b) traffic c) noise d) visual impact e) flooding (GP2g, h, i, EP10, 13, 22 and 23). 6.3 Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation area (EP35, PPS1/01) 6.3.1 Both of these policies require that development in a Conservation Area preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the area. The current character of the area is that the site is open, generally green and undeveloped. Whilst the existing buildings on the site are not traditional and could be considered to be out of keeping with the otherwise traditional character of the surrounding area, they are modest and take up a small proportion of the site. What is proposed will change the appearance and character of the site to one dominated by buildings and structures which cannot reasonably be considered a preservation or enhancement. The proposal therefore fails to comply with EP35 and PPS/1/01. 6.3.2 However, the proposal will result in an environmental enhancement in terms of bathing water quality which is a legal requirement and which itself, will enhance the quality of the area. If it is accepted that the development will not result in an adverse impact in terms of odour and noise (see later) and whilst this cannot be considered to address the requirements of EP35 and PPS 1/01 as this relates to the character or appearance of the area which implies a visual impact rather than environmental, but it nevertheless does not prevent the environmental enhancement from being a material consideration. 6.3.3 It is also relevant that a number of the alternative regional sites considered also lie within the Conservation Area and those that don't lie in open countryside in which cases the development would conflict with the same or different policies of the Strategic Plan. 6.3.4 It is considered that the character of the Conservation Area in relation to the application site is currently compromised by the existing buildings on the site and that if it is accepted that the principle of the development is acceptable having regard to the points raised above, and that there are no other more acceptable alternatives, the proposed development with the use of stone and traditional forms is considered acceptable given the environmental gain to be provided. 6.4 Visual impact on the character and appearance of the area (GP 2b, c, e and g) 6.4.1 As above it is considered that if the principle is accepted along with the environmental gain from the improvement of the bathing water standard, then the introduction of stone faced walls and structures will not have an adverse impact on the appearance and character of the area, replacing structures which are not in themselves traditional or particularly in keeping with the area, whether this be viewed from the highway, the harbour or the footpath. 6.4.2 The view down into the site from up above the site, from the footpath will be partially screened by the existing vegetation and whilst some views of the new structures could be gained the main view and vista from highway up is across the bay rather than down into the

36

application site. The view of the site and the development from the Raad ny Foillan as it rises up Breeze Hill, is limited to one gap just above the largest chalet although a clear view is available across the bridge. Other views are limited by the existing tree cover on both sides of the path. There are relatively clear views of the site and of the proposed development from PROW 359 both from the eastern section and coming down the steps towards the site as well as glimpses of the site from the part between the fork in the path at Breeze Hill. However, whilst the site and the development are/will be visible from here, the more significant vista from the higher view points is across the bay rather than down and back towards the application site. From this higher vantage point it will indeed be possible to see down into the site where the IRBCs will be visible, as shown in Viewpoints 2 of 3. However, it is considered that this view is not so adverse nor so significant, given the overall length of the PROW and the environmental benefit of the treatment works so warrant refusal. 6.4.3 It is considered that the visual impact of the proposed bridge is acceptable given the materials and form to be used. Whilst this would be a new, second bridge close to the existing, there is no evidence that this would be objectionable in appearance or indeed in principle. 6.5 Flood risk (Eps 10 and 13 and GP2l) 6.5.1 The risk of flooding is very real, particularly given the flooding events which have happened in the village over the past few years. It is essential that there is no increased risk of flooding either of the site itself or of surrounding land, from the development. The application includes a Flood Risk Assessment which concludes that this will not be the case and Manx Utilities Flood Team have not indicated that this would be the case. Whilst there is an on-going exercise to identify mitigation of future flood risk and that it has been identified that the proposed bridge could give rise to increased flood risk on land to the south (the boat yard) and in the area of Riversend and Croit-e-Vey, the applicant has made it clear that any recommendations emerging from that exercise will be incorporated into the scheme if they are known before the development is implemented, and if not, they will undertake whatever standalone protection of the impacted properties is necessary to ensure that the scheme does not result in an increased flood risk. They are clear that there will be no increased run off from the development as a result of the utilisation of grass reinforced surfaces and management of the run off from the hardstanding areas. 6.6. Highway safety (GP2 h and i) 6.6.1 There is no response from Highway Services. However, the application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment that concludes that the proposed development would generate no significant residual transport related impacts on the local highway network and surrounding area both during construction and during the operation of the facility if the proposed mitigation is incorporated by way of the imposition of construction timing so that peak hours and school drop off and collection times are avoided. 6.7 Impact on tourism (Laxey and Lonan Local Plan and draft Area Plan for the East) 6.7.1 The development could have an effect on tourism in three ways: firstly the visual impact of the development could have a negative impact on the area and deter visitors from coming to or spending prolonged periods in this area with a resulting detrimental impact on the businesses who rely upon tourist footfall for their viability. Secondly the development will remove the opportunity for further tourist development to be carried out here and will result in the removal of a number of existing chalets. Finally, the potential for smell or noise could deter visitors from coming to or spending prolonged time here. Noise and smell nuisance are dealt with later in the report. 6.7.2 Considering the conclusions reached in respect of the impact on the Conservation Area and the appearance and character of the area, it is not considered that the development would have a negative impact on the area such as to deter visitors from coming to the area or staying for prolonged periods here. The beneficial impact of meeting Bathing Water Standards will

37

enhance the attraction of the beach for visitors and this is considered to outweigh any negative impact on tourism in this part of the village. 6.8 Impact on ecology (Eps 4 and 7 and GP2d) 6.8.1 The applicant has provided the surveys and information required by DEFA's Ecosystems Policy Office and this demonstrates that any adverse impact on ecology can be mitigated. The recommended measures included in the Invasive Species and Protected Species reports should be required by condition. 6.9 Impact on trees (EP3 and GP2f) 6.9.1 There is no indication from the professional officers of the Department that the proposed tree felling is unacceptable. It has been raised by one of the correspondents that the landscaping scheme includes evergreen species as well as native species and that this may not be suitable. It is therefore recommended that a detailed planting scheme be approved prior to its introduction, incorporating native species and the size of trees and plants to be introduced to achieve maximum immediate effect. The applicant has indicated that this is acceptable. 6.10 Impact on the living conditions of those in residential property in the area in terms of: 6.11 Odour 6.11.1 There is a very real concern that sewage treatment facilities can result in adverse impacts through odour emissions, some concerns based upon fear and others on experience of other facilities where odour has been a noticeable effect. This is a concern not only for local residents but also for others coming to spend time near the harbour and promenade - areas frequented by tourists and locals alike and with a number of commercial operations which benefit from this custom. Reference is made to the facility to the north of Ramsey and the applicant has explained that that facility does not have odour control facilities as these were not considered necessary at the time of the development of that site. 6.11.2 The Environmental Appraisal Report includes an assessment of odour impact using accepted methods of measuring this type of impact and has concluded that there will not be an adverse impact in this respect with details of continuing odour control being provided by the applicant. 6.11.3 Given this information and assessment, it is difficult to conclude that there will be any adverse impact from odour emissions such as to justify the application being refused. 6.12 Traffic 6.12.1 This has already been assessed in the preceding paragraphs. However in respect of the concerns regarding the condition of adjacent dwellings, the applicant has indicated that they will conduct full building condition surveys on adjacent properties along the length of Minorca Hill, Tent Road and Old Laxey Hill during the construction phase of the project, before and after the project to address any issues which may arise with the surveys copied free of charge to any residents to request them. 6.13 Noise 6.13.1 The applicant has provided an assessment of likely noise levels from the operation of the facility in the Environmental Appraisal Report and it concludes that no potential adverse noise impacts at the nearest noise sensitive receptors as a result of the operation of the proposed plant and equipment. Whilst the construction of the facility will result in higher levels of noise nuisance, the applicant has indicated the hours of operation and the utilisation of less noisy methods of drilling with appropriate measures taken to suppress noise levels if required. As suggested by one correspondent, it would be appropriate to control these hours by condition and also to require drilling activities to be undertaken later in the morning and earlier in the evenings.

38

6.14 Visual impact 6.14.1 The visual impact of the development has generally been addressed in preceding paragraphs. However, the impact from individual dwellings, particularly those adjacent on the Cairn site, and across the harbour will be more permanent than the impact on those passing through the area. 6.14.2 It is considered that the development has been designed to be not unattractive to see and the incorporation of landscaping will further mitigate the impact on the nearest neighbours whose permanent outlook includes a view of this site and the proposed development. The impact of the development will have an effect on the current view over and towards open space. However, it should be remembered that the site is capable of accommodating further built development which is related to tourism in both the Laxey and Lonan and the draft Area Plan for the East and thus the site may not have remained completely green and open if such development were proposed. 6.15 Flooding (GP2g, h, i, EP10, 13, 22 and 23). 6.15.1 This has been dealt within the preceding paragraphs but it deserves repeating that the increase in flood risk in the village is a very real concern for local residents, given the events of the last few years and it is imperative that proper regard is given to this aspect of the proposal, as it is considered has been done. The flood mitigation measures which will be needed to protect the south side of the harbour and Riversend and Croit-e-Vey are required regardless of the proposed development and the applicant is preparing a scheme for flood mitigation measures for the whole village which will include measures for these three areas. If this overall strategy is not in place before works are due to commence, the applicant has indicated that they will design and undertake the measures for these three areas in advance of the rest of the village scheme. It is important to note that these measures will be required regardless of the proposed development. 6.16 Health (EP22) 6.16.1 Environment Policy 22 deals with, amongst other elements, airborne pollution and it has been suggested by a number of correspondents that the development could give rise to this. The applicants has provided evidence and the views of the Director of Public Health that the development will not result in the emission of harmful material. 6.17 Prematurity 6.17.1 It is suggested that the application should not be considered until the studies into the recent flooding in the village have been concluded. This has now been concluded and the salient recommendations are noted above. The recommendations are not site specific in respect of the application site and its environs so as to influence the design of the current application and it is not considered that there is anything in the report which would suggest that this development, or indeed any other development within the catchment, should not be approved if it is appropriately designed. The views of the Director of Public Health have been obtained. The development is therefore not premature. CONCLUSION 7.1 It is concluded that the development will have an impact on the area, that it will neither preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and that there will be concerns that the development will have an adverse impact on the area through noise and odour. However, given the information provided by the applicant in respect of noise and odour it is not considered that these impacts are sufficient to warrant refusal of the application. The development will prevent any future development of the site for tourism but given the designation of the site for this purpose in 1982 with such limited tourism-related development since then, it would not appear that there is or has been a significant demand for tourism-related development here.

39

7.2 The development will also have a significant beneficial impact on the quality of bathing water in a village whose tourist offer includes a popular beach which has been well used by locals and visitors alike. 7.3 On balance, the proposal, which accords with the Tynwald approved Regional Sewage Treatment Strategy and which will enable the bay to accord with European legislation, and which is not considered to have so great an impact on the surrounding area and its residents to justify a refusal, is considered worthy of support and is recommended for approval subject to conditions which have been referred to in the report. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material. 8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 4(2) who should be given Interested Person Status. 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

40

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 27th July 2020

Item 5.2 Proposal : Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of three

dwellings with associated works and access (in association with (19/00244/CON)

Site Address : Cranleigh Ville Glen Road Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7AB

Applicant : Mr Colin & Mrs Kerry Mills Application No. : Principal Planner :

19/00243/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 proposed development would represent an unacceptable risk upon on-site flooding in terms of future occupants of the three dwellings proposed and therefore contrary to Environment Policy 13 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4): o Brookside, Glen Road, Laxey o 10 Glen Road Terrace, Laxey o 9 Glen Road Terrace, Laxey o 2 Rosedene Cottages, Glen Road, Laxey o 1 Rosedene Cottages, Glen Road, Laxey o Lewins Cottage, Glen Road, Laxey As they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). It is recommended that the 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): o 5 Glen Road Terrace, Laxey o 4 Glen Road Terrace, Laxey o La Mona Lisa Restaurant, Glen Road, Laxey 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

41

It is recommended that the following organisations should not be given Interested Person Status: o Manx Utilities o Manx National Heritage As they are not Government Departments and have not identified land which they own/occupy which would be impacted on by the proposal.

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report 0.0 PREAMBLE 0.1 This application was considered by the committee on 05.05.20 and deferred for a site visit. Given wider circumstances this visit was not carried out until 20.07.20 (date and time agreed at the meeting on 13.07.20). An extract from the minutes for 05.05.20 is provided below for reference. "Whilst the following two applications both related to the same site they were offering differing recommendations, but could be reported on together within the same Head of DM presentation. Item 5.22 Cranleigh Ville Glen Road Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7AB PA19/00243/B Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of three dwellings with associated works and access (in association with (19/00244/CON) Applicant : Mr Colin & Mrs Kerry Mills Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Recommendation : Refused Item 5.23 Cranleigh Ville Glen Road Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7AB PA19/00244/CON Registered Building consent for the demolition elements relating the application 19/00243/B Applicant : Mr Colin & Mrs Kerry Mills Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Recommendation : Permitted Additional comment from objectors (2 Rosedene Cottages), Lewin's and 1 Rosedene Cottages, had all been received and published subsequent to the issue of the agenda, highlighting concerns as to parking site levels and flooding. There had also been late objection from Garff Commissioners. A statement had also been received from Mr McGarrigle, agent on the applicant's behalf. It was clarified that Glen Road is at risk of flooding in the 1% AEP + 20% (and 30%) CC events according to the Flood Risk Assessment, and these are rare events; albeit it should be noted that all recent flood events have not reached the 1 in 100 year flood event (lower level that the 1% AEP + 20% (and 30%) CC events) and has still caused substantial flood damage to the existing property on site and surrounding properties. The site (initially given Nr GH018) in the call for sites and was placed (desk based assessment) as a Category 1 Sites which according to the TAPE are; "A number of potential development sites for housing due to their size, planning history and/or location do not need to be subject to the Site Assessment Framework. Although they are identified and mapped, it is proposed to subsume these sites into background land designations such as 'Predominantly Residential'." Accordingly, it has been washed over on the draft plan map (in pink) for residential (given existing land use designation and as it sits in a 'Predominantly Residential' area. The site been Category 1 has not been Considered in the same level of assessment for example as sites in

42

Category 2 where a number of issues are taken into account i.e. Critical Constraints for example where a site is in a flood zones, Due to the above there is no design brief i.e. stating x number of properties could be built on the site. Further it is not included in the "Sites proposed for residential allocation within existing settlement boundaries" (page 56 of Inspectors report) by the Inspector, where each site which is listed has an estimated number of houses which could be built on each site. Site GH020 (Land adjacent to Ard Reayrt, Laxey - above Glen Road) was recommended by the Inspector that it should be removed from proposed res dev due to flood/surface water concerns by Inspector Sites GH011, GH013 & GH038 (outskirts of Laxey) the Inspector has recommended they be removed for res dev due to access concerns (GH011 & GH013), but also as; "Furthermore, I have seen no evidence that there is a local housing need that would justify the extension of this settlement into the surrounding countryside…". Overall, there is still sufficient housing within the East which has been designated. Given the above it is still considered the risks to future residents are real and present, and the provision of two additional dwellings are not key to providing the required amount of housing in the East, which have clearly been designated elsewhere on more suitable sites. The members felt that a site visit was needed to consider give a more informed assessment, whether there may be need for further reasons to be added for a refusal and whether over development of the site was resulting. Tightness of parking, flood and ancillary issues would be clearer after a site visit. The lack of objection from Manx Utilities was noted. The Head of DM reflected on site comparatives, the proposal, risk level, impact was all explained. DECISION Item 5.22 and 5.23 The Committee unanimously agreed to defer both applications for a site visit noting that one could not be conducted until the current social distancing restrictions had been lifted, sufficiently to allow such visit to proceed (at a date to be determined)". 0.2 The remainder of this report is unchanged. 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 is Cranleigh Ville an existing residential dwelling situated on the northern side the of the Glen Road within Laxey Village. The dwelling is a traditional two storey Manx farmhouse styled property with three upper windows over a central doorway which is flanked with single window either side. The application site also includes the land to the immediate north and east of the existing dwelling. From the planning history and aerial photography it appears to have been in separate ownership/use from the dwelling and its appearance is of shrub land, rather than a garden associated with Cranleigh Ville. The existing defined rear wall boundaries of Cranleigh Ville would also support this view. 1.2 The site currently has no vehicle access and therefore there is no off road parking associated with the dwelling or adjoining site.

43

1.3 To the east of the site are Nr 1 and 2 Rosedene Cottages which are single storey attached cottages, which essentially run parallel with the majority of the eastern boundary of the site. A Manx stone wall (also referred to as flood wall or DOI wall) was recently constructed along this shared boundary in conjunction with the owner of 2 Rosedene Cottage and DOI. To the south of the site, opposite and across the Glen Road are the residential properties Lewins Cottage and Brookside, which are a pair of two storey semi-detached traditional Manx cottages. To the west of the site is Nr 10 Glen Road Terrace (as referred to as Commissioners' Houses) which is a two storey end terrace dwelling which has its western gable end elevation facing towards the site. This property and its gardens run parallel with the whole western boundary of the site. 2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of three dwellings with associated works and access (in association with (19/00244/CON). The three dwellings would be made up of a two storey detached house sited to the front of the site and on a similar position to the existing dwelling Cranleigh Ville albeit turned 90 degrees so its gable elevation faces towards the Glen Road. The two remaining dwellings would be two storey semi-detached dwellings and these would be sited to the rear section of the site (behind the detached dwelling). 2.2 All three dwellings would share a new vehicle access off the Glen Road and each would have two off road parking spaces. A turning head is also included within the site. 2.3 The design of the dwellings is of a Manx traditional style, following similar lines of the existing property Cranleigh Ville and other traditional properties in the area. Each dwelling would have a small garden/landscaped area to the front of each dwelling, with larger rear gardens. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application; 3.2 The erection of three houses and associated site works (Land to rear of Cranleigh Ville - did not include Cranleigh Ville) - 06/01775/B - APPROVED 3.3 Construction of 3 first time buyers houses and associated works (Site At Cranleigh Ville & land to north and east i.e. same as current application) - 04/01579/B - APPROVED 3.4 Approval in principle for the erection of dwelling (land immediately to the east of Cranleigh Ville) - 99/01238/A - REFUSED 3.5 Provision of temporary access to plot of land at rear of Cranleigh Ville and side garden of 10 - 95/00485/B - APPROVED 4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area of predominantly residential use under the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005. Under this Local Plan the following Policy L/RES/PR/1 states: "Residential development will generally only be approved within the study area in those areas designated as proposed and existing residential. In particular, in the case of Agneash no further dwellings will be approved although, as will be the case in areas zoned as residential, alterations and extensions to existing property may be accepted if such proposals are sympathetic to the character and appearance of both the building to be altered and the surrounding area in general."

44

4.2 The southerly most section of the site, which equates to approximately ¼ of the site area where the existing dwelling is, plus a section of land immediately to east of the dwelling is within a High Flood Risk Zone from Rivers. 4.3 Under the Modified Draft Area Plan for the East the site is designated as residential. 4.4 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains a number of policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. 4.5 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services." 4.6 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." 4.7 The Strategic Plan identifies a hierarchy of settlements that guide what type of development is appropriate within them. Laxey is designated as one of the nine "Service Villages" within the Island (Spatial Policy 3). This Policy states that; "Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such villages so as to maintain and where appropriate increase employment opportunities. Housing should be provided to meet local needs and in appropriate cases to broaden the choice of location of housing." 4.8 General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; 4.9 Housing Policy 4 states: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans…" 4.10 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan."

45

4.11 Transport Policy 7 states: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards. The current standards are set out in Appendix 7." 4.12 Environment Policy 13 states: "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted." 4.13 Environment Policy 42 states: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans." 4.14 Environment Policy 35 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." 4.15 Environment Policy 39 states: "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area." 4.16 Paragraph 7.32.2 of the IOMSP states (which is the supportive text for EP 39): "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. When considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to: o the condition of the building; o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions); o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; o the merits of alternative proposals for the site." 4.17 Conservation Areas of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man): "POLICY RB/6 DEMOLITION There will be a general presumption against demolition and consent for the demolition of a registered building should not be expected simply because redevelopment is economically more attractive than repair and re-use of an historic building; or because the building was acquired at a price that reflected the potential for redevelopment, rather than the condition and constraints of the existing historic building. Where proposed works would result in the total or substantial demolition of a registered building, an applicant, in addition to the general criteria set out in RB/3 above, should be able to demonstrate that the following considerations have been addressed:- o The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use. Any such assessment should be based on consistent and long term assumptions. Less favourable levels of rents and yields cannot automatically be assumed for historic buildings and returns may, in fact, be more favourable given the publicly acknowledged status of the building. Furthermore, historic buildings may offer proven performance, physical attractiveness and functional spaces that in an

46

age of rapid change may outlast the short-lived and inflexible technical specifications that have sometimes shaped new developments. Any assessment should take into account possible tax allowances and exemptions. In rare cases where it is clear that a building has been deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition, less weight should be given to the costs of repair; o The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. An applicant must show that real efforts have been made, without success, to continue the present use, or to find new uses for the building. This may include the offer of the unrestricted freehold of the building on the open market at a realistic price reflecting the building's condition. o The merits of alternative proposals for the site. Subjective claims for the architectural merits of a replacement building should not justify the demolition of a registered building. There may be very exceptional cases where the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the community; these would have to be weighed against preservation. Even here, it will often be feasible to incorporate registered buildings within new development, and this option should be carefully considered. The challenge presented by retaining registered buildings can be a stimulus to imaginative new designs to accommodate them 4.18 POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole." 4.19 The RESDIENTIAL DESIGN GUIDE (JULY 2019) is also considered to be relevant. 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Garff Commissioners make the following comments: (06.04.2019) "Concerns were expressed in regard to: 1. Loss of public parking on Glen Road; 2. The effectiveness of visibility splays with regard to the number of cars which park along the road; 3. Over-intensive use of the site. However, Members defer determination of these matters to the expertise of both Highways and Planning Officers." (01.11.2019) "Concerns were raised by the Commissioners in regard to this application within their previous submission dated 6th April 2019. The additional information has been noted and considered by the Board. Members have considered the details provided by Manx Utilities in regard to 'floodplain storage' and 'flow pathways'. They have also considered the assumptions and conclusions made in the subsequent report commissioned by the developer.

47

Please can the Planning Committee note the following observations: o It is the view of the Commission that there are critical flaws in the information provided both by Manx Utilities and the developer: the flooding situations that have been observed by officers of the Commissioners in the last two decades are contrary to the information provided. o Members have also considered the statements by immediate residents that have been submitted to the Planning Authority since the flooding that occurred on Glen Road on the 1st October 2019. These provide further graphic evidence that the assumption and conclusions made by Manx Utilities and the commissioned by the developer are indeed critically flawed. o The Commission requests the Planning Officer, the Flood Risk Manager at Manx Utilities, and the Planning Committee carefully study the evidence provided by residents. These are compelling statements of the actual situation and should count for rather more than the results of the current modelling and theory. o It is the view of the Commission that Manx Utilities needs to re-assess the 'floodplain storage' and 'flow pathway' information they have provided. In doing this they must ensure that they accurately model the actual circumstances in this area of the Glen Road. No development should be permitted until this re-assessment is completed. The Commissioners reiterate previously stated concerns with this application and wishes to submit Objection to the proposals, and issue a recommendation that application 19/00243/B is Refused." (10.03.2020) "The additional information indicating the concerns of the Flood Risk Management Team with the accuracy of the consultant's flood risk report were noted." 5.2 Highways Services initially objected to the application (07.05.2019) on the grounds that it has not been demonstrated that the development would have sufficient highway visibility and site access arrangements including emergency vehicle access. Following amended plans /additional information Highway Services have made the following comments (14.08.2019); "Following the previous highway response dated 07/05/19 the applicant has submitted additional information. Visibility splays of 2.4m x 25m in both directions at the proposed site access junction, with a 0.6m offset from the kerb line, would be provided which complies with visibility standards for the 20mph speed limit and are acceptable. The proposed boundary wall along the site frontage would be 1.05m in height above footway level which is deemed acceptable. The visibility splays and boundary treatment height would need to be secured via a planning condition. As previously stated, the proposed boundary wall must not encroach onto the adopted footway which would be unacceptable. This is the case even if the exiting wall/gate posts encroach onto the highway. The site turning head is inadequate to allow a fire appliance to turn around which is not ideal. The swept path analysis shows an 8.6m length fire appliance reversing into the site from both directions. The reversing movements would encroach over the carriageway centreline which is deemed acceptable on this occasion as emergency access to the site should only be required on an occasional basis. As specified in section 10.3 of the 'Manual for Manx Roads' (MfMR) design guide, the proposed emergency access arrangements must comply with the UK's Building Regulations Approved Document B on fire safety. This document requires access for a fire appliance to be provided to within 45m of all points within a dwelling. All parts of the development site are within 45m of the public highway so emergency access to the site should be adequate. A planning condition would be needed to ensure the proposed site levels were no steeper than 1:12 to facilitate suitable disabled, pedestrian and vehicular access to and within the site. The proposed highway drainage at the site access junction is subject to change and would be dealt with as part of a Section 109A Highway Agreement that would be required for the proposed site access junction onto the public highway.

48

The first 7m of the proposed site access road would be surfaced in tarmac, with the remainder of the site access road gravel, which should be adequate to avoid gravel being illegally deposited onto the adjacent adopted highway. Summary Highway Services does not oppose the application subject to the following planning conditions: o The site parking is to be provided prior to occupation and permanently maintained as such unobstructed. o The site access road is to be provided prior to occupation and permanently maintained as such unobstructed. o Visibility splays of 2.4m x 25m must be provided and permanently maintained at the site access junction with nothing above 1.05m in height above footway level within the splay areas. o The proposed site levels must be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department prior to commencement of the development and must be no steeper than 1:12 to facilitate suitable disabled, pedestrian and vehicular access to and within the site. o A Section 109A Highway Agreement would be required to construct the proposed site access junction onto the adopted highway. Recommendation: DNOC" 5.3 Manx Utilities Drainage (MUA) initially sought a deferral (03.04.2019) to consider the Flood Risk Assessment. Following these initial comments, MUA comment (12.04.2019) that the site is within a fluvial flood zone and the predicted extent of fluvial flooding for a 1 in 100 year return period plus climate change. Plots 2 & 3 fall outside of the flood zone and on an area of higher ground. They comment that due to this risk, just raising floor or ground levels may not be appropriate as raising the ground levels may disrupt flood flow routes and result in the loss of floodplain storage making the situation worse to surrounding areas. They comment they need to understand what impact the proposals might have on surrounding properties before making comment on the application site as a whole. 5.3.1 Following these comments the applicant's agent provided a Flood Risk Assessment which included details that the footprint of the existing dwelling (77.7 sq.m) is similar to the proposed new dwelling (76.2 sq.m) on Plot 1, and that their Consultants (JBA consulting) have concluded there is no net loss of floodplain. 5.3.2 (22.05.2019) "We have reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment report submitted as part of the planning application. We are satisfied that the proposals will not result in loss of floodplain storage or alter any flood flow pathways. Providing the proposed Plot No.1 within the 1%AEP + 30% CC predicted flood extent does not result in an increased development footprint, and on the basis that finished floor level will be raised to 7.60mAOD - approximately 600mm above the predicted flood level, then redevelopment of the site is acceptable." 5.3.3 (29.08.2019) - These comments where received following questions from the Dept: "Thanks for the email. Based on the comments in Gemma's email dated 22 May, we stated that we were satisfied that there would be no increase in flood risk to adjacent properties 'Providing the proposed Plot No.1…does not result in an increased development footprint, and on the basis that finished floor level will be raised to 7.60mAOD - approximately 600mm above the predicted flood level…'

49

In other words, that the new properties would be of not more than the external plan area of the buildings that they replaced, and that flood resilience would be achieved by setting the internal floors at an appropriate level. Raising the whole site would be at odds with this." 5.3.4 (05.09.2019) - These comments where received following questions from the Dept: "The Flood Risk Assessment to support this development was produced by JBA Consulting on behalf of the applicant. JBA Consulting were commissioned directly by the applicant and not ourselves. We are satisfied with their assessment and their recommendations are reasonable. If there are any disagreements with the conclusions of the FRA then it might be worth issuing them direct to JBA Consulting for their comment. Have any aspects of the proposed development altered since this assessment was carried out? We have carried out extensive improvements to the hydrological and hydraulic modelling of the Laxey catchment. The changes offer benefits including more accurate channel capacity, better representation of interactions between channel and floodplain, as well as more explicit account of floodplain topography and possible floodplain flood routes. We gave JBA Consulting permission to use the latest data available in order to make their assessment. There have been some bank replacement/ repair works and river maintenance carried out since the last flood but nothing that would alter the outcome of this application? Just to note that the new bridge was replaced by the Department of Infrastructure." 5.3.5 (19.11.2019) - "We have reviewed the application and Flood Risk Assessment for Cranleigh Ville again (19/00243/B). We have also reviewed it in the context to similar planning policy in the UK. Our conclusions remains that the proposals will not result in loss of floodplain storage or alter any flood flow pathways. JBA Consulting are currently underway with options analysis to realise any credible flood mitigation solutions for the Laxey catchment. Whilst we cannot foresee any proposals that will affect this site, the planning department may feel it would be prudent to await the conclusion of the study before a final decision is made on the application. The report is due in May 2020." 5.3.6 (10.01.2020) - Additional comments received after the Department sought additional advice following further comments from the owner of 2 Rosedene Cottages, Glen Road (05.01.2020); "We do accept the hydraulic model may have inaccuracies. All models are simplifications of reality. The hydraulic model used is the one Manx Utilities have had built and calibrated in order to test flood defence and mitigation scenarios to protect the residents along Glen Road. We allow planning applicants to use our hydraulic models on the condition that any improvements or additional data collected are provided back to us. We do value local knowledge and photographs of flood mechanisms on the ground as ultimately these improve the models and analysis. We have carefully considered the points raised by Abbey Kimber and have some commentary below. Can we suggest that these are put back to the applicant and their agent (JBA Consulting) to carry out the additional checks required and updates to the Flood Risk Assessment where necessary. We can discuss the below with them directly if that helps? 1. "Arrows show water moving to the right from the back gardens of the Commissioner's houses, bizarrely swerving around the top site of Cranleigh Ville and into the bottom site where the existing dwelling sits - the back gardens of the Commissioner's houses and the top site of Cranleigh Ville are at the same height so why is the water not shown flowing into this area? In the flooding incident of 2015, a significant amount of water swept across this top site and along the boundary into the site of 2 Rosedene Cottages resulting in mud and other debris being left

50

along the site of the now flood wall which was previously a hedge. Water also entered my top garden from that area and flowed through my greenhouse and shed, destroying the contents - this is why the DOI and I spent thousands of pounds on a flood wall to prevent this happening - had it not happened in this way and no water been present on the top site, we wouldn't have spent all that money trying to protect the property from that side all the way along the boundary." To understand why the flood mechanism over the site we have reviewed the data inputted into the model at this location. Looking at the LiDAR data (Ground levels collected by light detection and ranging) this land at Cranleigh Ville appears to be much higher than the surrounding land (circa 1m). Looking at the data it seems that either the land has been artificially raised or that the vegetation coverage over site has led to poor coverage of this site. The hydraulic modelling has used this LiDAR data within the modelling to establish flood mechanisms. Thus, it seems sensible that the LiDAR data is checked against topographical survey data collected on the site to check for any misrepresentations. If discrepancies are found we would expect this to be altered in the hydraulic model and Flood Risk Assessment also. 2. "The flow modelling does not show water entering either the Cranleigh Ville site or the driveway of 2 Rosedene Cottages from the road which we all know is incorrect. In both 2002 and 2015 water entered both sites from water flowing along Glen Road. In 2002 and 2015 the amount of water flowing along Glen Road was much deeper due to the location of where the river escaped - on this occasion it was only more shallow because the water exited the river much higher up Glen Road (by the Woollen Mills and again slightly further down) meaning that a lot of the water had dissipated by the time it got to the area of Cranleigh Ville and even then, without my flood wall and flood gate (as well as the sandbags placed there) water would have entered the site. I have attached four photographs showing the area early in the morning prior the conditions worsening and before the road was shut off due to more water flowing along the road." Manx Utilities have undertaken a site visit and it is possible that the mechanism circled in the below figure would pond on the Cranleigh Ville site rather than discharging on to Glen Road. The site is a drop below the road level at this location. The photos sent in and ours collected from the site visit can be forwarded to the applicant and their agent (JBA Consulting) for comment on whether they have accurately represented this flood mechanism." 5.3.7 (09.04.2020) - Following the above comments, the Department sought further comments from the applicants consultants (JBA Consulting) in response to MU latest comments. Following this a further report was produced which again confirmed that the proposed development and the mechanism of flooding does not increase flood risk elsewhere. Manx Utilities final comments are: "JBA Consulting have made comments against all the points we raised. Their conclusions on flood risk to be as before. Point 1: We accept while the site is not as high as indicated by LiDAR data it is still higher than surrounding grounds. Point 2: Can we confirm that the applicant is not altering ground levels in the black square I have shown below? Thus, can they confirm that that are in no way altering this flood flow pathway? The flooding report (Laxey Flood Alleviation Scheme) is not yet complete no - It is due this month but some delays are expected as a result of COVID19. However, we do know what mitigation options are being considered - none of which are impacted by this development." 5.4 Manx National Heritage makes the following comments (17.04.2019); "I write on behalf of Manx National Heritage ('MNH'), whose statutory responsibilities pertaining to the protection of the cultural and natural heritage of the Isle of Man are defined under the terms of the Manx Museum and National Trust Act.

51

Ecology & Environment We would like to highlight the potential for the existing dwelling to support roosting bats. The Laxey Valley and surrounding area is well known for supporting a number of bat species, with records for Leisler's (Nyctalus leisleri), brown long-eared (Plecotus auritus), common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), soprano pipistrelle (P.pygmaeus) and Myotis species bats present within 1km of the site. The scrub and tree line to the rear of the property as well as the densely wooded valley of the Laxey River, on the opposite side of the road provide highly suitable foraging areas and commuting corridors for a wide range of bat species, whilst the Laxey River itself provides an ideal foraging ground for Daubenton's bats (Myotis daubentoni), which feed on insects over water bodies. All Manx bat species are listed as Schedule 5 species under the Wildlife Act (1990). As such, it is an offense to intentionally kill or injure any species of bat. It is also an offence to intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to, a location which a bat is using for shelter or protection. Disturbance to a bat whilst it is occupying such a location is also an offence. For this reason, we recommend that a bat survey of the building be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist prior to the demolition of the building. Built Heritage Ordnance Survey mapping published in 1870 shows this building in its current extended form, save for the smaller of two extensions added to the east gable. In form the buildings is therefore at least 150 years old and as a good example of a traditional double-fronted Manx cottage, with a traditional single-storey gable extension covered by a traditional single-pitch roof. We would suggest that if approval is forthcoming, it would be appropriate, ahead of demolition, to require a photographic record to be made by the applicant under the terms of the Department's published guidance, 'Guidance on Undertaking Historic Building Photographic Surveys'. We trust that the above remarks will be useful to the Department." 5.4.1 Following these comments being received the applicants undertook a bat survey (Manx Bat Group) who confirmed there where not bats present within the existing dwelling on the site. 5.5 There have been a total of 10 individual objections to this application and the details of which can be views on the Online Planning Services. The following addresses of the person/s objecting are: o 5 Glen Road Terrace, Laxey (08.04.2019) o Brookside, Glen Road, Laxey (11.04.2019 & 29.10.2019) o 10 Glen Road Terrace, Laxey (07.04.2019) o 4 Glen Road Terrace, Laxey (07.04.2019) o 9 Glen Road Terrace, Laxey (12.04.2019) o La Mona Lisa Restaurant, Glen Road, Laxey (14.04.2019) o 2 Rosedene Cottages, Glen Road, Laxey (08.04.2019, 16.06.2019, 04.08.2019, 29.10.2019, 04.01.2020 & 17.03.2020) o 4 Glen Road Terrace, Laxey (07.04.2019) o 1 Rosedene Cottages, Glen Road, Laxey (11.04.2019, 16.06.2019 & 05.01.2020) o Lewins Cottage, Glen Road, Laxey (11.04.2019, 13.06.2019, 26.06.2019, 28.10.2019, 04.11.2019, 09.12.2019 & 03.01.2020)

52

5.5.1 The main material planning objections to the planning application made by the owners/occupiers of the properties are listed within paragraph 5.5 of this report. The full detailed representations can be seen via online planning services. However the objections are summarised as: o Concern of flood risk, especially given the two previous instances of flooding on both the Cranleigh Ville site and 1 & 2 Rosedene Cottages, while my property was "not at risk" from flooding it still incurred over £150,000 worth of damage; while properties and site levels may have been raised this will add risk to my property; o Spent over £30,000 to improve flood defences including flood-safe boundary walls which will become ineffective should the site be raised; o Parking concerns, whole two spaces are provided it does not take into account for visitor parking in an area where parking is in high demand; o Loss of on-road parking spaces by the creation of new access to site, possible 5 to 7 spaces (including spaces opposite site entrance to enable a vehicle turning out of new access); o No space capacity on the road for parking; o Bank to rear is unstable; o Disc parking should not be allowed for future residents of dwellings; o 2 Rosedene Cottages sites 1m below ground level of site and 7m from the prosed dwellings and sun light will be lost to my living room window; o Concerns of fences/hedges along boundaries which will result in a loss of light to 1 & 2 Rosedene Cottages; o Concerns of connecting into existing inadequate drainage system; o Development is an overuse of site; o Insufficient parking provided on site; o Area has been subject to 3 serious floods in last 15 years; o Light pollution to kitchen window (Lewins Cottage) which is opposite new access; o Area where new access is located is very narrow and is reduced to single line traffic; o Loss of light particularly in the winter months to several windows at 1 Rosedene Cottage due to height of proposals; o In 2002 & 2015 my house (1 Rosedene Cottage) was inundated by flood water most came from collected water from the embankment at the rear of the site and storm water along the Glen Road when existing drainage failed to cope with the sheer volume of water, there has been no improvement or upgrading of this system. Claiming that raising levels and removing natural soak away will have no effect is not accurate, moreover the flood survey of Laxey River has little bearing on flood potential along the glen road; o Questions speed test undertaken by applicants are correct; o the ground levels are inaccurate and irrelevant and the flood plain plan is of no consequence, indeed I would draw your attention to the inundations of 2002, 2015 and 2019 which if you extrapolate their frequency it becomes obvious that we can expect this to be an annual event within a year or two; o It is disingenuous and moreover fatuous to suggest that this development will have no impact on potential flooding; o Concerns of loss of parking spaces, which are already limited to visitors to the restaurant (La Mona Lisa) after 5.30pm; o With new dropped kerbs, increase in site levels by 600mm will flood my property which is opposite the site, which has already been flooded twice recently; o To the rear of the site is a steep bank it will fill up with river/sewage water like a bath and water will have nowhere to go apart into the new houses; o I am aware plots 2 & 3 to rear of site has flooded on two occasions and the laundrette and the Mona Lose Restaurant are not shown to be in a high risk flood zone, but both have flooded; o No development should be approved till the sewerage treatment has been sorted out as we cannot keep putting human waste into the sea; o Flooding in December 2015 resulted in the whole of the application site (including rear section) being flooded and water was level with the boundary stone wall (replaced with new flood wall) shared with Rosedene;

53

o The new dropped kerb will allow water into the application site and in turn risks overcoming our flood defences due to new height of site; o Another useless set of predictions; the modelling shows flooding to Rosedene Cottage will only come from Mincorca Hill over the next 100 years….really?; On 1st October 2019 indeed flooded from Mincora Hill but not from the area shown on the modelling, it came from the sloped entrances to the Arragon Properties car park immediately behind Laxey Laundry and The Mona Lisa…not from higher up the road; o The model doesn't show water entering 2 Rosedene Cottage from Glen Road, however if it wasn't for a flood gate it would have; o Note no water is predicted to enter the application site from the road even though the water is running along the road, we were lucky this time the breach was further up the Glen Road, had it been nearer than the application site, as before, would have been deluged from the river again; o While new dwelling is on the same footprint, the ground levels of been risen around it and therefore the area which currently ponds water would be lost; o The higher site undermines the effectiveness of our flood protection at all levels; o The modelling claims that the rear part of the site is above the flood area, wrong again as this has flooded twice that local people know about; o The reason we spend thousands of pounds on a flood wall right along our boundary with the site was to stop water coming to us sideways again (from site); o It would appear that a key element has been overlooked by the creator of the prediction model, the narrowing of the road. The Glen Road in front of the Commissioners Houses is much wider and there are also no drives/dropped kerbs, as water comes down the Glen Road the road get narrower forcing the water higher and stronger and results in the water sideways into the application site and Rosedene hence our flood gates and flood wall and then with the dropped kerbs and access water will flow into site; o Of course there will be a net loss of flood storage/soakaway as this development is not achievable without increasing flood risk elsewhere; o As reiterate at the Emergency Flood Meeting in October every time soakaway land is given over to building in and around Laxey it causes major problems for the area; o Our property has been flooded 4 times (17 years - Lewis Cottage), two severely; o The site in Oct 2002 and neighbouring Commissioner Houses (No 10) had 5ft of water inside and ODI would not allow their tenants back into property due to the scale of damage and similar level of flooding in 2015 and therefor question the validity of the Flood Risk Assessment mentioned in this application; o Contrary to Section 7.12.2 of the IOMSP which seeks to prevent the loss of natural flood plain and guide development away from areas at risk of flooding; o Ministers in Government have accepted that the infrastructure in the area isn't good enough for the flood events so why would we consider a development like this knowledge; o The Inspectors report into the Eastern Plan comments on flood impact for Laxey and while not specific to the application site (but to a site near Ard Reayrt which incidentally is not even on a flood plain) states that "important that the risk of further such (flood) events should not be exacerbated"; o The applicants appears to have more emphasis on their technical advice and the reality of the situation is being ignored; how does the applicants explain the real impact of flood events over the years on this site and neighbouring properties? Surely the reality of the situation should take priority over a "model of flood flow" and even if it was accurate it still does not make this an acceptable scale of building in the flood plain of a village destroyed by recent flooding. Government Minister have said publically at meeting that there should be no development in this area when it's clear the infrastructure just cannot cope. o It's encouraging that MUA value local knowledge and photographs rather than blindly accepting flawed models and assessment; o The levels on site differ to those shown on the LIDAR site survey, application site is not one level site but made up of different levels; rear section of site ponds water and therefore raising the level of the site would mean redistributing the water into other peoples properties;

54

o the existing boundary wall (between site and Nr 1 Rosedene Cottage) is mentioned to be 900mm high; which is still inadequate to protect from flood water, however, there are sections which are 400mm and therefor raising the site and creating a dropped kerb for new access will result in over-topping of the wall and entering Rosedene sites; and o Again the surveys do not take true circumstances into account and certainly do not report on matters such as the above. 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this current planning application are (i) the principle of the proposal; (ii) the principle of the demolition of Cranleigh Ville; (iii) visual impact on the streetscene; (iv) Potential impact on highway safety for access/parking provision; (v) Potential flood risk; and (vi) Potential impact on the neighbouring residents living conditions (overlooking, loss of light and over bearing impact). (i) The principle of the proposal 6.2 As outlined within the planning policy section of this report, the site is designated as predominately residential use and therefore the proposal for residential development is acceptable in terms of complying with the land-use designation. Further, the previous planning applications (06/01775/B & 04/01579/B) were approved for three and four (including retention of Cranleigh Ville) residential dwellings on this site and the land use designation has not changed since these times. 6.3 Consideration should also be given to The Isle of Man Strategic Plan which has been adopted (June 2007 & 1st April 2016). Within this document Strategic Policies 1 & 2 require that new dwellings be located within existing sustainable settlements. Spatial Policy 3 also indicates that Laxey is a Service Village and that housing should be provided to meet local needs and in appropriate cases to broaden the choice of location of housing. 6.4 Accordingly, given the above reasons it is considered the principle of developing the site for residential development is acceptable. This is not an automatic reason to allow the proposal as the other matters listed within paragraph 6.1 of this report still need to be considered and be considered acceptable. (ii) The principle of the demolition of Cranleigh Ville 6.5 Environment Policy 39 indicated that the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The supportive text of this policy indicates that when considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to: the condition of the building; the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions); the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and the merits of alternative proposals for the site. 6.6 The building proposed to be demolished is a traditional Manx farmhouse style property, and while it appears to be in a habitable condition, it does need some restoration. The building itself has lost some its traditional features, for example traditional chimney pots; original slate roof; original sliding sash windows and original door, with their replacements not especially attractive or in keeping with the property or Conservation Area. The property has also been pebble dashed which again is not a traditional finish expected on this type pf property. Accordingly, the dwelling in its currently form does not specifically add significant interest to the Conservation Area from a visual perspective; albeit it could be argued that the dwelling could be easily restored with more traditional styles and finishes; which in turn be more of a positive feature in the Conservation Area.

55

6.7 The applicants' statement does not address the points outlined with in the supportive text of EP39 and therefore the considerations of the condition of the building; the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use; and the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use have not been explored. 6.8 It is noted that Manx National Heritage have not objected to its demolition and only seek a photographic survey be undertaken prior to any demolition. 6.9 While not specifically addressed by the applicants submission, an argument in favour of the demolition is the "the merits of alternative proposals for the site"; which could be argued to be providing three new dwellings in the centre of Laxey, where new developments in such area has been very limited over a number of years. It is noted that the supportive text of EP39 are consideration and not a "requirement" and it could be argued that the "the merits of alternative proposals for the site" outweigh the other three considerations listed. It is considered each application should be judged on its own merits. 6.10 Overall, while the loss of the existing dwelling is unfortunate, it is not considered to be of such architectural or historical interest to refuse the application; especially given the lack of objection from Manx National Heritage and as the proposal would create three dwellings within the centre of Laxey. These reasons outweigh the loss of the existing building. Accordingly, the Department is satisfied the proposal would comply with Environment Policy 39. (iii) Visual impact on the streetscene/ Conservation Area; 6.11 The Department has a duty to determine whether such proposals are in keeping with not only the individual building, but the special character and quality of the area as a whole. With this in mind it is very relevant to consider Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. This policy indicates that development within Conservation Areas will only be permitted if they 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. Further General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 should also be considered. 6.12 In terms of the visual impact the aspect of the development that would be most apparent within the street scene and Conservation Area would be the two storey detached dwelling (Plot 1), which sits to the front of the site with its gable end elevation parallel with the Glen Road. This dwelling sites on a similar footprint as the existing property Cranleigh Ville; albeit it would be closer to the Glen Road. 6.13 Public views from the Glen Road to the east (towards Laxey Bridge) would not be especially apparent, given the curve in the road and the amount of existing building development along the Glen Road. To the west, public views would be more achievable, namely of the western elevation of the main dwelling, albeit would not be so different given the existing views, which are of the gable elevation of the existing dwelling, roof of Nr 1 Rosedene Cottages and the two storey gable elevation of the residential property Thie-ny Keylley beyond. Views of the application site will be more apparent the closer you are and when passing the site. 6.14 The dwelling on Plot 1 with its gable end elevation facing the Glen Road, is not considered to be out of keeping or uncharacteristic of the Conservation Area, where there are a number of dwellings which have a similar arrangement along the Glen Road, where their gables area either directly abutting the highway or setback slight (as proposed). 6.15 The style of properties in the area is made up of a variety of architectural styles/finishes which have evolved over the decades. The proposed traditional design, size, proportion, form and finishes are considered to be appropriate and fit well within the area. 6.16 In terms of EP42 and whether the development would remove areas of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area; it is not

56

considered it would. The existing site, namely the land to the rear and side of Cranleigh Ville is not especially attractive nor is it considered to create a sense of place, rather undeveloped land between existing residential properties. 6.17 Overall, it is considered the proposal given their design, proportion, form, finish, siting of the scheme it would not result in a significant adverse impact upon visual amenities of the street scene or affect the character or quality of the Conservation Area and would preserve the character of the conservation area therefore all complying with GP2, EP32 and EP35. (iv) Potential impact on highway safety for access/parking provision 6.18 There are clear, very reasonable concerns from local residents of the potential impact on existing on-street parking provision, which would appear to be in high demand; given the majority of properties along this section of Glen Road have no off street parking provision. 6.19 While comments have been received that there is insufficient parking for the proposed three dwellings (3/4 bedroomed); the proposals do meet the required parking standard of two off road parking spaces per dwelling as outlined within the Parking Standards of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. Accordingly, from a parking perspective within the site, the proposal is acceptable. 6.20 A further concern is raised by creating the new access to the site, and that there will be a number of on-road parking spaces lost. The new access is 6m wide and therefore there is the potential of one or two spaces (generally parking spaces are required to be at least 5m long) to be lost by the new entrance. There is an argument to be had, that given there is a general acceptance/requirement that a single dwelling generates a requirement of two off-road parking spaces, and the existing dwelling Cranleigh Ville currently has no off-road parking provision, relying on the on-street parking; that the loss of the said one or two on-road parking spaces by the access, would be mitigated by the fact Cranleigh Ville would be demolished and the new dwelling replacing would have the required two off road parking spaces. 6.21 Comments are also made that parking directly opposite the new access would be lost. Currently, if a vehicle parked along this section of the Glen Road, on both sides of the road, then the road would be blocked given its width and traffic would not be able to pass. Accordingly, from visiting the site and driving along the Glen Road on a number of occasions, it was clear that parking along this section of the Glen Road is limited to the northern side of the road. Accordingly, it is not considered there would be a loss of on-road parking space on the opposite side (southern) of the road, as it is not considered such space is available to use/unless obstructing the highway. 6.22 Highway Services have considered the application in detail and have raised no objection to the proposal, subject to the conditions listed, which are considered acceptable. Potential flood risk 6.23 This is perhaps the main issue relating to this application, and certainly one which has raised significant, and very reasonable concerns of local residents, who have unfortunately witnessed and been significantly impacted by recently flood events over the last two decades, including last year. As outlined by Environment Policy 13, development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted. 6.24 The site is partially (southern section only i.e. plot 1/existing dwelling) within a "Flood Risk Zone from Rivers". The site is not within an area identified as being at risk of tidal flooding. The "Flood Risk Zone" in question is regarded as a 1 in 100 year flood event. What this means is that it is estimated the likelihood of a storm event which is one that is expected to be equalled or exceeded once every 100 years; it also has a 1% chance of occurring in any one year. The information also refers to 1 in 100 year flood plus 30% climate change event, which results in a greater level of flooding due to climate change and raising sea levels etc. Due to this zoning,

57

Manx Utilities have carefully considered the scheme (see representations in this report). Furthermore, the applicants have specialist flood consultants to consider the impact of flooding on the site, but also to ensure flooding does not impact neighbouring sites/properties as well. It should be noted that following discussion the Department had with Manx Utilities they have confirmed that Both December 2015 and October 2019 flood events are predicted to be of a magnitude less than the 1 in 100 years. 6.25 The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) concludes that: … "The 2019 modelling indicates that flood water is not flowing through the development, but instead, is ponding due to flood water downstream entering the site. The alignment of the proposed development will not, therefore, impede the upstream flow of water and providing that the proposed development footprint remains the same as that of the existing building, then there will be no net loss of floodplain storage." 6.26 As part of the detailed discussion with the applicants a further plan was produced using LIDAR data (Light Detection and Ranging) which Manx Utilities allowed the applicants to use to provide a model which shows the direction of flooding in the area and where it comes and goes. It is understood LIDAR has an accuracy of 2.5cm and is used throughout the world. Manx Utilities have used this system to prepare flood defence plans etc. 6.27 This flood flow plan (submitted 23rd December 2019 by applicants) indicates that flood water runs from three directions towards the site; firstly down the Glen Road; secondly to the rear of properties Nrs 1 to 10 Glen Road Terrace (west of site - Also referred as Commissioners Houses); and thirdly from the rear of Rosedene Cottages (to east). The flood flow plan indicates that the site is only flooded primarily from the flood water running from the rear of Nrs 1 to 10 Glen Road Terrace into the site and then ponding in the front section of the site, which is currently the case according to the applicants. They also indicate this will continue to be the case as they indicate there would be no loss of floodplain storage on the site given the footprint of the existing dwelling and proposed dwelling (plot 1) is the same. The applicants also comment that given the rear section of the site is higher in terms of ground level; the flood flow plan demonstrates that this section of the site does not flood and therefore the development would have no impact on flood risk. It should be noted the flood flow plan is very similar to the Flood Maps produced by Manx Utilities, in terms of showing where flooding occurs. 6.28 The flood flow plan suggests that flooding of Rosedene Cottages isn't from the site given the height of the boundary flood wall (DOI wall), but also as flood water runs down from Minorca Hill (to the north/northeast of site) and enters the eastern boundary (opposite boundary to application site) and it is this flood water that affects Rosedene Cottages, rather than flood water from the site. This flow pattern also applies to the properties to the east of the site and north of the Glen Road (i.e. Laundry site/ restaurant etc). 6.29 The owner of 2 Rosedene Cottage disagrees with the information indicated within the submitted flood flow plan, commenting that the levels of the site differ between the LIDAR, site survey and real life, commenting that the rear of the site is not level and is below the road level, meaning that raising the site levels as the developer has put in his plans, would mean redistributing the water which currently ponds in these areas into other peoples properties and altering the current water flow on the site which would alter the flood risk assessment. Further they comment that the water is shown to flow from the rear of the Commissioners Houses to the front of the application site; however, they query this as they state the rear of the site is the same level. They comment that in 2015 flood event a significant amount of water swept across the rear part of site (indicated not to flood) and along the boundary into the site of 2 Rosedene Cottage leaving debris and mud along the shared boundary which was a hedge, now flood wall, destroying their greenhouse and shed, hence the new flood wall. The owner of 2 Rosedene Cottage also comments that the flood flow plan does not show water entering the application site from the Glen Road or the driveway of 2 Rosedene Cottages which is incorrect, both 2002 and 2015 floods water entered from the Glen Road, in 2015 the flood water in area was much deeper due to the location of where the river escaped, whereas recently flooding

58

(2019) the water along the Glen Road was shallower as the water entered the Glen Road much higher up Glen Road (Wollen Mills), meaning a lot of the water has dissipated by the time it got to the application site and even then without their flood wall and flood gates, water would have entered the site. Further the owner of 2 Rosedene Cottage comments that the flood flow map indicates that water flowing down Minorca Hill and entering the car park to the side of Rosedene Cottages, but instead of showing the entry point of the vulnerable steep driveway with no drainage and large area of dropped curb, it instead shows water leaving the road on a steep hill, via a high curb at a right angle to flow through a fence and down a bank which as someone who was present on the day, that did not happen. They also comment that the developer again is only mentioning the much higher flood wall which is adjacent to the back plot (plot 2) which only offers a clearance of 0.9m which isn't sufficient protection from the level of waters we have seen over the past 17 years. Also the flood wall which runs along the boundary with Rosedene Cottages is lower (runs downhill) and as the applicants are proposing to increase the levels on the site and reduce the kerb level to let more water into the site, the protection that the flood wall is less than 0.4m in areas which is not enough to withstand the levels of water that the site will receive, resulting in water over-topping the flood wall and entering Rosedene site again. 6.30 The Owner of Lewins Cottage also raise concern of the flood flow plan stating that the applicant has been provided with a lot of information but is placing more emphasis on the technical advice rather than the reality of the situation which should take priority over a model. Even if this model was accurate, this does not make this an acceptable scale of build in the flood plain of the village destroyed by recent flooding. 6.31 Some of the main concerns made by local residents are set out below. Raising of the site levels 6.32 The application includes existing site levels throughout the site with the ground level lowest being 6.50 (part of footpath around existing dwelling) up to a ground level height of 8.07 (a section of the rear part of the site - location of parking area for Plot 2) therefore a 1.57m level difference between the lowest part of the site and the highest part. However the applicants have advised that while this was the case when the application was submitted, it is not the case now. The highest level (8.07) was the top of a spoil pile in the rear section of the site which was created by the dug up soil located adjacent to the Manx stone boundary wall (referred also as the DOI wall). The applicant gave more detail by stating: "When we purchased the site the strip of land next to the boundary wall with Rosedene cottages was level and about 6.8 meters A O D. We then allowed the excavation of that part of the site to allow for the construction of the new flood wall. The excavation was 0.5 of a meter deep. During this time the topographical survey was taken and recorded the excavated material as a ridge and the trench as a lower level adjacent to the wall. These are the levels on the site plan. After the wall was constructed the excavated material was returned to the trench and the ground level returned to approximately 6.8 meters A O D. So we are using the original ground level as much as possible and we are not proposing the raising of the site by 0.5 of a meter from its original level. The top of the flood wall (DOI wall) is 7.94 A O D this is 900 mm approximately above the potential once in 100 year + 30% for climate change." 6.33 The applicant's agent also commented: "When the original topographical survey was carried out there was an area of the site excavated down to bottom of the boundary wall to foundation level to allow the boundary wall to be constructed to act as flood defence, so the levels on the survey of this area we much lower than existing ground levels. If you look on the existing drawing you can clearly see the outline and contours of a long spine of spoil near the Rosedene boundary wall. Once the wall was constructed this area was backfilled to the original ground level of the site. The topographical survey drawing and information submitted with the application reflect the lower excavated levels, and that's why there is a 0.5m difference. This does not exist in reality now as its back to the original levels."

59

6.34 This is not an ideal situation, i.e. the existing plan is not what the current situation is today, especially when the issue of site levels is important to ascertain. However, the comments made by the applicants above would appear to be correct, i.e. they have reinstated the site levels since the application was initially submitted and the former sites levels immediately adjacent to the boundary wall is approximately 6.80, rather than the 6.20 to 6.30 which is shown on the submitted "existing site plan" levels and this has raised concern that site levels in this location were being raised by 0.5m in height. It is wholly understandable why neighbours (and the Department - see below) have expressed concern of the raising of this section of the site, given what is shown on the existing and proposed plans. However, it is considered the applicants explanation in this case to be acceptable and does appear to tally with what is observed on site, although no new existing plan has been provided (was requested and received the above responses). 6.35 The Department did ask Manx Utilities the following question: "I visited the neighbouring properties last week, and it was clear that given their past experiences in flooding, this is one of their major concerns. Their concern is that from their experiences is that lifting of any part of the site (including the area indicated not being within river flood plain) will increase the risk of flooding on them. They are adamant that the flood water that affected them wasn't from the river but from the rear bank and from the road. While I note Manx Utilities comments below, are you able to explain how flooding won't be made worse on this site, as I (and neighbours) don't understand how lifting the level of the majority of the site by 0.5m won't affect them?" 6.36 In response Manx utilities commented: "Thanks for the email. Based on the comments in Gemma's email dated 22 May, we stated that we were satisfied that there would be no increase in flood risk to adjacent properties 'Providing the proposed Plot No.1…does not result in an increased development footprint, and on the basis that finished floor level will be raised to 7.60mAOD - approximately 600mm above the predicted flood level…' In other words, that the new properties would be of not more than the external plan area of the buildings that they replaced, and that flood resilience would be achieved by setting the internal floors at an appropriate level. Raising the whole site would be at odds with this." 6.37 In terms of the last comment "Raising the whole site would be at odds with this" this raise some concern, as the levels where being increased. Accordingly the Department sought additional comment form Manx Utilities which where: Department - "In terms of point 2: they are changing levels to the front section. Please see attached amended plan which shows the current proposal. However, the level numbers are difficult to read, so please see the initial plan which was first submitted. The site levels are the same as currently proposed as no changes have ever been made during the application process; however easier to read on the initial plan. Very roughly they are being changed to between 6.90 and 7.00 compared to the existing levels which are between 6.50 and 6.95 (please see the existing site plan on the same plans for more detail). Would be grateful for your further comments on this matter…" Manx Utilities - "The only thing I see as appropriate is for the applicants consultant to confirm in writing that the alterations to the land at the front of the plot (raising the ground levels) will not alter the flood flow pathways in such a way that will be to the detriment of any neighbouring properties. If the above was confirmed then we would be satisfied." 6.38 The applicants consultants subsequently confirmed that: "In response to the comment / query below, my response is that the nominal raising of levels associated with the new access will not alter the flood flow pathways in such a way that will be

60

to the detriment of neighbouring properties - Please note the flood flow pathways have been considered in previous FRA correspondence from JBA. Also, in our correspondence dated 18/10/2019 it was noted that the kerb is being lowered to form the vehicular access and this would allow flood waters from the south / riverside to back-up into the development and utilise the lower lying ground and undercroft within the development thereby providing some nominal benefit." 6.39 There is a clear level difference when visiting the site (and on plans) of the front section of the site and the rear section of the site. The front section generally has a level difference of between 6.50 and 6.80s, with the odd areas slightly higher (raised planters). The southern section of the site generally has a level difference of between 6.90s and 7.20s, again with some dips and raises. Essentially, there are two fairly level areas, with the rear part being stepped up. For information the road level adjacent to new access point is 6.99 and the footpath level is 7.22. Therefore for reference the lowest part of the site (footpath around existing dwelling) is 720mm below the public footpath and 490mm below road level. 6.40 The proposed ground levels generally are to increase slightly throughout the site (although some section do decrease) to a general level of approximately between 6.70 and 7.00 which gives a more level site throughout. The finished floor level for each dwelling would be 7.60. 6.41 The 1 in 100 year flood event with 30% added to possible climate change, the level in the site is 7.02. This figure is critical to understand in the determination of this application. Again for reference the Glen Road level adjacent to the site ground level is around 7.00. It is also important to note that the flood wall constructed by the DOI and owners of Rosedene cottage is 7.94. Accordingly, the applicants conclude that given this flood wall is approximately 0.8/0.9m above the 1 in 100 year with 30% added to possible climate change, therefore applicant's comment that the development will not cause Rosedene Cottages from being flooded by this development. Comments from the owner of 2 Rosedene Cottage indicates that this flood wall is not this height in all places along the boundary with Rosedene Cottage. The applicant's response is that the actual wall is set at approximately 7.78 and that the height of the wall is higher than the proposed floor levels of the new dwellings, which in turn are some 0.6m above the height of the 1 in 100 year flood event with a 30% climate change. The applicants comment that the development causes no increase on the flood levels to others adjacent to the site and furthermore it would appear that Rosedene Cottage is protected to a standard well above the 1 in 100 year, by virtue of the protection measures /DOI wall. These views are shared by Manx Utilities. Lowering ground level at new access onto Glen Road/kerb level 6.42 The application also proposes to lower the ground level slightly (appx 0.2m) at the point of the new vehicular access onto Glen Road. The applicant's state: "We would add that at the entrance to the proposed development the kerb is being lowered, to form a vehicular access, by approximately 100mm from 7.20 to 7.10m AOD. This will, in effect, provide a nominal benefit to surface eater flood risk from Glen Road by enabling overland flow to enter low lying ground within the development site at a lower level." 6.43 Concern has been raised that such works would encourage more water into the site and increase flooding to Rosedene Cottage. This issue was raised with the applicants, who provided the following response: "Because the predicted 1 in 100 year plus 30% Climate Change flood level in the site is 7.02 AOD see Flood Risk report attached, this is lower than the level of the road so the flood water is trapped in the site and Rosedene is protected from site by the DOI wall which has a height of 7.78 to 7.9 AOD well above the flood level on the site. This dealt with in the JBA letter dated 14th Feb 2020 attached where it says "….furthermore it would appear that Rosedene Cottages is protected to a standard well above the 1 in 100 year + 30% climate change by virtue of the protection measures/DOI wall."

61

6.44 The submission indicated that the applicants are deliberately allowing the flow of water in and through the site, namely from the rear of the Commissioners Houses and the Glen Road. They explain that there is no net loss of floodplain storage and that the central area of the site is to be a porous gravel and grid reinforcement system which allows rainwater to permeate through. Further, while this is extremely concerning to the occupants of Rosedene Cottages, the applicant's comments believe that the flood boundary wall is at a height (appx 0.78m above flood level) which would prevent water from the site into Rosedene Cottage. Manx Utilities have no objection to this conclusion to this matter. LIDAR data inaccurate 6.45 As outlined previously concern has been raised of the accuracy of the Lidar data especially in relation to the site levels to the rear of the application site which is shown not to flood. The Department sought comment from the applicants on this matter where they commented that the topographic survey which was undertaken (Aug 2017) showed this part of the site being lower (0.2m to 0.3m) compared to the LIDAR survey undertaken by Manx Utilities. They comment since this 2017 survey the raised area (believed to be soil spoil created by building of flood wall) has been spread locally and it is now understood the actual average level of the rear portion of the land is now approximately 7.30. They comment that the lowest level on the LIDAR cross section provided by Manx Utilities of approximately 7.25. However, they conclude by stating that this rear portion of the development is above the flood level both in terms of actual levels and LIDAR levels and hence amending the hydraulic model for the latest topographical information would give the same output as this area is above the flood risk area. Manx Utilities response to this information is within paragraph 5.3.6 of this report and following additional information provide further concluding comments in paragraph 5.3.7. Accordingly, Manx Utilities do not disagree with the conclusion of the applicants on this matter. Flooding of existing surface water drain 6.46 Currently the existing surface water drains runs from the rear of the Commissioners Houses through the centre of the site to the front door of 2 Rosedene Cottage (manhole) and then runs to the Glen Road. Previous flooding has resulted in flood water coming up the manhole within 2 Rosedene Cottage. There is obvious concern that the development which is connecting into this same surface water drain would increase the chance of floodwater entering Nr 2. 6.47 Consequently, the Applicant has offered to, as part of the works, and subject to discussion and agreement with Manx Utilities, to divert the existing public surface water drain away from the manhole at the entrance door to Rosedene Cottage. Manx Utilities have subsequently confirmed they have no objection to the principle of this. If the application is approved a condition should be attached which requires further details of this new surface water pipe. Flood risk to new owners/occupants 6.48 There is an issue which cannot be overcome by the proposal and that is the risk to those living in the new dwellings. In a major flood (1 to 100 year plus 30% CC) event there is the potential that while their new dwellings would unlikely to flood; given the finished floor levels being 0.6m (600mm) above the flood level, these properties (with a number along Glen Road) would be isolated given flood water along the Glen Road and within the site (driveway/parking area, gardens) by between 0.2m and 0.3m (approx. below knee height for an adult). Accordingly, it could be considered this is a risk, especially if during a flood event an emergency in one of the properties which would require emergency services to the site. 6.49 This issue was put to the applicants and what level of risk/likelihood would they consider this against EP13. They commented: "There is really no issue here - for most of the site/driveway apron near the properties, the ground level is approx. 7.00/6.90 AOD which is only 20 to 120mm below the predicted flood

62

level highlighted above of 7.02 AOD. Therefore in these areas the water will only be 20mm to 120mm deep. In the general driveway apron areas the lowest point is 6.70 AOD along the kerb line nearest the eastern boundary, so here the water will be 320mm deep. But vehicles can easily get close to the houses where the flood water is shallow at 20mm to 120mm. I've attached the drawing P02B for your easy reference. Please also remember this is in the unlikely event of a 1 in 100 year event (plus 30% for climate change) occurring - there is a very low risk of this occurring as its nomenclature suggests.". 6.50 Whether it is a high risk or low risk is open for discussion; for example an argument that the actually dwelling would not flood would mean any occupants could just wait out the flood and water to recede. Alternatively, an argument could be made it is high risk, as an emergency may occur in one of the properties during a flood event, which then requires emergency services to get to the property, which is increases risk to them. It is difficult to quantify the risk, especially given the fact the likelihood of such flooding events is 1 in 100 year or 1% chance each year, although while the recent floods have not been classified as the 1 in 100 year event, they clearly had significant impact and damage and certainly it is doubtful that vehicles could be drive as suggested by the applicants. Further, while persons dwellings may be unaffected (internal flooding) their gardens/vehicles etc may not. While the 1 in 100 year flood event is unlikely each year, there are clearly other flood events that can still occur and it is considered to be of a high risk. For example the last two events which caused major damage where not 1 in 100 year flood events but a magnitude less than the 1 in 100 years. Accordingly, this factor significantly weights against the application. Conclusions of flooding impacts 6.51 It is clear from the representations received from neighbouring properties, there is a significant and very real concerns of the development, especially in terms of flooding, in that the development would significant increase the level of flooding to surrounding areas/residential properties. 6.52 Over the period of the application, the Department has sought additional information/evidence from the applicants in respect of the flooding issues, namely comments received from neighbours, who have raised significant concerns of the information submitted, especially given what they observed, especially the last two flood events from 2015 and 2019. The applicants have provided an additional three additional documents and a number of emails, which provides evidence that the applicants argue support their original Flood Risk Assessment conclusion; that the development would not increase flood risk on or off the site. Further the information including a flood flow plan they argue clearly shows that the new development is achievable without increasing flood risk elsewhere. And that Manx Utilities comments that the development does not result in a net loss of storage nor alters the flood flow pathways. 6.53 As outlined, Manx Utilities have considered these conclusions and the findings of the Flood Risk Assessment and all additional information submitted by the applicants and also representations received from neighbours, and have raised no objection to the proposals. 6.54 Accordingly, while there are understandable concerns of flooding in the area, the flood maps along the Glen Road do clearly identify this, whether this development is undertaken or not. However, the technical data provided has been considered and accepted by Manx Utilities the Government's technical experts. Further the Department has no other technical data that contradicts the findings of the applicants or Manx Utilities. Following this line of thought, the issue of flooding should be considered acceptable. However, it is clear local neighbours have a first and real knowledge of how the area floods and how this affects their own and surrounding properties and this knowledge should not be discounted. It is noted comments from Manx Utilities in their email dated 10.01.2020: "We do value local knowledge and photographs of flood mechanisms on the ground as ultimately these improve the models and analysis…". This same email they comment "We do accept the hydraulic model may have inaccuracies. All models are simplifications of reality".

63

6.55 In terms of evidence there are no photographs provided by concerned local residents taken during the flood events, which would be very helpful in demonstrating exactly what occurred in the area and the application site. Comments made now are solely on what was observed during the terrible event, however this should not necessary be a disadvantage to the local residents now. During discussions with each separately, they each tell of a similar story and what they observed is not doubted. 6.54 The determination of this application could be considered to be easier if for example the IOMSP stated that any development in a high risk flood zone will not be permitted. This way, no matter of the risk, there would be a total presumption against development in such areas. However that is not the case, as outlined EP13 this states that development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted. Therefore, it does allow development with a degree of risk, just not one of an "unacceptable" level of risk. Accordingly, it is this issue which arguable the application is refused or approved on and is a matter of an open judgement. 6.56 This is extremely finely balanced issue which there are consider perhaps no clear conclusion. On one hand the technical information and modelling clearly suggests the application does not increase the risk of flooding off-site. Manx Utilities have also confirmed that for all planning applications they use the design flood risk zone and this is standard practice. However, on the other hand there does seem to be a complete disagreement with the findings and real concerns with the development. This leaves the Department in an extremely difficult position. 6.57 Other material matters to take account of is the fact is within a sustainable location in Laxey Village which would also help meet the housing needs of the IOMSP (albeit in a small amount) and the aims of the IOMSP for sustainable development within existing settlements. However, a counter argument which weights against the application is whether there are more suitable sites elsewhere for housing developments. In some situations development is required on a specific site; for example a dock which needs to be by a major river/sea. This dock site may well be in a high risk flood zone which goes against the application when considering it. However, there may be significant benefits (i.e. job creation/economy/national need) in favour of the development and there may be no other suitable sites. Accordingly, it may be considered acceptable in the balance of material considerations, subject perhaps to mitigation to protect the site and others as much as possible from flood events, although accepting it may still flood. However, this is not the case for this application site. While the land is designated for development and has also gained previous approval for dwellings on the site (now expired and not the same degree of flood consideration as now); there is currently still land available in the East of the Island. Further, an perhaps significantly is the Modified Area Plan for the East has passed through the Public Inquiry Stage and to nearing the end of the process and potentially going before Tynwald this year for final approval. This area plan designates significant amount of land to provide approximately 1400 dwellings in the east of the Island (Laxey falls within this) and a further 1000 dwellings as reserved sites. Accordingly, there is a very reasonable argument to have whether the demand of housing in the East of the island is so great that it outweighs the concerns of flooding, namely to occupants of the future dwelling. In this case it is not considered there is such housing demand to overcome the concerns raised. (vi) Impact on the neighbouring residents living conditions; 6.58 In terms of the potential impacts the owner of 1 & 2 Rosedene Cottages, Nr 10 Glen Road Terrace, Lewins Cottage and Brookside are the properties most affected by this development. It should be noted a planning officer of the Department visited each of these properties (with the exception of Nr 10). The Residential Design Guide is helpful in the determination of the potential impacts upon neighbouring properties. 1 Rosedene Cottage 6.59 This property has a total of 3 windows which have direct view of the site. All three rooms are habitable rooms (bedrooms/study). These windows have direct views towards the

64

front elevation of dwelling on plot 1. Currently the views are of the gable of the existing property. Therefore the general outlook is different given the new dwelling being taller and wider from such window views; However, given the rooms are not primary habitable windows; the distant the new dwelling would be from these windows (approx. 14m); and existing views would not be significantly different to the existing situation (i.e. existing built development rather than open expansive views); it is consider the impacts would not be so adverse to refuse the application. 2 Rosedene Cottage 6.60 This property has a total of five windows & glazed front door which directly face towards the application site. The main issue is whether there is any significant loss of light and/or overbearing impact upon outlooks. Plots 2 & 3 are likely to have the greatest impacts these are positioned in line with Nr 2. Of the five windows & door which face the site, all but two serve either habitable (bedroom) or non-habitable rooms (porch/bathroom), therefore the impacts upon these rooms is lessened give their use. Further, the distance, siting of these dwellings would be between 10 and 20m away which again for the rooms they serve is considered appropriate. In terms of the remainder two windows these serve a lounge, which is a primary habitable room which seeks most protection. The position of the lounge and the side projection of the bedroom extension (flat roofed) is such that views of the dwelling on plot 2 (closest dwelling to Nr 2) from these windows would be obscure, given this side flat roofed extension. Direct views would be seen towards the dwelling on plot 3; however, given the distance between the properties (approximately 19 to 20m) it is not considered the impact would be so significant to warrant a refusal. Some sun light may be lost during winter periods, albeit the light lost would be for a limited period during sunset. Sun orientation is east to west and the dwellings on plots 2 & 3 are northwest of lounge windows. Nr 10 Glen Road Terrace 6.61 Plot 3 would have the greatest impacts upon the occupants of Nr 10. Impacts of this dwelling are namely overbearing impacts upon outlook, especially from the rear garden. Plot 3 would be located 9.5m to the northeast for the rear elevation of Nr 10 and be located 1.5m to the shared boundary with Nr 10 running parallel with the side boundary/garden. There would clearly be a major change in the outlook from the rear garden, essentially have a two storey gable walling facing towards the garden. However, the gardens are fairly deep with open views and while the character of the eastern boundary would alter by the development; it is not considered the impact would be so significant to warrant a refusal. No direct sun light would be lost given plot 3 is to the northeast of the dwelling Nr 10. Lewins Cottage 6.62 This property is on the opposite side of the Glen Road to the application site, and would be opposite the proposed vehicular access to the site and the gable end of the new dwelling on plot 1. This property has five windows (two at first floor and three at first floor) which directly view towards the site. The main issue is whether the development would have an overbearing impact upon the outlooks of Lewins Cottage. The site is to the south so no loss of light would occur. Further, no directly facing windows are proposed, so no overlooking would occur and arguable this proposal results in a reduction given the 90degree change in the orientation of the new dwelling and the existing, which currently directly faces towards Lewis Cottage and Brookside. The main impacts are to the two ground floor windows of the property. The first serves an open plan kitchen/diner/living room. The window in question, whilst servicing a primary habitable room, it is not the primary window in terms of outlook and light, given there are a total of three windows/patio door within the side and rear elevations which serve this room. The lounge to the property has a single window which has direct view towards the site. This room is also served by the front door to the property which has glazed window at the upper section which also opens inwards (stable like door) to provide more of an outlook. This room would be most impacted, as it is only served by these windows and as the dwelling on plot 1 would be closer (approximately 7m) than the existing dwelling which is approximately 13 m away. This could cause a concern sufficient to warrant a refusal. However, again it should be

65

noted that current outlook is of the existing dwelling, so again the outlook from the front windows of this property are not open and expansive views, but of the existing dwelling on the site. Further the amount of built development, while closer is arguable less, given the orientation change between the existing (had a width of 13.8m) and proposed (with a width of 7.5m). Accordingly, while there will be an impact upon these ground floor lounge windows, it is considered the impact would be negligible give the reasons stated above. Brookside 6.63 The impacts upon this property are very similar to those of Lewins Cottage in terms of the lounge windows. Again Brookside has a similar arrangement with a single window and glazed stable like door to its front elevation which serve its primary habitable room (lounge). Again the same reasoning in terms of development being closer, but the amount of directly facing development being reduced. In this case, the outlook of Brookside is likely to be improved and given more open outlooks (between plot 1 and Nr 10 Glen Road Terrace) given these reasons. Accordingly, it is not considered the development would adverse impact the amenities of this property. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 In terms of the principle of residential development on this site; the principle of the demolition of Cranleigh Ville; visual impact on the streetscene; potential impact on highway safety for access/parking provision; and the potential impact on the neighbouring residents living conditions (overlooking, loss of light and over bearing impact) all have been found to be acceptable for the reasons stated within this report earlier. 7.2 The outstanding issue relates to potential impact of flooding, both in terms of on-site and off-site. In terms of the material planning considerations there are considered to be benefits and dis-benefits of the scheme and these need to be considered to determine whether these may overcome the flooding concerns. 7.3 In favour the existing site appears rather tired and not significantly contributing to the street scene or Conservation Area. Its redevelopment would be of benefit to the street scene and the Conservation Area. Second the development would increase the number of houses in a sustainable settlement, without the need to use greenfield sites. The site would provide two additional dwellings to the housing aims of the IOMSP. Against is as outlined in paragraph 5.65, while providing additional housing to a sustainable settlement, is there such demand for such housing in the east of the IOM, especially given the Modified Area Plan for the East has allocated a significant number of houses throughout the east of the Island. It is noted that sites which were proposed to be designated for development, but where in a High Flood Risk zone, where removed from the area plan process. Accordingly, it is not considered there is a significant demand for housing, especially for only two additional dwellings which would have limit impact on housing figures in the east of the Island and therefore within the context of overall housing supply this is perhaps not a compelling argument to potential overcome concerns. 7.4 Other considerations are it would result in the loss of an existing dwelling which could potentially be renovated and adds some level of visual benefit to the Conservation Area; albeit, given its floor level height being below the flood plain such renovation would also require significant flood defences. The new dwellings would be of an acceptable design and site well within the street, preserving the character of the Conservation Area. It would not increase the living conditions of neighbouring properties, and may have some negative impact, purely given there is greater level of built development on the site and more dwellings. These may not be a reason for refusal but a minor disbenefit. It would have a neutral impact on parking - loss of on street, creation of off-street but more houses (including potential for visitors). 7.5 In terms of whether the proposal would result in an unacceptable level of flooding off-site i.e. to neighbouring properties, it is considered the applicants have provided sufficient evidence to suggest this proposal would not. This view is support by the conclusions/comments

66

of Manx Utilities who have raised no objection to the proposal. Accordingly, this aspect is in the application's favour. 7.6 However, it is consider the potential on-site flooding which would occur and impact future residents are too great to overcome the benefits of the scheme for the reason outlined within paragraph of this report. There is of concern whether this is "good planning" i.e. to allow a residential development into a known high risk flood area which has had a number of recent flood events which cause significant damage to dwellings, properties & vehicles etc. Even more importantly it is clear from the experiences of local residents to date, that the floods have played a significant impact upon their lives, some having the trauma of having to escape their properties during such events. Should the Department be knowingly be encouraging further residents to such a scenario? While the applicants have made an argument that the 1 in 100 year flood event (1% chance each year) is relatively low and they consider the risk to new residents to be low; recent experiences are clear that such events (1in 100 year) does not need to occur to cause significant damage. While arguments could be made that some of these other events had other factors (i.e. Laxey bridge collapsing/bus blocking river) which may have made the flooding situation worse; the fact remains the proposal if approved would result in additional residential properties in this known high risk flood area. 7.7 Accordingly, for the above reasons, it is recommended for a refusal. However, given there are benefits to the proposal, it may be considered that these outweigh the concerns raised and therefore should the Planning Committee approve the application the conditions outlined within Section 9.0 of this report are recommended to be attached to any approval. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. 9.0 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS 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. 2. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area and impacts upon flooding.

67

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected or placed within the curtilage of any dwelling house forward of any wall of that dwelling house which fronts onto a highway, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area and impacts upon flooding. 4. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no garden sheds or summerhouses shall be erected or placed within the curtilage of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area and impacts upon flooding. 5. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times. Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety. 6. The proposed site levels as shown on drawing P02 REV B shall be fully adhered to and retained thereafter. Reason: In the interest of flood protection both on-site and off-site and as the application and associated Flood Risk Assessment and Flood Flow Plan has been considered with these ground levels only. 7. No development shall commence until details demonstrating how a new surface water drain connecting the new dwellings will be connected from the site to Glen Road and no part of the new surface water shall connect to the existing surface water drain which runs to Nr 2 Rosedene Cottage. This approved scheme shall be fully adhered to prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby approved and shall be retained thereafter. Reason: In the interested of neighbouring amenities in terms of flooding form surface water drain. 8. 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 a dwelling, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. Details of the hard landscaping works include footpaths and hard surfacing materials and walls/fences. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted. Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development and impacts upon flooding.

68

9. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until the means of vehicular access and visibility splays has been constructed in accordance with the approved plans, and shall thereafter be retained for access purposes only. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. 10. The Finished Floor Level of each of the three dwellings hereby approved shall be 7.60AOD as shown on drawing P02 REV B and retained thereafter. Reason: In the interest of flood protection of the new dwellings. 9.1 Approved Drawings: This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers: 4th March 2019 P03 Sanderson Highway Report (dated 11th February 2019) 23rd March 2019 P01 REV A P02 REV B 23rd May 2019 P05 P04 JBA Consulting Flood Risk Assessment (dated May 2019) Sanderson Highway Report (update - dated 17th May 2019) 10732-003 10732-004 12th July 2019 Bat Survey prepared by Manx Bat Group 23rd December 2019 Email from McGarrigle Architects Ltd including Figure 1 (flood flow plan) & Figure 2 (comparison of levels of the site and surrounding areas) 22nd October 2019 JBA Consulting letter dated 18th October 2019 20th February 2020 JBA Consulting letter dated 14th February 2020

69

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 27th July 2020

Item 5.3 Proposal : Registered Building consent for the demolition elements

relating the application 19/00243/B Site Address : Cranleigh Ville

Glen Road Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7AB

Applicant : Mr Colin & Mrs Kerry Mills Application No. : Principal Planner :

19/00244/CON- 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 works hereby granted registered building consent shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this consent. Reason: To comply with paragraph 2(2)(a) of schedule 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented registered building consents. C 2. No development shall commence until a full and comprehensive photographic survey of Cranleigh Ville internally and externally has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department. Reason: In order to retain a record of the site in the interests of local history. Reason for approval: The loss of the existing dwelling is unfortunate but it is not considered to be of sufficient architectural or historical interest to warrant the refusal the application, especially given the lack of objection from Manx National Heritage. Accordingly, the Department is satisfied the proposal would comply with Environment Policy 39.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report 0.0 PREAMBLE 0.1 This application was considered by the committee on 05.05.20 and deferred for a site visit. Given wider circumstances this visit was not carried out until 20.07.20 (date and time agreed at the meeting on 13.07.20). An extract from the minutes for 05.05.20 is provided in the report for 20/00243/B for reference.

70

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 is Cranleigh Ville an existing residential dwelling situated on the northern side the of the Glen Road within Laxey Village. The dwelling is a traditional two storey Manx farmhouse styled property with three upper windows over a central doorway which is flanked with single window either side. The application site also includes the land to the immediate north and east of the existing dwelling. From the planning history/aerial photography, it appears to have been in separate ownership/use from the dwelling and its appearance is of shrub land, rather than a garden associated with Cranleigh Ville. The existing defined rear wall boundaries of Cranleigh Ville would also support this view. 1.2 The site currently has no vehicle access and therefore there is no off road parking associated with the dwelling/adjoin site. 2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for Registered Building consent for the demolition elements relating the application 19/00243/B. The property is not registered, but given it is within a Conservation Area Registered Building consent is required. 3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application; 3.2 The erection of three houses and associated site works (Land to rear of Cranleigh Ville - did not include Cranleigh Ville) - 06/01775/B - APPROVED 3.3 Construction of 3 first time buyers houses and associated works (Site At Cranleigh Ville & land to north and east i.e. same as currently application) - 04/01579/B - APPROVED 3.4 Approval in principle for the erection of dwelling (land immediately to the east of Cranleigh Ville) - 99/01238/A - REFUSED 3.5 Provision of temporary access to plot of land at rear of Cranleigh Ville and side garden of 10 - 95/00485/B - APPROVED 4.0 PLANNING POLICY 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area of predominantly residential use under the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005. Under this Local Plan the following Policy L/RES/PR/1 states: "Residential development will generally only be approved within the study area in those areas designated as proposed and existing residential. In particular, in the case of Agneash no further dwellings will be approved although, as will be the case in areas zoned as residential, alterations and extensions to existing property may be accepted if such proposals are sympathetic to the character and appearance of both the building to be altered and the surrounding area in general." 4.2 The southerly most section of the site, which equates to approximately ¼ of the site area (existing dwelling and section of land immediately to east of dwelling) is within a High Flood Risk Zone from Rivers. 4.3 Under the Modified Draft Area Plan for the East the site is designated as residential.

71

4.4 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains a number of policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. 4.5 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: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; 4.14 Environment Policy 35 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." 4.15 Environment Policy 39 states: "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area." 4.16 Paragraph 7.32.2 of the IOMSP states (which is the supportive text for EP 39): "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. When considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to: o the condition of the building; o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions); o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; o the merits of alternative proposals for the site." 4.17 Conservation Areas of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man): "POLICY RB/6 DEMOLITION There will be a general presumption against demolition and consent for the demolition of a registered building should not be expected simply because redevelopment is economically more attractive than repair and re-use of an historic building; or because the building was acquired at a price that reflected the potential for redevelopment, rather than the condition and constraints of the existing historic building. Where proposed works would result in the total or substantial demolition of a registered building, an applicant, in addition to the general criteria set out in RB/3 above, should be able to demonstrate that the following considerations have been addressed:-

72

o The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use. Any such assessment should be based on consistent and long term assumptions. Less favourable levels of rents and yields cannot automatically be assumed for historic buildings and returns may, in fact, be more favourable given the publicly acknowledged status of the building. Furthermore, historic buildings may offer proven performance, physical attractiveness and functional spaces that in an age of rapid change may outlast the short-lived and inflexible technical specifications that have sometimes shaped new developments. Any assessment should take into account possible tax allowances and exemptions. In rare cases where it is clear that a building has been deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition, less weight should be given to the costs of repair; o The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use. An applicant must show that real efforts have been made, without success, to continue the present use, or to find new uses for the building. This may include the offer of the unrestricted freehold of the building on the open market at a realistic price reflecting the building's condition. o The merits of alternative proposals for the site. Subjective claims for the architectural merits of a replacement building should not justify the demolition of a registered building. There may be very exceptional cases where the proposed works would bring substantial benefits for the community; these would have to be weighed against preservation. Even here, it will often be feasible to incorporate registered buildings within new development, and this option should be carefully considered. The challenge presented by retaining registered buildings can be a stimulus to imaginative new designs to accommodate them 4.18 POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole." 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Garff Commissioners have no objection (06.04.2019). 5.2 Highways Services comment there are no highway implications (22.03.2019). 5.3 Manx National Heritage did not specifically comment on this application, rather application to be considered in conjunction with this one PA 19/00244/B; accordingly, it is considered relevant to take their comments into account when determining the current application (17.04.2019); "I write on behalf of Manx National Heritage ('MNH'), whose statutory responsibilities pertaining to the protection of the cultural and natural heritage of the Isle of Man are defined under the terms of the Manx Museum and National Trust Act. Ecology & Environment We would like to highlight the potential for the existing dwelling to support roosting bats.

73

The Laxey Valley and surrounding area is well known for supporting a number of bat species, with records for Leisler's (Nyctalus leisleri), brown long-eared (Plecotus auritus), common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), soprano pipistrelle (P.pygmaeus) and Myotis species bats present within 1km of the site. The scrub and tree line to the rear of the property as well as the densely wooded valley of the Laxey River, on the opposite side of the road provide highly suitable foraging areas and commuting corridors for a wide range of bat species, whilst the Laxey River itself provides an ideal foraging ground for Daubenton's bats (Myotis daubentoni), which feed on insects over water bodies. All Manx bat species are listed as Schedule 5 species under the Wildlife Act (1990). As such, it is an offense to intentionally kill or injure any species of bat. It is also an offence to intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to, a location which a bat is using for shelter or protection. Disturbance to a bat whilst it is occupying such a location is also an offence. For this reason, we recommend that a bat survey of the building be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist prior to the demolition of the building. Built Heritage Ordnance Survey mapping published in 1870 shows this building in its current extended form, save for the smaller of two extensions added to the east gable. In form the buildings is therefore at least 150 years old and as a good example of a traditional double-fronted Manx cottage, with a traditional single-storey gable extension covered by a traditional single-pitch roof. We would suggest that if approval is forthcoming, it would be appropriate, ahead of demolition, to require a photographic record to be made by the applicant under the terms of the Department's published guidance, 'Guidance on Undertaking Historic Building Photographic Surveys'. We trust that the above remarks will be useful to the Department." 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this current planning application is solely the principle of the demolition of Cranleigh Ville. The principle of the demolition of Cranleigh Ville 6.2 Environment Policy 39 indicated that the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The supportive text of this policy indicates that When considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to: the condition of the building; the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions); the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and the merits of alternative proposals for the site. 6.3 The Building proposed to be demolitions is traditional Manx farmhouse style property, and while it appears to be in a habitable condition, it does need some restoration. The building itself has lost some its tradition features, for example traditional chimney pots; original slate roof; original sliding sash windows and original door, with their replacements not especially attractive or in keeping with the property/Conservation Area. The property has also be pebble dash which again is not a traditional finish expected to this type pf property. Accordingly, the dwelling in its currently form does not specifically add significant interest to the Conservation Area from a visual perspective; albeit it could be argued that the dwelling could be easily

74

restored with more traditional styles/finishes; which in turn be more of a positive feature in the Conservation Area. 6.4 The applicants statement does not address the points outlined with in the supportive text of EP39 and therefore the considerations of the condition of the building; the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use; and the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use have not been explored. 6.5 It is noted that Manx National Heritage have not objected to its demolition, only seek a photographic survey be undertaken prior to any demolition. 6.6 While not specifically addressed by the applicants submission, an argument in favour of the demolition is the "the merits of alternative proposals for the site"; which could be argued to be providing three new dwellings in a sustainable location. It is noted that the supportive text of EP39 are consideration and not a "requirement" and it could be argued that the "the merits of alternative proposals for the site" outweigh the other three considerations listed. It is considered each application should be judged on its own merits. 6.7 Overall, while the loss of the existing dwelling is unfortunate, it is not considered to be of such architectural or historical interest to refuse the application; especially given the lack of objection from Manx National Heritage. Accordingly, the Department is satisfied the proposal would comply with Environment Policy 39. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons, it is recommended for an approval. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013, the following 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; (c) Manx National Heritage; and (d) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated 8.2 In addition to those above, the Regulation 9(3) requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.

75

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 27th July 2020

Item 5.4 Proposal : Erection of seven detached dwellings with integral garages

including access roads, drainage and landscaping Site Address : Ballagarey Nurseries

Greeba Avenue Glen Vine Isle Of Man IM4 4ED

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

19/01396/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 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling within the development, the developer shall provide the visibility splays shown in plan ITB15248-GA-001 and these shall be retained as such thereafter. Reason: in the interests of highway safety. C 3. Prior to the first occupation of any dwelling the respective car parking as shown in the approved plans shall be provided and remain as such for the duration of occupation of the approved development. Reason: to minimise on-street car parking that could be detrimental to the operation of the highway. C 4. The recommendations of the Protected Species Report February 2020 must be implemented in full. Reason: to mitigate the impact of the development on the ecology of the area. C 5. Prior to the undertaking of any built development, the applicant must have had approved in writing by the Department: i. a lighting plan which will demonstrate that any proposed lighting will minimise the impact on any bats that commute and/or forage in close proximity to the new development ii. the location and design of at least two starling nest boxes

76

iii. the design and location of at least two bat boxes suitable for a maternity colony for species known to occur in the area iv. the design and location of a bee brick in each proposed dwelling v. an amended planting scheme which incorporates native species as recommended in the Protected Species Report February, 2020 and the development must be undertaken in accordance with these approved details. Reason: to mitigate the ecological impact of the development. C 6. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwellings, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. Reason: The landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved. Reason for approval: Whilst the development will have an impact on the environment and those living near to the site, it is considered, having regard to General Policy 2, Environment Policies 3 and 4 of the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guidance, that this impact is acceptable.

______________________________________________________________

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): 2, Greeba Avenue Roylea, 4, Greeba Avenue Auldyn, 6, Greeba Avenue Sunhill, 7, Greeba Avenue 9, Greeba Avenue Jesswin, 11, Greeba Avenue 13, Greeba Avenue 15, Greeba Avenue 17, Greeba Avenue as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NUMBER OF OBJECTIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN RECEIVED INCLUDING ONE FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL THE SITE 1.1 The site is a parcel of land which sits to the south west of Greeba Avenue, backing onto a number of existing properties: 7-19 (odd numbers only), and Garey Beg, all off Greeba Avenue,

77

the end of a developing estate on the site of the former dwelling, Ballabeg which is accessed from the A1 Main Road (TT Course) and to the south west the site backs onto Reayrt Aalin, Timberwoods, Ballacosney, The Elms, High Rigg, Ballagarey Bungalow and Ballagarey House. To the south east is 5, Greeba Avenue and the entrance to the site sits between 5 and 7, Greeba Avenue. A greenhouse sits to the south east of the site between 5, Greeba Avenue and Ballagarey Bungalow. 1.2 The existing properties which abut the site from Greeba Avenue are predominantly single storey, some with accommodation in the roofspace. The properties on the Main Road are a mix of single storey and two storey dwellings. The approved dwellings on the Ballabeg site are two storey. 1.3 There is an existing access onto Greeba Avenue serving the nurseries which currently occupy the site. 1.4 The site falls into three distinct parts: the entrance leads into an open area that has greenhouses on its south eastern side and residential properties looking into the site from this direction (5, Greeba Avenue and Ballagarey Bungalow) as well as a timber shed to the north west of the entrance. The view from and of 7, Greeba Avenue is currently screened by significant vegetation - ivy, trees and bushes. 1.5 There is a line of leylandii running northeast to southwest from midway on 7, Greeba Avenue and on the other side of this, adjacent to the other half of 7, Greeba Avenue, is a more formally managed area which has a central area where it looks like things were planted surrounded by small fruit trees planted in lines on either side. There is access into this area from the Main Road alongside Ballagarey House. The final and largest part of the site is currently unmanaged field where the Greeba Avenue properties abut the site with boundaries which comprise fencing with some planting and where the Main Road properties have more substantial, planted boundaries. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the development of the site for seven dwellings. The applicant makes the point that the number of dwellings falls below the requirement for affordable housing (Housing Policy 5) or the provision of Public Open Space (Recreation Policy 3). 2.2 The dwellings take five different forms - all but one are two storey, five with gable ended roofs and two with hipped roof, one being a bungalow (plot 4, closest to 9, Greeba Avenue) and all having attached or integral garages. The style follows that of the Ballabeg site to which this will be joined, forming a through route from the TT Course to Greeba Avenue. Where the two roads join there will be a speed table. 2.3 The dwellings will be separated from the existing properties round about by a variety of distances ranging from 16m between 9, Greeba Avenue and the garage of the property on plot 4 to 40m between the rear of the dwelling on plot 1 and the nearest house. The level of the site and the houses will fall as the development proceeds north west towards the approved development and the properties on Greeba Avenue are higher than those on the development site which in turn are higher than those fronting onto the Main Road. The applicant has provided a drawing, 13A, which shows the distances between the proposed and existing dwellings and the current boundary treatment abutting the site 2.4 An existing access from Ballagarey House is to be blocked off with fencing and hedging. A new access to Ballagarey Bungalow is to be provided to link in to the proposed estate road along with a new access to the rear of 5, Greeba Avenue. The existing boundary of the site with the rear of the A1 properties and those on Greeba Avenue is to be reinforced by additional planting "as required". The planting schedule shown on drawing 04 shows the boundaries to be planted with field maple, hawthorn, beech, holly, honeysuckle, blackthorn and rose at 450mm

78

centres in a double staggered row with each row being 450mm apart with a random mix of species with 3-7 of the same type together. Access and transport 2.5 The applicant has provided a transport statement which describes Greeba Avenue as a lightly trafficked residential street which serves 30 dwellings directly as well as forming a link to other land beyond. It describes the provision of footways, the proximity to services and the regularity of the bus service. It refers to Greeba Avenue as being subject to a 20 mph limit and the visibility available at the entrance to the site onto it being 2.4m by 33m in both directions which accords with the requirements of Manual for Manx Roads. It confirms that two spaces in addition to garaging, will be provided for each property and cycle parking will be available in sheds and garages on each site. The link with the adjacent site will remove any requirement for a refuse vehicle to need to turn within the site but suggest that it could safely access and egress the development and having passing opportunities for other vehicles whilst parked on the proposed estate road. 2.6 They estimate that the development will result in around 4-5 two ways vehicle movements in the weekday morning and evening peak periods equating to one vehicle every 12 minutes. Trees 2.7 An Arboricultural Impact Assessment has been provided which details the need to remove 7 Category C trees, 1 Category B group, 5 Category C groups and the partial removal of one Category B group resulting in the removal of a further 75 Category C trees. 6 further trees are recommended to be removed in the interests of good management. This removal will result in the loss of975 sq m of canopy cover within the boundary of the development. The trees to be removed are birch (5), elm (6), ash (10), plum (12), pear (13), leylandii (15) and sycamore (21). The groups involve pines, sycamore, fruit trees, ash and hawthorn. The trees to be removed sit on the boundary of the site with the development site alongside, alongside the access onto Greeba Avenue and two rows between 7, Greeba Avenue and Ballagarey House and High Rigg. They confirm that there are no Cat A trees on the site and any tree loss will be mitigated by new planting that has been approved by Forestry Amenity and Lands Board. In response to concerns expressed by the owners of 7, Greeba Avenue the existing trees on that rear boundary have been shown accurately and included in the Root Protection Areas. 2.8 A planting scheme has been produced as shown in drawing 04 and supported by a Tree Protection Plan and Arboricultural Method Statement. Drainage 2.9 The development will be connected to the existing drainage system installed in the adjacent development. Fencing 2.10 The plots will have 2.4m high fencing behind the fronts of the buildings and separating the development from 7, Greeba Avenue with a lower section of brick walling running towards Greeba Avenue along the new boundary of number 7 from a distance of 15m. Affordable housing 2.11 The applicant confirms on 21.02.20 the position on the non-provision of affordable housing: "o The approval for seven plots at Ballabeg has been consented, with no AFH, since Nov 2016. o Hartford purchased the Ballabeg site in August 2018, with the benefit of the outline approval. We secured a reserved matters approval in October 2018; commenced our site works with demolition at the end of 2018 and drainage works commencing in early 2019.

79

o We had no involvement with the Ballagarey site until June 2019. Our first Pre application submission was on 10th July. We do not own this land (please see attached ownership certificate) but we do have an option to buy, that we entered into only 3 months ago (Dec 2019). You can see from the above sequence, spanning over 4 years, there was no anticipation from the outset that the two sites would be joined. If we had known at the time that Ballagarey was available, our approach to their development would have been entirely different, perhaps at a higher density, and not as complicated as it has been. When we met last September (2019), to look at our developed sketch proposals for the Ballagarey site, we agreed that, as the Ballabeg site was under construction, the two sites would be treated as being separate. We also discussed the benefits of linking the sites roads, to provide an emergency access during TT, and that provisions should be included to prevent it being a shortcut. The sketch proposal we tabled originally, in July of 2019, was for 12 plots, including 3 affordable homes. Subsequent sketch proposals, not tabled, included as many as 16 plots. However, after numerous site visits and in considering the relationship of the denser proposals in relation to the existing homes, we felt a more sympathetic layout and lower density would reduce the impact dramatically on the surrounding dwellings. This became all the more acute when the land owner reduced the site area we were planning on using in order to maintain access to Ballagarey Bungalow, located to the south eastern end of the land. Following sympathetic preplanning to address the privacy issues, the reduced site area and market enquiries, the final design arrived at 7no new homes which we felt was ultimately more in keeping with existing densities. We understand the Commissioners concerns of why no affordable housing is being provided on the site. Hopefully the above helps to explain, but ultimately this development is only for x 7 dwellings and the adjacent site of seven dwellings is, as stated above, separate. Indeed the Ballagarey Nurseries site is entirely capable of being developed on its own, by anyone, though that would eliminate the gain in linking roads to add permeability to the network. We work very hard to ensure our schemes fit into their locations and comply with planning policy, and we provide affordable homes and public open space when this is appropriate." 2.12 Wildlife 2.12.1 Additional information has been provided on 04.03.20 which includes a Protected Species Report incorporating a bat report by Manx Bat Group and that all concludes that with the implementation of the biodiversity recommendations, adequate compensation will be provided to address the impact from the development. The PSR was undertaken by Manx Wildlife Trust Consultancy Services. It reports that there is one Wildlife Site within 2km of the site - the Central Valley. 327 species are recorded within 0.5km of the site including 6 specific species of bat, some other unidentified bat species and common frog where adults and spawn were recorded within 150m of the survey site. 2.12.2 They undertook a survey of the buildings and vegetation on the site observing some potential access points for bats in one of the buildings and noting the vegetation currently on the site. They identify a potential bat roost within one of the trees shown to be removed and they recommend that prior to the removal of any tree, a bat risk assessment must be undertaken before any works can proceed. If any bats are encountered including when buildings are to be removed, all work should stop and advice sought from the Department, Manx Wildlife Consultancy or the Manx Bat Group. They recommend that two bat boxes suitable for a maternity colony for species known to occur in the area be erected on an existing mature tree on the western boundary or alternatively, a pole mounted box could be employed in a relatively dark and sheltered part of the site close to potential foraging and commuting habitat. A lighting plan should be submitted to minimise impact on any bats that commute and/or forage in close

80

proximity to the new development and a bat roost feature should be incorporated into a new property near eaves level with a sunny aspect (west, south or east) and away from direct artificial lighting. 2.12.3 Six species of bird were recorded using the survey site - starling, song thrush, herring gull, rook, siskin and coal tit with the first two on the Red List. They recommend that shrub and tree removal is undertaken outside the bird nesting and breeding season (typically March to August inclusive) and any shrub or tree clearance required within the season must have a pre-clearance check and any active nests found must be safeguarded until all young are fledged and independent of the nest. 2.12.4 No common frog were recorded although a precautionary working method is recommended with the clearance of vegetation conducted during the hibernation period (typically November to January) and if this is not possible a pre-clearance check for common frog must be undertaken and any frogs encountered must be transferred to a receptor site agreed with DEFA and when moving rubble and log piles, particular care should be taken and must avoid the hibernation period (typically October to February inclusive). Any frogs encountered during work must result in all work stopping and advice sought. 2.12.5 They advise that the presence of legally protected and high conservation status species and significant assemblages is unlikely. Mature boundary features will be an important consideration for associated species including the potential for standing deadwood and habitat connectivity. No rare or nationally rare and scarce plants were recorded and are considered unlikely. No invasive species were recorded. They advise that particular care should be taken when removing rubble and log piles and this should avoid the hibernation period (typically October to February) and if any lizards are encountered during site work, all work must stop immediately and advice sought. The development must integrate a bee brick into each new dwelling. 2.12.6 They conclude that simple avoidance measures will enable the project to achieve legal compliance and intelligent design and implementation of pro-biodiversity recommendations are required to compensate for the impacts of the development and to achieve a no net loss result. They recommend that landscaping should include native woody species that are matched to soil conditions and which are beneficial to birds for food, shelter and nest sites and they recommend common hawthorn, blackthorn, sessile oak, holly, elder, ash and honeysuckle. Construction Activity 2.13 They are aware that the construction will create inconvenience and disruption to local residents but they advise that they had a duty under Health and Safety Executive regulations to ensure the safety of both operatives and the general public. They envisage the primary access during construction will be from the Main Road but at some point, it may be that this is blocked off and construction traffic has to use Greeba Avenue to access the site. They will undertake a pre-commencement survey of the road and boundaries affected as a record of their condition. 2.14 They comment that covenants are not a material planning consideration and that if approved, those with the power to enforce a covenant would be welcome to discuss the matter with them. They acknowledge that new development is seldom welcomed by those close by but they emphasis that this site is sustainable and designated for development which makes it suitable for development subject to the design being appropriate. They did consider a higher density of development but discounted this as they felt that was not in keeping with the area. 2.15 For further clarification of the distances between the bungalow and 9, Greeba Avenue, the applicant submitted drawing 15 which shows a section between the properties and stating that the proposed bungalow will be 1.16m lower in floor level than number 9, the eaves will also be 1.16m lower and the highest part of the proposed house being 740mm lower and the proposed garage 1390mm lower. The plan also shows the distances between various parts of the

81

proposed house and number 9, at furthest being 21.4m away and at closest 18.4m and angled 30 degrees from being parallel with number 9. The section shows the planted hedge between the two screening bothy ground floors from the other. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Residential. On the Area Plan for the East, the site was identified for residential development in the first draft but following Cabinet Office's preparation of a document for the public inquiry, responding to issues raised by others, the site was downgraded to a reserve site for release at some time in the future. However, the inspector considered that the residential status of the site should be reinstated, stating the following: "Site MH023 - Ballagarey Nurseries, Glen Vine 393 This vacant area of 0.9ha was initially allocated as a specific housing site in the draft Area Plan, as published in May 2018. However, the Cabinet Office subsequently proposed that it be rezoned as Strategic Reserve land. In a written representation, Hartford Homes argued that it should be washed over as predominantly residential, to enable its early development as a windfall site. I agree. This unused land is within the built-up area of Glen Vine. In my view, it should be restored to beneficial use as soon as possible. Its designation as a strategic reserve would impose an unnecessary restriction on its development, prior to its formal release. I recommend that Site MH023 be washed over as part of a predominantly residential area, in the Area Plan." 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; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways". 3.3 Affordable housing and Public Open Space are referred to in Housing Policy 5 and Recreation Policy 3 respectively. Ecology is further protected in Environment Policy 4 and trees given further protection in Environment Policy 3. 3.4 The Department has recently published the Residential Design Guidance (March 2019) which provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential property. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site has not been the subject of any previous applications which would be relevant to the consideration of the current proposal. The adjacent redevelopment of Ballabeg was approved most recently under 18/00995/REM. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1.1 Marown Parish Commissioners submit a number of letters noting that the draft Area Plan for the East washes over the site with a residential zoning but in advance of the plan being approved, suggest that the development is perhaps premature. They also consider that the

82

development will result in an overbearing presence on the properties on Greeba Avenue and the dwellings on plots 5, 6 and 7 are too close together and constitute over-development. They consider the access from Greeba Avenue to be inadequate with poor splays and turning sweep and considering that the development is to be connected to Ballabeg Grove, it would not appear that there is a need for this access. If the access from Greeba Avenue is considered essential then steps must be taken to ensure it does not become a through road with a gate part way down: this would require a turning head and note that there is a small hammer head approved as part of the Ballabeg Grove development (16.01.20). 5.1.2 They submit a further letter on 04.02.20 seeking additional time to comment on the amended plans and then comment on 20.02.20 such that they have no further points to raise. 5.1.3 They submit further views on 19.03.20 stating that they do not accept the applicant's argument in favour of there being no affordable housing noting that 18/00995/REM for Ballabeg Grove had the current applicant as the owner and on the current application they are the prospective purchasers for the current application and considering that the two developments have been conceived as a whole with consistent house types and layout and a continuous road linking the two. They note that on drawing 4B the top left hand dwelling is shown as existing whereas it is at best under construction and identical in every way to plot 3 of the proposed development. They draw a comparison with an application for 21 houses in Crosby which was approved only on the basis that affordable housing was being provided in association with this, albeit through a separate Reserved Matters application. They state that they are committed to the provision of affordable housing in the parish and this estate of 14 houses must contain 25% affordable units (3 dwellings)[affordable housing is generally calculated to the nearest single decimal place so in this case the requirement would be for 3.5 units provided either wholly as a commuted sum or partly on site and partly as a commuted sum]. 5.1.4 Further comments were received on 16th April, 2020, reiterating the points raised previously, adding that only something, like a wall, that physically separates the two developments would enable them to be considered as two separate entities and on 18th June, 2020 the Commissioners had no further comments to add above what had already been submitted in respect of the amended plans. 5.2 Highway Services comment on 15th January, 2020, concluding that they have no objection subject to the attaching of conditions which require the provision of visibility splays and car parking prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings. They consider that visibility is acceptable as is the impact of the additional vehicles on the highway network, the internal layout of the road. 5.3 Arboricultural Officer, DEFA comments on 13.01.20 that of the 12 individual trees and 8 tree groups to be removed, the majority are not prominent to the public and are of poor form. G2 is located close to Greeba Avenue and the canopies are overhanging the road and starting to cause access issues which pruning will not address. He considers that this group are not suitable for retention. These trees sit around the existing and proposed entrance to the site. He notes that the proposal will result in a loss of canopy cover to the site but the landscape drawing (04B) shows adequate mitigation planting and this should be required by planning condition. He considers the tree protection plan acceptable and will afford appropriate protection to the proposed retained trees. 5.4 Ecosystems Policy Officer, DEFA comments on 17.01.20 and again on 10.03.20 requesting a bat suitability study is undertaken by a licensed bat ecologist to determine whether bats could be using any of the trees which are to be removed to facilitate the development. If any are found suitable then a bat roost survey should be undertaken by a licensed bat ecologist and a report detailing the findings should be approved prior to the determination of this application. If bats are found to be using the site then a mitigation plan for their protection should also be submitted for agreement prior to determination and the development must be undertaken in

83

accordance with the agreed mitigation plan. Reference is made to the Wildlife Act 1990 in respect of its protection of bats and breeding birds and they recommend that vegetation and tree removal is undertaken outside of the bird breeding season (March to August) and thorough checks for nests and eggs even outside the bird breeding season, should be undertaken prior to the removal of vegetation. Finally, they recommend the installation of bird boxes are integrated into the design due to the habitat being removed as a result of the proposed development, with numbers and locations to be approved prior to the determination of the application and the development undertaken in accordance with these details. Their later submission recommends that the development should be undertaken strictly in accordance with the Protected Species Report of February 2020 in respect of bats, birds, common frog, common lizard and invertebrates and the identified measures shall be adhered to and implemented in full and maintained thereafter. They request in addition to these recommendations that at least two starling nest boxes are erected on the new properties as mitigation for this Red Listed and Schedule 1 species. They advise that boxes should be placed on north/north east facing elevations at least 2.5m above ground level, ideally high up under the eaves of the buildings. They recommend that the planting schedule incorporates rowan and elder to mitigate the loss of other habitats on the site and that native planting would be better than ornamental planting shown on the plans. They note that there is no lighting plan and as such a low level lighting plan in line with the Bat Conservation Trust Guidance Notes on Bats and Artificial Lighting in the UK should be submitted to and approved by the Department. The location of the proposed bat boxes should also be shown on an approved plan to ensure that they are located away from artificial light sources. Local Residents 5.5 The owners of the following properties have objected to the application: a number of residents sought additional time to submit comments due to changed working and lifestyle practices due to the CV19 situation: these requests were generally granted: 2, Greeba Avenue (16.05.20) Roylea, 4, Greeba Avenue (14.01.20, 09.04.20 and 10.06.20) Auldyn, 6, Greeba Avenue (16.01.20 and 20.04.20) Sunhill, 7, Greeba Avenue (14.01.20 and 09.04.20) 9, Greeba Avenue (15.01.20, 25.03.20, 09.04.20 and 14.04.20) Jesswin, 11, Greeba Avenue (23.01.20) 13, Greeba Avenue (14.01.20) 15, Greeba Avenue (14.01.20) 17, Greeba Avenue (14.01.20 x 3) The objections relate to the following: i. the loss of ecological habitat noting owls, pheasant, robins, crows, storks, blue tits on the site as well as bats and the Wildlife Act 1990 and Environment Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan are cited ii. the loss of so many trees is not acceptable and replacement planting will take time to have effect iii. the development does not include affordable housing iv. prematurity as the Area Plan for the East has not yet been adopted v. reference is made to an appurtenance title for 9, Greeba Avenue which may be affected by this development

84

vi. potential overlooking of existing dwellings on both sides, many of which are single storey having two storey dwellings directly behind and adverse impact on the privacy of existing residents and the enjoyment of their gardens and maintenance of boundary fencing vii. the additional light pollution is not acceptable viii. the existing drainage system already struggles to cope with existing loading in terms of surface water and some properties flood in periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall ix. the additional traffic is unacceptable on Greeba Avenue, particularly in TT race and practice periods when the additional 7 dwellings in Ballabeg Grove will also be using the access: has thought been given to the installation of a gate to prohibit through traffic for all but essential times? x. the increased use of the access will adversely affect the living conditions of those directly opposite the entrance xi. Greeba Avenue is a bus route and vehicles parked on both sides will adversely affect visibility for those emerging from the site xii. if the site is to be used as a cut through for pedestrians, there are no footpaths within the development and this will not be safe xiii. properties in Greeba Avenue will have less available light xiv. two storey dwellings will not be in keeping with the area as Greeba Avenue accommodates mostly bungalows xv. construction vehicles will adversely affect the road surface in Greeba Avenue and whilst the development is being undertaken there will be a diminution of existing residents' privacy xvi. if Manx stone walls are to be demolished, they should be replaced with stone walls xvii. the development will result in the loss of a pond which accommodates frogs, fish and newts and the loss of half of the existing garden of 7, Greeba Avenue xviii. A request is made that should planning approval be granted, a condition should be attached to prevent netting being applied to trees and bushes to prevent birds nesting and also that existing trees within adjacent sites should be protected during construction. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The site is shown on the only adopted plan for the area (the 1982 Plan) as Residential and the latest version of the Area Plan for the East which will eventually replace that part of the 1982 Plan which relates to the Area Plan area, indicates that the site should be considered as residential as part of the surrounding area. It is therefore considered that the principle of the development of the site for residential purposes is acceptable and the development is consistent with the adopted and emerging development plans. 6.2 The issues in this case are whether the development complies with the standards set out in General Policy 2. Whilst the development adjoins a site being developed by the same developer, and cumulatively the combined sites would generate sufficient dwellings to warrant a requirement for public open space and affordable housing, the sites are different, were in different ownerships, were put to different uses and were originally proposed for development by different parties. As such, whilst the sites are now to be joined with a through route which will benefit the 7 dwellings approved on the adjacent site, it is not considered appropriate in this case to require the provision of POS or affordable housing either on site or by way of a

85

commuted sum. Reference to the site in Crosby is not relevant as the two reserved matters applications - one for 21 dwellings and the other for 7 related back to a single approval in principle for the whole conjoined site. 6.3 Impact on the character and appearance of the area 6.3.1 The dwellings proposed will not be prominent from a public perspective in the vicinity: whilst they may be visible from Greeba Avenue, they will be seen behind and within existing residential development. The proposed dwellings are not the same in size or design, as those next to it but the properties in Greeba Avenue are very different to those fronting onto the main road and whose being built on the site alongside. As such, it would be impossible for the development to be consistent with all of the development next to it. 6.3.2 The proposed access will have an impact on the appearance of the area in that the entrance will be widened and trees and vegetation will be lost. The latter does not meet with any objection from the Arboricultural Officer of DEFA and the trees lost will be replaced by new ones although it will take some considerable time for the new trees to go anywhere near providing the impact that do the existing which are to be removed. It is relevant that the AO notes that some of the trees near to the entrance are encroaching onto the road and "are starting to cause access issues which pruning will not fully solve. These trees are not suitable for retention." 6.3.3 The proposed development contains a variety of dwelling shapes and sizes and it is considered that this variety will provide an acceptable impact on the area. 6.4 Impact on the living conditions of those in adjacent property 6.4.1 The requirement for new development to be in a sustainble location automatically means that new dwellings will be next to existing ones. Furthermore, the requirement in Strategic Policy 1 to make the best use of unused or underused land means that there is also an aim to make the best use of this type of land: the more dwellings that are built in sustainable locations, the fewer will need to be built in locations that are not considered sustainable. 6.4.2 That is not to say that developments should be over-dense or uncomfortably close to others and the Residential Design Guidance provides advise on how new dwellings should be developed so as not to cause an unacceptable impact on others nearby. To avoid dwellings resulting in overlooking and intruding onto other dwellings' privacy, a distance of 20m should be maintained where elevations containing windows look directly towards each other. The closest proposed dwelling to an existing property is that on plot 4 which backs at an angle to 9, Greeba Avenue and the closest elevation which contains a window or patio door, is 19.2m from the closest point of 9, Greeba Avenue but 1.5m lower. Every other part of that property, and all other dwellings in the development are more than 20m from existing dwellings front ot back or back to back. 6.4.3 In terms of outlook, as the proposed dwellings are mostly two storey and those in Greeba Avenue are single storey - some with dormer accommodation - it is important to consider whether there would be an impact on the outlook of the existing properties from these new, taller properties. Again, the RDG provides advice on how to calculate this relationship and suggests that a rule of 25 degrees from the existing property windows should be maintained free of obstruction. The applicant demonstrates in drawing 07B that the 25 degree guidance is being observed. 6.4.4 Whilst it is completely understood that those people next to the site who currently have an unobstructed outlook over open space will have that changed to a landscape which has two storey buildings within it, removing the openness and possibly removing some of the view available from the rear elevations, this impact needs to be balanced against the need for development to be located in sustainable locations and to make best use of available land. Having regard to the advice in the RDG it is considered that the impact that the proposed

86

development will have on the existing properties around the site - in Greeba Avenue and those which front onto the Main Road, is acceptable. 6.5 Impact on the highway 6.5 Highway Services consider that the development would have an acceptable impact on the local highway network. Their recommended conditions relating to the provision of the car parking spaces and the visibility splays prior to the occupation of the first dwelling, are supported. 6.6 Other environmental impacts 6.6.1 There will be an impact on the loss of open space and trees and a resulting impact on ecology. Any site which is designated for development and which is not presently actively used or built upon will have this impact and a balance needs to be struck. This balance comes with an appropriately designed development which tries to retain as much beneficial vegetation as possible whilst still providing a sustainable development which makes best use of the site. Also, appropriate mitigation through how the development is undertaken and the incorporation of ecology-friendly features is also important. The Protected Species Report should be conditioned to be accorded with in full and further plans of the proposed lighting, the location of bat and bird boxes, bee bricks and amendments to the planting scheme to incorporate native species should be approved prior to the commencement of any works. CONCLUSION 7.1 Whilst the development will have an impact on the environment and those living near to the site, it is considered, having regard to the policies in the Strategic Plan and the Residential Design Guidance, that this impact is acceptable and the application is recommended for approval subject to conditions as referred to in the body of the report. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated. 8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status. 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

87

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 27th July 2020

Item 5.5 Proposal : Erection of a detached replacement dwelling with integral

garage Site Address : Skeddan Veg

Fort Island Road Derbyhaven Isle Of Man IM9 1TZ

Applicant : Mr Anthony & Mrs Marian Charnley Application No. : Planning Officer :

20/00514/B- click to view Miss Lucy Kinrade

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. N 1. The applicant/owner is to be reminded of separate legislation under the Wildlife Act 1990 and Noise Act 2006 covering matters relating to habitats and noise. The applicant/owner may wish to liaise at the appropriate times with DEFA Ecology/Biodiversity/Environmental Health seeking advice on works to be undertaken at the site. Reason for approval: The proposal is in accordance with the land use zoning of the Area Plan for the South 2013, and although not in strict accordance with Housing Policy 14, the proposed dwelling by reason of its size, design, layout, form, mass and material finish it is considered to have a acceptable visual impact on Derbyhaven's coastal character and an acceptable impact on the amenity of the neighbours. The proposal accords with Strategic Policies, 4 and 5, General Policy 2 and Energy Policy 4 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016, Landscape Proposal 26, Character Appraisal E11 and Appendix 4 of the Area Plan for the South 2013.

______________________________________________________________

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 4(2): Balladoyle, Fort Island Road, Derbyhaven - as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2020).

_____________________________________________________________ Planning Officer’s Report

88

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AS THE REPLACEMENT DWELLING WOULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE OF FLOOR AREA OF MORE THAN 50% AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL INTRODUCTION 0.1 'Skeddan Veg' has been subject to three previous planning applications (referred to in more detail in 3.0 of this report) the most recent being for the erection of a replacement dwelling under 17/01312/B and 19/01024/B. 0.2 The earlier 2017 application was refused at officer level for reasons relating to the mass, design and finish of the dwelling and resulting loss of privacy. At appeal the Inspector considered that Housing Policy 14 was applicable to the assessment and consequently Housing Policy 14 was specifically referred to in the reasons for refusal for 17/01312/B. The Minister concurred with that recommendation and made his decision accordingly. 0.3 In 2019 a subsequent application for a replacement dwelling was submitted with an alternative design seeking to address the previous reasons for refusal of the 2017 appeal. The reporting officer referred to Housing Policy 14 in the assessment of application but concluded that it was not applicable given the residential designation of the application site on the Area Plan for the South 2013 and thus placed greater weight to General Policy 2. The assessment concluded that the proposed development was acceptable and the application was determined under delegated powers. 0.4 Following a complaint brought against the decision, made on the basis that Housing Policy 14 should have been applied, and also that the application should have been determined by Planning Committee in accordance with the relevant Standing Orders, the Department agreed the decision was made on an unsound basis and have sought to quash the decision by way of doleance proceedings. 0.5 Consideration of the petition of doleance has been stayed, in agreement with all parties and by the courts, pending the proper processing and determination of this application. 0.6 The current application proposes a scheme that replicates the 2019 application, with exception to the further addition of proposed renewable energy sources (solar panels and an air source heat pump). THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the residential curtilage Skeddan Veg, an existing dwelling situated on the western side of Fort Island Road in Derbyhaven. The dwelling is predominantly a bungalow with some first floor accommodation in the roof space, it has a ground footprint around 158sq m and a gross floor area around 203sq m (excluding its garage). 1.2 The existing dwelling sits at a ground level around 1.4m lower than the main road and occupies a plot about 0.13ha. The frontage stretches along 26m of the carridgeway and vehicle access is through a narrow walled entrance. Neighbouring dwellings are aligned parallel to the road while Skeddan Veg is built at an angle with its principal elevation facing south east towards St Michael's Isle and the dwelling is set back behind the frontline of each of the adjoining neighbouring dwellings. Properties along this southern section of Fort Island Road benefit from extensive open views over Derbyhaven Bay coastal bay and view over the golf course to the rear. 1.3 The dwelling has two outlet extensions on the south west elevation facing towards the rear garden of Balladoyle where the closest distance between the two properties is approx. 15m. The opposite side elevation faces north-east towards the side and rear of Ashley House where the closest distance between the two properties is approx. 17.5m.

89

PROPOSAL 2.1 The current application proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement with a new two storey dwelling. The proposed dwelling is to be larger than the existing but is to sit on a similar foot print albeit slightly closer to and more parallel with the road with its front building line part way between the rear of Ashley House and the front of Balladoyle creating a step along the road. 2.2 The proposed dwelling is to have a double pitch arrangement with a small flat roof link between each part. The gables of each will face forwards towards the main road and backwards towards the golf course. The double pitches are asymmetrical with slight differences in their length and width, the overall principal elevation facing the road will be approx. 17m wide and the side elevations between 13.5m - 14.5m long. The closest distance between the proposed dwelling and Balladoyle sits between 12m-14m, and the closest distance with the rear of Ashley House is approx. 11m and around 3.5m from their rear boundary wall. 2.3 The dwelling is to have an eaves level approx. 6m throughout and central ridges of 8.5m high, and the proposed dwelling is to sit 1m lower than the level of the main road with a finished ground floor level of 5.560. 2.4 The proposed dwelling is to be finished in a mix of materials; one pitch in dark timber cladding and Manx Stone and the other painted render with some featured dark timber and the roof slated throughout. The front elevation is to comprise an integral garage with a large picture window above, the main front door will sit within the link with a large window above, adjacent to which will be a two storey full height corner window and three smaller windows. 2.5 The nearest side elevation facing Balladoyle comprises three doors at ground level only providing access into the garage and utility and double doors accession an integrated garden store. The nearest side elevation facing Ashley House includes one high level window and a window serving a bathroom. 2.6 At the rear the dwelling comprises a stepped arrangement with the gable nearest Ashley House projecting slightly further into the rear garden. Throughout the rear there are large areas of glazing across both the ground and first floor, the gable nearest Balladoyle includes a recessed balcony area. The materials proposed at the rear are a continuation of those at the front. 2.7 The current proposal replicates that submitted in 2019 with the further addition of an Air Source Heat Pump and solar panels across parts of the roof slope. PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 The application site has been subject to three previous planning applications, one in 1984 for the erection of a garden shed and greenhouse, and two more recently in 2017 and 2019 both for a replacement dwelling. 3.2 The 2017 application 17/01312/B was determined at appeal, the proposal sought to demolish the existing house and replace it with a new two storey dwelling finished with a mono-pitched roof, installed with a predominantly glazed frontage and including side elevation windows facing both Balladoyle and Ashley House. The dwelling was to have a footprint of 280sq m; and a gross floor area of about 369sq m. It was to be finished in a mix of timber, aluminium and zinc cladding materials. The application was refused at officer level and refused at appeal. The appeal reasons were concluded as: "R1. The replacement dwelling is not considered to respect the site or the surroundings by reason of its mass, mono pitch roof and material finish. The proposal would result in an incongruous and unsympathetic feature in the streetscene, it would create visual harm and

90

detract from the coastal character of the area and the scenic quality of the golf course and it would contribute to the visual amalgamation of roadside housing in Fort Island Road contrary General Policy 2(b), (c) and (e) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Landscape Proposal 26 and paragraph 3.23(v) of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016. R2. The proposal will include large areas of glazing and will introduce first floor windows where there is none at present. This new range of overlooking and adverse impacts on privacy is further exacerbated by the fact that the site levels are to be increased and the distances between the proposal and the neighbours is to decrease. As such the proposal is contrary to General Policy 2(g) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. R3. As Derbyhaven is classed as 'a group of dwellings in the countryside' in Appendix 4 of the Area Plan for the South, the proposed development would entail the replacement of an existing dwelling in the countryside. However, the proposed replacement house would be substantially different to the existing dwelling, Skeddan Veg, in terms of its size. In particular it would have a much larger footprint than the existing building, and its floor area would be more than 50% greater, contrary to Housing Policy 14 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016." 3.3 In 2019 under 19/01024/B an application was submitted for a replacement dwelling (its design matching the current proposal with exception to the solar panels and ASHP). The assessment section of the officer's report reached to 18 paragraphs in which the case officer considered the development against the residential land use designation of the site, its relationship with its neighbours and its setting within the context of Derbyhaven. Although the officer report suggests that HP14 is not applicable given its designation for residential purposes, the report sets out that regard was had to the principles in that policy particularly in finding a sensitive balance between both traditional and contemporary architecture which would be appropriate for the unique coastal character of Derbyhaven and meeting with the tests of Landscape Proposal 26 of the Area Plan for the South 20013 and General Policy 2 (b), (c) and (g). 3.4 The proposal was considered to have an acceptable impact and was approved 24/01/2020, however for the reasons as set out in the introduction of this report the decision for 19/01024/B has sought to be quashed. PLANNING STATUS AND POLICY Area Plan for the South 4.1 On the Area Plan for the South 2013 Skeddan Veg is within land designated as 'predominantly residential'. 4.2 Landscape Proposal 26: "The character of the compact group at Derbyhaven arises largely from the setting between the foreshore and the green space of the airport and the golf course. Since the buildings are of mixed age, form, and style, there is no need to adopt prescriptive guidelines for extensions, but it is important to maintain the general coastal character as viewed on the approach from Castletown and from the pleasant green areas adjoining the bay." 4.3 Derbyhaven sits within the Landscape Character area E11 that seeks, in terms of Langness, to resist any development that would detract from the unspoilt character and appearance of the rugged coast or from the sense of openness in the area; protect the tranquil, rural character of the area with its open views; sensitively locate new buildings and avoid the physical or visual amalgamation of roadside housing. 4.4 Para 4.10 of the Area Plan for the South sets out particular issues in the allocation of residential land and refers to paragraphs 8.8.1 - 8.8.3 of the Strategic Plan. These paragraphs give a commitment to assessing individual groups of houses in the countryside for their potential to incorporate additional dwellings. Derbyhaven is identified as a Group of Houses in the Countryside and therefore was selected for further study. The assessment concludes that the

91

group of houses is not sustainable, there is little or no scope for infilling and that Derbyhaven is not far enough from Castletown for there to be a valid argument for local housing need and consequently additional dwellings are not proposed. The Area Plan indicates however that some areas have been shaded pink to reflect their residential character but clarifies that 'this shading does not imply that proposals for additional dwellings or other development will be supported; such applications will be judged on their merits.' Strategic Plan: 4.5 The Strategic Plan 2016 contains a number of policies to which consideration shall be given. Strategic Policy 1 seeks to make best use of resources by optimising use of previously developed land, ensuring the efficient use of sites and being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure. Strategic Policy 2 and Housing Policy 4 directs new development to existing towns and villages (which Derbyhaven is not) and states that development will only be permitted in the countryside in exceptional circumstances. Strategic Policy 4 seeks that development must protect or enhance historic fabric, landscape quality, nature conservation value and not lead to unacceptable environmental pollution. Strategic Policy 5 seeks that new development, including individual buildings be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. Spatial Policy 5 sets out that new development will be located within the defined settlements and that development will only be permitted in the countryside in accorance with General Policy 3. Environment Policy 1 seeks to protect the countryside and its ecology for its own sake. The policy clarifies that for the purposes of that policy the countryside compises all land outside defined settlements or which is not designated for future development. Housing Policy 6 requires development of land zoned for residential development to be undertaken in accordance with any relevant brief, or if there is not a brief the design criterial in para 6.2 of the Plan (General Policy 2). Energy Policy 4 sets out that development involving alternative sources of energy supply will be judged against the environmental objectives and policies set out in the Plan. 4.6 Of particular importance is General Policy 2 which states: General Policy 2: Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; 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 watercourses; 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;

92

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." 4.7 Although Spatial Policy 5 states that development in the countryside will only be permitted in accordance with General Policy 3, the applicability of GP3 is questionable since it refers to development outside of those areas which are zoned for development. Derbyhaven is zoned for development. Nevertheless the exceptions include the replacement of existing rural dwellings that are in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14. 4.8 Housing Policy 12 provides for a presumption in favour of replacement dwellings provided the existing dwelling is not abandoned and is not of architectural or historic interest and Housing Policy 13 refers to forming a new dwelling by re-using remaining fabric of a former building. 4.9 Housing Policy 14 is also of particular relevance. It states: "Where a replacement dwelling is permitted, it must not be substantially different to the existing in terms of siting and size, unless changes of siting or size would result in an overall environmental improvement; the new building should therefore generally be sited on the "footprint" of the existing, and should have a floor area(1), which is not more than 50% greater than that of the original building (floor areas should be measured externally and should not include attic space or outbuildings). Generally, the design of the new building should be in accordance with Policies 2- 7 of the present Planning Circular 3/91, (which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement). Exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact; designs should incorporate the re-use of such stone and slate as are still in place on the site, and in general, new fabric should be finished to match the materials of the original building. Consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where this involves the replacement of an existing dwelling of poor form with one of more traditional character, or where, by its design or siting, there would be less visual impact." 4.10 Consideration shall also be given to the Residential Design Guide 2019 which covers a number of matters relating to new development including 'New Housing' and 'Local Distinctiveness' as well as main considerations in 'Good Neighbourliness' including loss of light/overshadowing, impacts upon outlook and any overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy. REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. 5.1 Malew Parish Commissioners - no objection (01/07/2020). 5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do not oppose (09/06/2020) - there is suitable 'open' car parking for two vehicles, the integral garage is smaller than recommended but limited car parking or separate storage for bicycles and other items could be provided. 5.3 The owners of Balladoyle - Objection (26/06/2020) - Comments extend to 11 pages this report contains a summary only. 5.3.1 Reference is made to the outcome of the 2017 appeal and the application of Housing Policy 14, the comments also contain a number of photographs of the site and surrounding area. The proposal will adversely affect their living conditions in terms of outlook, privacy and light due to the much greater height and size of the proposed dwelling and its position closer to the road compared with the existing bungalow, there are a number of window facing Skeddan Veg

93

including 2 in a lounge which are already impacted by the existing property. A number of windows across the same elevation including first floor will also have their outlook and views impacted due to the increased height and size compared with the existing dwelling. 5.3.2 The movement of the house closer to the road will have a negative impact on their front garden. The proposal results in a 77.7% increase above the existing way above the 50% allowed under HP14. The proposal between two Victorian properties would be incongruous and unsympathetic to the street scene and the size obtrusive in the landscape creating greater environmental impact. 5.3.3 Paragraphs 3.6.2 to 3.6.7 of the Design Statement are irrelevant, and the existing dwelling could be improved by introducing new insulation and renewable energy sources. The energy calculations fail to take into account demolition works, transport of materials to the site, construction processes and carbon footprint etc. Although argument could be made that a slight increase to global temperatures could be beneficial to the Island. 5.3.4 The proposal would impact the prominence of Balladoyle and would significantly reduce the visible gap affecting views of the sea. 5.3.5 If Planning Committee are minded to approve conditions relating to comments from DEFA Biodiversity on 19/01024/B should be included, contractors and vehicles not parking on grass verges, measures taken to avoid dust and debris, and any noisy work undertaken between 0900-1700 Monday to Friday. ASSESSMENT 6.1 The policy considerations in respect of this site have been difficult to reconcile with the apparently opposing presumptions both in favour of development (GP2) and against new development (EnvP 1 et al). While para 6.1 of the Strategic Plan states that positive land use allocations will be made upon which decisions can be based and which is the case in this instance, such an allocation for residential development clashes the small settlement of Derbyhaven being recognised as a group of houses in the countryside. The identification of an area being a group of houses in the countryside appears to only be for the purpose of assessing whether additional dwellings would be acceptable rather than for any other purpose. The current application is a one for one replacement dwelling which is contained within the existing residential curtilage, the proposal will not result in any increased dwelling numbers in Derbyhaven and it will not result in any extensions to the established residential curtilage or boundary. Nevertheless the words 'in the countryside' reasonably led to the Inspector's conclusion that the site must be considered as such, and as such Housing Policy 14 is of relevance. This provides useful clarity that the provisions of that policy must be taken into account in determining the application. 6.2 The main issues to be considered as part of the application are: visual impact (HP14, GP2, StP5 et al); impact on neighbouring property (GP2); and environmental matters (GP2, StP4 et al). Visual Impact 6.3 Housing Policy 14 firstly provides for the replacement of dwellings that are not substantially different in size or siting, unless that would result in an overall environmental improvement. The current proposal is limited by the size of the plot and while there is a slight repositioning closer to the road the overall footprint remains similar to the existing and the stepped positioning between the frontages of Ashley House and Balladoyle remains largely in keeping with the established line of built development along Fort Island Road. However, the proposed dwelling, at 77% larger, is greater than the 50% the policy indicates would be appropriate and is to be two storey. The proposal does not comply with this element of the policy.

94

6.4 The policy then indicates that exceptionally, permission may be granted for buildings of innovative, modern design where this is of high quality and would not result in adverse visual impact. It is considered that the proposal does comply with this aspect, and also uses materials such as stone and slate in its design. However the policy only suggests that consideration may be given to proposals which result in a larger dwelling where the existing dwelling is of poor form, and the one to replace it is traditional, or where by its design or siting there would be less visual impact. 6.5 It is clear the policy is intended to reduce visual impact in the countryside, and the suggestion that original materials are re-used implies that the dwelling to be replaced would have been Manx vernacular, which the existing building is not. Arguably the existing building is of poor form, being a relatively modern bungalow with extensions including a flat roof garage protruding from its front elevation, but the proposed is not traditional nor can it be argued the proposed building would have less visual impact. 6.6 The Inspector indicated in his report in respect of application 17/01312/B that the dwelling proposed at that time would be much larger and that there is no evidence to suggest that the increased footprint or floor area would be necessary to secure an environmental improvement and accordingly, it would be contrary to Housing Policy 14. The Inspector went onto comment that: '51 In view of its height and mass, its modern design (featuring mono-pitched and flat roofs) and the proposed palette of construction materials (including extensive areas of glass, metal and timber cladding) I consider that the proposed replacement building would be a conspicuous feature in the local scene. It could be regarded as adding an element of architectural interest to Derbyhaven, although opinions on that point may well differ. 52 However, the replacement dwelling would extend across a wider part of the appeal site than the existing building, and would partially obstruct a view of the sea across this land from the public footpath on the golf course. In my judgement, this would detract from the coastal character of the area, and the scenic quality of the golf course, contrary to Landscape Proposal 26 of the Area Plan, and General Policy 2(c) and (e) of the Strategic Plan. For the same reason, I consider that the scale and layout of the proposed building would fail to respect its surroundings, contrary to General Policy 2(b) of the Strategic Plan. The proposed development would also contribute to the visual amalgamation of roadside housing in Fort Island Road, contrary to paragraph 3.23(v) of the Area Plan. 6.7 In terms of re-considering a design for the site, the applicants have been cognisant of the comments made by the Inspector and the context of the area. The applicants have fully engaged with the process to design a building with a far reduced mass than the previous application. The proposal may not fully comply with Housing Policy 14, but its location within a settlement, surrounded by much two storey buildings, dictates a different approach. The context of the site is a material consideration as it is the character and appearance of the area that the policy is intended to protect. In a comparable situation at Shore Road, Bay ny Carrickey the Inspector for a replacement dwelling (from a single storey to two storeys) on that site commented: "33. I do not, however, see much value - rather potential harm - in seeking to contrive a proposal so that it accords to the letter with HP14 but fails to recognise and enhance its coastal setting. HP14 is expressly an aspect of the assessment of replacement dwellings in the countryside, whereas here I consider that in line with the aims for the Bay in the Area Plan greater emphasis should be accorded to design quality having particular regard to this coastal location. 36. I consider that [names]..give undue emphasis to analysing to what extent the proposal accords or otherwise with HP14. Also, I too see no objection to two storeys, quite the reverse…a prominent well designed building at this corner would be very much more in keeping

95

than a bungalow with the pattern of existing and emerging housing on this stretch of Shore Road." 6.8 This indicates that it is sometimes appropriate to set aside a relevant policy if material considerations such as the context of the site dictates. Often is the case that views on design fall to personal opinion. While some may agree a modern design approach offers a unique and welcomed change to the area, others may object at the harm such a contrast brings to the general character and appearance and to those traditional properties found nearby. Therefore in establishing a professional judgement on the development, it is crucial that we conduct a contextual analysis against the immediate locality and building styles with consideration to GP2, HP14 and LP26. 6.9 Landscape Proposal 26 indicates that buildings in Derbyhaven are of mixed age, form, and style and from a contextual analysis of the area and streetscene this is evident (and as demonstrated through photographs on drawing numbers P10-07 and P12-02). The range of design styles varies between vernacular Manx cottages and barns, traditional Manx cottages both terraced and detached, detached Victorian dwellings, Spanish style villas with large glazing and balconies, a 1970's mansard roof apartment block and more recently a two storey courtyard dwelling complex. 6.10 It would be reasonable to state that this coastal character is fairly unique, with both positive and negative qualities found in the area. While some traditional properties retain their original form, proportion and materials, others have undergone some alterations or extension that has altered their original quality. The dwellings south of Skeddan Veg, with exception to Balladoyle, are non-traditional, and these non-traditional dwellings sit close to each other side by side filling almost the full width of their plots and amenity space is to the fronts and rear. Balladoyle and Skeddan Veg occupy larger plots with bigger distances between their side elevations and the neighbours. 6.11 Skeddan Veg in its current form appears a slight anomaly in the streetscene being set furthest back from the road and angled differently from its neighbours. The dwelling is non-traditional and includes flat roof structures to front and its lower ground level and single storey design also set it apart from its neighbours which are all two storeys and sit level with the road. 6.12 The Strategic Plan at para 4.3.8 states that 'the design of new development can make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Island. Recent development has often been criticised for its similarity to developments across the Island and elsewhere - 'anywhere' architecture. At the same time some criticise current practice to retain traditional or vernacular designs. As is often the case the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes. All too often proposals for new developments have not taken into account a proper analysis of their context in terms of siting, layout, scale, materials and other factors'. 6.13 The proposed replacement dwelling is of a bespoke modern design incorporating traditional materials that takes advantage of its coastal view while intending not to draw any negative attention or views within the immediate and predominantly residential surroundings. 6.14 The proposed dwelling will be wider and taller than the existing dwelling but will maintain gaps between each of its neighbours elevations with distances being between 8m - 10m wide and the overall height of the dwelling will present a step between Ashley House and Balladoyle, with the eaves of the proposal measuring midway to the first floor windows of Balladoyle and the central ridge will sit approx. 1m taller than the eaves of Balladoyle. Balladoyle remains the tallest building in the streetscene. 6.15 While it is accepted that the proposal will be wider and taller than the existing dwelling, it is considered that the double pitch arrangement of the proposed dwelling coupled with the gaps between the dwelling and its neighbours will limit a visual amalgamation of the streetscene

96

although when travelling into Derbyhaven the established line of dwellings along both sides of the junction already present a limited view and where by the replacement dwelling at this specific site amongst that existing cluster is not expected to make so adverse beyond the current situation as to cause any significant or adverse harm. 6.16 Strategic Policies 3, 4 and 5, EP 42 and character appraisal E11 require development to respect and maintain the general character and identity of the area. In this case, the properties in the locality are a mixed age, form, and style and while a dwelling in strict accordance with Planning Circular 3/91 may not look out of keeping, the wording of HP14 coupled with the specific context of the area present a degree of flexibility in what approach to design could be considered in this specific case. 6.17 The proposed replacement dwelling emanates traditional coastal qualities found in Derbyhaven but in its own right remains unique. While not in accordance with Planning Circular 3/91 and beyond the 50% floor area threshold of HP14, it is considered that the siting of the proposal and its design solution at this specific site presents an acceptable modern day approach to a traditional dwelling that respects the sensitive and sympathetic coastal location and without resulting in any adverse visual harm to the wider landscape character of Derbyhaven or without harm to the residential character of the streetscene. The proposed dwelling is arguably more in keeping with the scale and form of the surrounding properties than the existing and as such represents an improvement. Amenity Impact 6.18 The neighbours at Balladoyle object to the impact of the development on their living conditions, outlook, privacy and light due to the increase in height of the built form and its position closer to the road. They suggest that there are a number of windows facing Skeddan Veg including 2 in a lounge, one from another lounge, as well as two in a kitchen and dining area. On the first floor they indicate that there is a window facing Skeddan Veg in their master bedroom at the front of the house and another bedroom near the back of the house and the family bathroom. They indicate that in the case of the other bedroom the window is the only one in the room and there would be a negative impact of the view. They indicate that a similar situation arises in the case of the family bathroom which deliberately is not fitted with obscure glass in order the maximise the light. The objectors also state that the movement of the building closer to the road will have a negative effect on their privacy in the land at the front of the house. 6.19 While the previous application had a number of corner windows that partially faced the sea and partially faced Balladoyle, the proposed application contains only a door to a garage, a door to a utility room and a garden store on the ground floor and no windows on either the ground or first floor of the elevation that faces Balladoyle (exept for some high level roof lights). There is to be a balcony facing the rear but this is enclosed on the sides which limits any overlooking. The new proposal overcomes the objection in respect of the loss of privacy. 6.20 In terms of loss of outlook and light, the revised proposal is sited further from Balladoyle and is now 12m to 14m away, this together with the pitch roof allows for greater light and outlook from Balladoyle such that the impact is considered acceptable, particularly bearing in mind that Balladoyle's principal elevation faces the sea, rather than the application site. 6.21 In respect of the concern regarding the negative impact on privacy on the land in the front of their house, this area is also open and subject to potential overlooking from any number of public using the road as well as neighbouring properties. 6.22 In respect of the property to the north, the proposed design only provides for a bathroom window at ground floor level and high level roof lights at first floor.

97

Environmental Matters 6.23 The proposal includes the introduction of solar panels to the roof and an air source heat pump towards the rear, the inclusion of which would help towards an improved energy efficiency of the dwelling once constructed. Weight in respect of the solar panels can be given to the Permitted Development Order 2012 (PDO) which allows for their installation on completion of the dwelling without prior planning approval being required. However at the time of writing there is no provision for the installation of air source heat pumps, as such they require separate assessment. However a revised Development Order permitting air source heat pumps is due for consideration by Tynwald during the week commencing 20 July 2020 and consequently this may be permitted development by the time the application is considered. The criteria for the heat pumps was taken from similar UK legislation where reference is made to the need for the noise from the air source heat pump to not exceed 42 dB LAeq 5 mins. Specification provided by the agent including calculations indicates that the selected ASHP will be 40.3 dBA which would be lower than the 42dBA of the guidelines. Habitats 6.24 DEFA Biodiversity commented on the previous 2019 application and although they have not commented on the current application for completeness the points they raised will be covered as part of this application, specifically as the owners of Balladoyle have requested a number of conditions as part of any approval, one of which relates to habitats. 6.25 The site is close to, but is not within the ASSI, Bird Sanctuary or the Area of Ecological Importance - Draft, the site is within a zone of established and designated residential use. In terms of impact on nesting birds and local habitats as a whole the site and surrounding area is already subject to a high level of activity through coming and going of residents, recreational users (dog walkers, bird watches etc), users of the golf course and any other persons doing water sports or recreational activities etc. The proposal here for a continued residential use of the site is not expected to result in any new impacts on the area above or beyond the existing dwelling, and any matters relating to the construction works cannot be controlled through the planning process, but can through legislation such as the Noise Act 2006. Similarly, any works which may result in an impact on protected species would be covered under the Wildlife Act 1990. Conditions would not be reasonable in this respect although a note reminding the applicant of relevant legislation could be considered. CONCLUSION 7.1 The principle of a replacement dwelling here is acceptable and has been considered acceptable by a previous Inspector. Although the proposal, given its size and design does not strictly comply with Housing Policy 14, what is proposed is a design that complements the positive features found in the local area and one which is reflective and sympathetic to the sensitive coastal character of Derbyhaven. The proposal otherwise complies with the General Policy 2 (a,b,c,g,k) of the Strategic Plan and Landscape Proposal 26 of the Area Plan for the South. 7.2 Although acknowledged as having an increased visual impact beyond the existing single storey dwelling, this impact is not considered to result in any unacceptable amalgamation or visual harm to the general residential character of this particular stretch of the streetscene and is not expected to result in any visual impact on the wider surrounding landscape or on the setting of Derbyhaven. The proposal is considered to comply with Strategic Policies 3, 4 and 5, Housing Policy 14, General Policy 2 (a,b,c,e,g), Appendix 4 and character appraisal E11. 7.3 The design of the dwelling by reason of its siting, layout (including position of fenestration and recessed balconies), mass and the open aspect of Derbyhaven with views over the bay and golf course, the proposal is not expected to result in any adverse harm on general outlook amenity from neighbouring dwellings nor to present any significant impact in terms of

98

privacy of any habitable room. The dwelling is provided with sufficient off road parking and manoeuvring to ensure no highway safety issues arise beyond the existing dwelling. The proposal complies with General Policy 2 (b,c,g,h,i) and the principles of the Residential Design Guide 2019 (Local Distinctiveness and Good neighbourliness). 7.4 The installation of solar panels of the roof and an air source heat pump towards the rear of the dwelling will seek to contribute towards the sustainability and energy efficiency of the dwelling, their installation is not considered to result in any adverse visual harm to the landscape nor to result in any amenity impacts on the neighbours as a result of noise generated from the ASHP in line with calculations provided being 40.3dBA and lower than 42dBA. In this respect the proposal complies with Energy Policy 4, General Policy 2 (c,g,n) and Housing Policy 14. 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.

99

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 27th July 2020

Item 5.6 Proposal : Erection of an agricultural workers dwelling with associated

vehicular access Site Address : Field 425318 & 424873

Friary Farm Main Road Ballabeg Castletown Isle Of Man

Applicant : Mr Philip Cringle & Miss Ashley Bradshaw Application No. : Principal Planner :

20/00553/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 occupation of the dwelling hereby approved shall be limited to a person engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture on the Isle of Man, or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants. Reason: The site is in an area where new dwellings are not normally approved except where an agricultural need has been established and accepted by the Department. C 3. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwelling, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. Reason: The landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved. C 4. Once constructed, if the dwelling is no longer required or occupied by persons engaged in agriculture, as required by condition 5 above, it must be demolished and the ground returned to part of the surrounding fields. Reason: an exception to the general presumption against development is being made on the basis of agricultural need and should that need no longer be present, there is no justification for the dwelling and it should be removed. Reason for approval:

100

The development is considered to accord with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10, General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Strategic Plan.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE SITE IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL Preamble Planning approval was granted in principle (AIP) by the Planning Committee, following a recommendation for approval, for an agricultural dwelling on this same site under 19/01077/A. What is now proposed are the full details of the dwelling but with a different means of access. As this differs from the access shown in the approval in principle, these details cannot be considered as a reserved matters application relating back to that AIP and has to be a full, detailed application but where the previous and still extant AIP is a material consideration. THE SITE 1.1 The site is part of the holding of Friary Farm, a holding of 330 acres centred around the main complex of farm buildings which lie within Ballabeg on the western side of the A7 opposite Friary Park - a development of modern, mostly single storey dwellings. The farm is managed by two farmyards, one here at Friary Farm and the other a mile to the south at Ballakeighan, to two bisected by the Southern 100 Course and the steam railway. 1.2 The complex comprises a farmhouse which is of historic and architectural interest along with stone outbuildings which are similarly interesting. There are more modern render and sheeted buildings on the outer edge of the complex with open fields surrounding them. Access into to the farmyard is directly from the A7 in front of the farmhouse through an entrance formed by stone walls with an outbuilding to the south which sits immediately alongside the public footway. 1.3 The site differs from that shown in the AIP only insasmuch as where the proposed access is shown to link from the proposed residential curtilage to the A7. Previously the access was to skirt around and close to the existing agricultural buildings to the north of the proposed track and then to follow the roadside wall. Now proposed is a road which crosses the field in between the proposed house and the road, at an angle to the agricultural building. The details of this are dealt with further into the report below. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of a new dwelling on the site for occupation by a farm worker and the creation of a new access. 2.2 The location of the new dwelling is to the west of the existing farm buildings, around 40m from the nearest building as was the case in the AIP. The house 2.3 The house is of a traditional design and format with a frontage of 11m which is in accordance with the recommendations of the Planning Circular 3/91 - Design of Residential Development in the Countryside, and a depth of9.3m which is considerably more leading to a very wide gable but which is mitigated by a large chimney stack of the correct proportions for so

101

wide a gable and a roof pitched at 30 degrees and resulting in not overly high ridge height (7.9m). 2.4 The windows in the front elevation are vertically proportioned but rather than the traditional sliding sash half and half subdivision, the windows are side opening casements with a vertical, not horizontal subdivision of the panes. The rear elevation is overtly more modern with larger openings and cladding between the ground and first floor glazing. 2.5 Attached to the house is a utility room and single garage. Faced in stone as is the small front pitched roofed porch. The roofs will be finished in slate. Access 2.6 The means of access will be 85m to the south of the existing main farmyard access compared with 200m in the AIP which utilised an existing field entrance which has an existing pair of field entrances with gates angled and set back from the footway. The proposed access is completely new. 2.7 A 7m wide section of stone wall along the roadside will be removed narrowing to 3.5m between two new entrance piers, details of which are not provided but the applicant has confirmed that they will be 1.2m tall and stone with a concrete coping but given their position 6m into the site, will not interfere with the visibility splays of 2.4m by 70m in both directions. From the pillars, a 3.5m wide hardcore drive will run directly to the residential curtilage where the house will face the A7 with a hardstanding across the northern half of the front elevation including the garage. Landscaping 2.8 The residential curtilage will be bounded on the northern side by the existing hedgerow bounding the farm lane. On the eastern and southern sides will be a native hedge of hawthorn, blackthorn, field maple, guelder rose, hazel and alder and incorporating specimen trees of serviceberry, crab apple (3 species) with stock proof fencing and no planting on the south western boundary which sits 27m from the rear elevation of the house. No hedging is proposed along the sides of the access lane as it is intended for this to be an access into the farmyard and access into the fields would be required along the length of the track. Justification 2.9 The applicant relies upon the principle established under the AIP. For information, the AIP was supported by a statement which explained that that one of the applicants (the same as the current application), with his father, is a director of the company which is the tenant of Friary Farm which is owned by The Friary Ltd - the applicant's father and grandfather, Messrs Murray and Noel Cringle respectively. Mr. N. Cringle lives at the Friary Farmhouse and Mr. M. Cringle lives at Ballakeighan. Mr. Murray Cringle is 58 and his son, Philip (the applicant) wishes to pursue a career in agriculture on the Island which will require the existing business to grow. They are currently based and working in the UK and are hoping to move back to the Island within the next three years. 2.10 The farms are involved primarily in the finishing of prime beef cattle and currently has 250 head of cattle on the farm and 85 breeding ewes where the lambs are sold finished. The business currently has a labour requirement of 1.88 labour units which is currently supplied by Mr. Murray Cringle with assistance from his 82 year old father. They describe the company as one of the largest and more consistent suppliers of finished cattle to the Isle of Man Meat Company. The Department's Agricultural Development Scheme and Red Tractor Farm Assurance requires that animal welfare and health is not compromised as part of the farm operations and a key part of this is observing stick and their management and handling as well as security of the livestock and the associated medicines, fuels and machinery.

102

2.11 The business could not financially sustain the applicant as an addition to the farms' operation without a substantial change to the output ad income and Mr. M. Cringle sees the erection of the dwelling as a key part of the succession for the farm business. They estimate that with Mr. P. Cringle living on site, the enterprise would be able to increase to 350 head of stock with 300 breeding ewes plus 10 rams and 50 replacement ewes) which would increase the labour requirement to 3.15 standard units. 2.12 Residing at Ballakeighan with his father and mother is not practical for the applicant and his partner and Mr. N. Cringle who resides at Friary Farm has no wish to leave what has been his home for all of their working lives. In addition, Friary Farmhouse is of substantial character and historical value and any extension or significant alteration to accommodate additional family members could result in the interest being lost which is something the family would wish to avoid. 2.13 They describe the existing buildings at both farmyards as being fully utilised for agricultural purposes and are not available for conversion to residential use. The Friary Farm buildings are home to three quarters of the livestock particularly in the winter months due to the majority of the buildings being here. Whilst Mr. N. Cringle is responsible for the animals at The Friary for large periods of time but considering his age, this is not something which is considered to be sustainable in the long term although having Mr. P. Cringle living on site to assist, this could ensure that Mr. N. Cringle can continue to do this but on a reduced basis and enjoy his retirement. 2.14 The applicants are not aware of any dwellings for sale in the immediate area which are restricted to agricultural occupancy and which could be within their means to buy. Available properties in the area include a 2 bed mid terraced property in need of modernisation for £179,000 to a 3 bed bungalow at £289,000 with rental properties ranging from £1,350 to £1,500 pcm. Given that the land on which the proposed dwelling is proposed to be built would be at no cost, the dwelling could be constructed for up to two thirds of the purchase price of an existing dwelling with reduced on-going costs for maintenance and operation. This makes better financial sense to the farm to improve the cash flow to grow the business enabling everyone involved to have a wage and living off site would bring time and financial implications to the business which would in turn, limit its growth. The farm is likely to need new labour input given the age of those currently involved and a dwelling is unlikely to be available within the farm until at least 10 to 15 years from now and the family can see greater benefit from having a family member involved with the enthusiasm which a family member will bring compared with that of a paid employee. 2.15 The chosen location will not affect the living conditions of any existing residents and will not impede the expansion or operation of the farm. It could be screened sympathetically by new planting to ensure that the landscape is enhanced as much as possible. 2.16 The existing access is considered to be dangerous as many delivery vehicles have to reverse in and the access also limits the size of lorry which can be used to deliver goods. Some vehicles use the existing access which is proposed to be used for the new drive and drive across the fields to the existing farm buildings. 2.17 The applicant explains that as they were preparing the detailed documents for the reserved matters application, they decided there was a better alternative to the approved access and they liaised with both Highway Services and the Planning Office to pursue an alternative scheme whilst discussing the details of the building. They add that the design of the house does not preclude renewable energy installations and the substantial areas of glazing on the rear will maximise solar gain and daylight reducing the need for artificial heating and lighting and the reduced areas of glazing on the front elevation will reduce heat loss. PLANNING POLICY

103

3.1 The site is within an area designated on the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as not for a particular purpose and outside the proposed Conservation Area which includes the farmyard and existing buildings. 3.2 Friary Farm is suggested as worthy of research for potential registration, within the Area Plan. 3.3 On The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 the site is not designated for a particular purpose and lies within a wider area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance. There is also a Scheduled Ancient Monument indicated as on the site of the existing buildings relating to Bemaken Friary. The Friary Church is the only surviving building of the former religious house of Bemaken, and the other farm buildings are of various later periods. The church has a modern slate roof and is now used as a store. A plaque on the outside wall states that it is a protected monument. The church stands at the centre of the farmyard with its east gable facing the road. Its most obvious feature is the now-blocked east window, only part of which survives above a later doorway; the surviving original dressed stonework defines a Gothic window. The original roof profile is also visible in the gable, and can just be seen in the stonework below the verges. 3.4 The Strategic Plan contains a general presumption against development in areas which are not designated for a particular purpose and where the protection of the countryside is of paramount importance (EPs 1 and 2). There is provision for the erection of farm dwellings as follows: General Policy 3: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10)" Environment Policy 15: "Where the Department is satisfied that there is agricultural or horticultural need for a new building (including a dwelling), sufficient to outweigh the general policy against development in the countryside, and that the impact of this development including buildings, accesses, servicing etc. is acceptable, such development must be sited as close as is practically possible to existing building groups and be appropriate in terms of scale, materials, colour, siting and form to ensure that all new developments are sympathetic to the landscape and built environment of which they will form a part. Only in exceptional circumstances will buildings be permitted in exposed or isolated areas or close to public highways and in all such cases will be subject to appropriate landscaping. The 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." 8.9.5 If it is not possible for the farm worker to live in the nearest village, the siting of the proposed dwelling should be selected having regard to the various landscape policies in Chapter 7. In particular, the dwelling should self-evidently form part of the farm group. Housing Policy 7: "New agricultural dwellings will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances where real agricultural need is demonstrated." Housing Policy 8: "Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, a condition will be attached restricting the occupation to a person engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture; or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants."

104

Housing Policy 9: "Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, the dwelling must be sited such that; (a) it is within or immediately adjoining the main group of farm buildings or a group of farm buildings associated with that farm, (b) it is well set back from any public highway and (c) it is approached via the existing farm access." Housing Policy 10: "Where permission is granted for an agricultural dwelling, the dwelling should normally be designed in accordance with policies 1- 7 of present Planning Circular 3/91 which will be revised and issued as a Planning Policy Statement." 3.5 Ancient Monuments are protected under Strategic Policy 4 and Environment Policy 40. It is noted, however that the proposed development will not affect the existing farmyard or Ancient Monument, in fact, the proposal has been designed to avoid any impact thereon. PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The most recent application for the site and the only one for the site of the dwelling is 19/01077/A which is referred to above. This was approved subject to a number of conditions including the following: 5. The occupation of the dwelling hereby approved shall be limited to a person engaged or last engaged solely in agriculture on the Isle of Man, or a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants. Reason: The site is in an area where new dwellings are not normally approved except where an agricultural need has been established and accepted by the Department. 6. The reserved matters application must include full details of a landscaping scheme to establish the curtilage of the new dwelling. Such landscaping should also seek to mitigate the visual impact of the new dwelling and should incorporate hedging and planting as boundary features rather than walling and fencing. Reason: to protect the character and appearance of the area. 7. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of the dwelling, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species. Reason: The landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved. 8. Once constructed, if the dwelling is no longer required or occupied by persons engaged in agriculture, as required by condition 5 above, it must be demolished and the ground returned to part of the surrounding fields. Reason: an exception to the general presumption against development is being made on the basis of agricultural need and should that need no longer be present, there is no justification for the dwelling and it should be removed. REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Arbory Parish Commissioners support the application (24.06.20). 5.2 Highway Services have no objection, noting that the proposed garage is of sufficient size to allow for car parking and the storage of bicycles and other items and they recommend that it should be retained for its stated purpose and that an electric vehicle charging point should be provided. They observe that there is space for waste bin storage, but collection would need to

105

take place from the kerb side. They conclude that the proposal is unlikely to give rise to significant road safety or cause highway efficiency issues meeting general policy requirements and accordingly, Highway Services raises no opposition subject to conditions for access, pedestrian and vehicle areas to accord to drawings 226/020 and 226/021 hereby approved with any gates to open inwards, garage retention and provision of an ECVP plus an advisory for a Section 109(A) Highway Agreement under the Highways Act 1986 (22.06.20). 5.3 DEFA's Ecosystems Policy Office are content that the proposed new hedging will mitigate the loss of the hedging to be lost to provide the new access. They advise the applicant of the provisions of the Wildlife Act in respect of nesting and breeding birds (03.07.20). ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues here are whether the proposed dwelling is justified in agricultural terms and whether there would be any unacceptable environmental impact from the proposal - particularly in terms of impact on the landscape and highway safety. The principle of an agricultural dwelling here has very recently - November 2019 - been considered acceptable with no intervening change of circumstance or policy. Whilst this is no longer considered an issue, it is worth reiterating the conclusions reached in respect of the previous application which are set out in the following two paragraphs. Agricultural justification 6.2 The farm is an established one and not only that, has important connections with the village of Ballabeg in which it sits in terms of the age and historical value of the original farm buildings. The future expansion and management of the farm relies upon having appropriate staff on hand and in this particular case, although planning approval runs with the land rather than with individual occupants, the intention is to continue the family running of the farm whilst retaining accommodation for those who currently live in the existing farm houses. 6.3 The farm is situated within a village where there are many existing properties, some of which are currently available to buy or rent. The Strategic Plan makes it clear that the first consideration should be for the farmer to live in the nearest town or village. However, the applicant has looked into the purchase or rent of these and has concluded that the money spent on that would be better directed to the farm itself and the saving between purchasing an existing house compared with building their own property. Added to this, a presence on-site would provide more efficient care of the animals and they would also be close to the occupants of Friary Farmhouse and could enable them to reduce their involvement in the day to day activities on the farm. Visual and landscape impact 6.4 The new dwelling will be visible from the A7 to the north of the existing farmhouse and will be visible from the south as the area for the construction of the dwelling currently has no existing hedge or tree screening although such is now detailed in the proposed application. It was suggested in the earlier application that the proposed dwelling could be moved north to the other side of the access track which would render it less visible from the south. However, the applicant advised that they wish to reserve the northern area for potential future expansion of the farm buildings and siting the dwelling there could compromise that. 6.5 It is important to note that the proposal will result in a building seen largely in the context of modern farm buildings rather than any effect on the older, historically important buildings in the farmyard itself. The dwelling as viewed from the A7 will appear generally as a traditional farmhouse: the additional mass resulting from the additional width will be appreciable from further south on the A7 but in time this will be screened by the proposed planting. In all, it is considered that the proposed building will have an acceptable impact on the surrounding area. Highway safety

106

6.6 The proposed access is not opposed by Highway Services and is considered acceptable in highway safety terms. It is not considered appropriate to require an electric vehicle charging point as this is not within any adopted planning policy and as there is proposed to be a garage, electricity will be available there without the need for a specific charging point. Also, as there is sufficient space to be able to park at least two vehicles in the front of the residential curtilage, it is not considered appropriate to require that the garage is reserved solely for car parking as the two spaces required by the Strategic Plan are available without the garage space. CONCLUSION 7.1 It is considered that the proposed dwelling is justified and subject to appropriate landscaping, will not have an unacceptable visual impact and is acceptable in highway safety terms. The application is considered to accord with all of the relevant Strategic Plan policies and is supported. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material. 8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status. 8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

107

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 27th July 2020

Item 5.7 Proposal : Conversion of office (class 2.1) / commercial building

involving door / window alterations, installation of glazed entrance frontage, lift shaft and roof lights to create a health and wellbeing centre (class 4.3) for people over 50 years old

Site Address : 17 - 21 Market Street Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 2PA

Applicant : Age Concern Isle Of Man Ltd Application No. : Planning Officer :

20/00427/B- click to view Mrs Vanessa Porter

RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application

______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. C 2. The development shall not be occupied or operated until the secure and covered bicycle storage has been provided to the Department and approved in writing. The secure and covered bicycle storage shall be retained and available at all times thereafter. Reason: To promote sustainable travel in the interests of reducing pollution and congestion. Reason for approval: The proposal will add a community aspect to Douglas Town Centre which will bring additional footfall as such the proposal complies with the Douglas Master Plan and General Policy 2, Environment Policy 43, Transport Policy 1 and 7 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 AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BUT DESIGNATED FOR AN APPROVAL THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is the located to the western side of Market Street in Douglas Town Centre and is a three storey building which is situated next to a newly built six storey hotel to

108

the south and a two storey building to the north. To the east of the building is a car park and to the west of the building is St Andrews House which is eight storeys high. 1.2 To the rear and down the northern end of the site is pedestrian cut through which joins Finch Road to Market Street 1.3 The site currently has a garage area to the ground floor level, three offices and WC to the first floor level and two offices, WC and kitchen to the third level. THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The current planning application seeks approval for the change of use from offices/ commercial building to a health and wellbeing centre for people over the age of 50. There are several alterations with this change of use including the alteration to the front elevation ground floor to replace the currently roller shutter with a glazed frontage measuring 4.9m by 2.8m, this will include a entrance door to the southern side of the door and three glazed panels to the north side. Also to the ground floor level is the installation of a roller shutter door to the southern end of the elevation measuring 1.5m by 2.8m, which is to provide easy access to the internal bin store. To the rear of the property on the first floor level there is the alteration of the rear entrance to remove the stairs and to lower the doorway to make a level access, there will be no difference to the size of the aperture, only the type and style of the doorway. To the second floor level the only alteration proposed is the introduction of two new rooflights to the south elevation. 2.2 The main alteration proposed to the property is the introduction of a lift which will span over the three levels and will measure 11.5m from floor to roof. The lift is to be situated to the northern end of the property and will have a list shaft which will come out of the main roof by 2.8m at the highest and will have a flat roof. 2.3 The proposed new floor plan is as follows, to the ground floor level there proposed is a reception, information and social connection area and a kitchen to the western side of the building. To the first floor level there is a multi function area, recreation, activities, exercise and cinema room with bifolding partition leading to a classroom rea, information & technology and crafts room and WC. To the second floor level three offices, WC and kitchen are proposed. PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There have been two previous Planning Applications on this site; 3.1.1 PA97/00628/A was for the "Approval in principle for redevelopment of site for mixed use, retail, commercial, office and parking, 17 Market Street, Douglas," and was Permitted. 3.1.2 PA02/02045/B was for the "Alterations and extension to garage/office building," and was Permitted. PLANNING POLICY 4.1 The site lies within an area zoned as Predominantly Offices on the Douglas Local Plan 1998, Map 1. Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider General Policy 2, Environment Policy 43, Transport Policy 1 and 7. 4.2 General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 which states "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (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; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;

109

(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; (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. 4.3 Environment Policy 43 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states, "The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans. The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric, rather than its demolition. 4.4 Transport Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states, "New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes. 4.5 Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan states, "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards." REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services have considered the proposal and state the following, "As the site is accessible to sustainable forms of travel and cycling is to be encouraged, bicycling parking should be provided for staff, visitors and for hire in a secure, covered storage facility. There appears to be space to provide, but this must be separate from the bin store. Accordingly, Highway Services do not oppose the proposal subject to a condition. Bicycle Parking - No works shall commence on site until a scheme for the parking of bicycles has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall be fully implemented before the development is first brought into us and thereafter retained for this purpose for the lifetime of the development. Reason: In interests of encouraging use of sustainable modes of transport. (18.05.20). 5.2 Douglas Corporation have considered the proposal and have no objection (18.05.20). ASSESSMENT 6.1 The fundamental issues to consider with regards to this application are the principle of the change of use, the potential impacts on the neighbouring amenities, whether there would be any impacts upon the highway amenities and whether there would be an increase in the visual impact. 6.2 Principle 6.2.1 When looking at the area where the proposed application is situated it is zoned as predominately offices which would mean the proposed use of community centre is contrary to the land use designation as such the principle of the change of use needs to be explored. 6.2.2 Throughout Market Street there are a variety of uses which deviate from the zoned predominately offices from a dance studio to a hotel all of which coexist. When looking at the Douglas Masterplan 2014 it states, "New development and proposals around the town centre will contribute to diversifying the offer and create a sustainable mix of town centre activities, where new businesses will be proud to locate and employees can enjoy the high quality of

110

Island life. A mix of uses throughout the town will increase the attraction of the Centre, retaining and increasing footfall and movement across all periods of the day and into the early evening. These will support and complement business activities to create a cohesive and high quality centre for all to use…" 6.2.3 The proposed use of the building will add an additional benefit to the area due to the frequent and varied use which will bring a much needed footfall through the main town centre and as such the principle is acceptable. 6.3 Potential impacts upon neighbouring amenities. 6.3.1 When looking at the proposed floor area we can see that the proposed uses within the building which could potentially cause an impact are the social connection area, classroom area (information, technology and crafts) and the multi-function area for recreation, activities, exercises and cinema. 6.3.2 Due to the uses surrounding the site, with the most popular use being offices, which are generally occupied during 9am-5pm Monday to Friday. The proposed uses are uses which are logically going to be outside of these times and on a weekend, whilst some uses could be detrimental to the surrounding buildings the uses proposed are not generally loud uses with the cinema logically being out of office hours. 6.4 Potential impacts upon the highway amenities. 6.4.1 When looking at the potential highway issues that an application like this could potentially bring up it is necessary to note that the building is situated in a main town centre location with the main bus terminal being at a close distance to the site and with a layby for dropping off/picking up being a close distance away in the newly built hotel. There is also a car park situated directly opposite the site with many more at a close walking distance. The applicants themselves have also stated that "Walling to wellbeing and cycling groups will operate from the facility, and people will be encouraged to make journeys by walking and cycling as part of their day to day travelling." 6.4.2 Whilst the proposal might generate some extra traffic with regards to dropping off and picking up this would not be much more than what is already in place with a large hotel and M&S being directly across and adjacent to the site. Highway Services have not opposed the application stating that "the site is accessible to sustainable forms of travel and cycling should be encouraged." 6.4.3 A discussion with the architect to ascertain whether any bike storage will be implemented to assist alterative and sustainable transport has revealed that the applicants are looking into a dedicated bike parking area within the ground floor of the building behind the bin storage. As this wasn't a part of the application and would assist in alternative and sustainable travel options a condition should be attached for the details and implementation of a bike storage area prior to occupation. 6.4 Visual Impact 6.4.1 When looking at the proposed visual alterations the main ones which could create a visual impact would be the alteration from roller shutter to windows and a door and the installation of a lift shaft. There are other alterations such as the installation of additional roof lights and the alteration of the rear doorway, both of these alterations are minimal and will have a minimal impact on the overall building and the streetscene as a whole. 6.4.2 With regards to the removal of the roller shutter door and the installation of a glassed door and side panels, whilst this alteration would be noticeable, overall it will create a new and

111

fresh appearance to the building which in turn will make it more welcoming to customers. When looking at the main ground floor level of the buildings along Market Street, they are mostly roller shutter doors, with the ground floor used for parking and the upper levels used for offices. 6.4.3 Whilst this could necessarily mean that the alteration would look out of place, when put together next to the new hotel, the glass frontage will fit more seamlessly in to the streetscene, especially due to the rear walkway behind the building and the most likely of thoroughfare being directly past the building in question through to M&S and beyond. 6.4.4 When looking at the proposed lift shaft this is another aspect which could create a visual impact especially with the application building being the second tallest within this area of Market Street. Due to the height of the building and where the lift shaft is to be situated the likelihood of passing traffic through the rear thoroughfare noticing the alteration is limited. The main public vantage point of seeing the lift shaft is from Market Street itself where the likelihood of such an alteration having an impact on the visual amenities of the area being minimal. CONCLUSION 7.1 For the above reasons the proposal is considered to comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and therefore acceptable. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf); (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material; (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material; (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material. 8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status

112

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 27th July 2020

Item 5.8 Proposal : Erection of extension to cafe with associated ramp access Site Address : Home Of Rest For Old Horses Cafe

Bulrhenny Richmond Hill Douglas Isle Of Man IM4 1JH

Applicant : Isle Of Man Home Of Rest For Old Horses Application No. : Planning Officer :

20/00526/B- click to view Mr Paul Visigah

RECOMMENDATION: To APPROVE the application

______________________________________ Recommended Conditions and Notes for Approval C : Conditions for approval N : Notes (if any) attached to the conditions C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice. Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. Reason for approval: Overall and on balance, the application is considered to accord with Environment Policy 1 Environment Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONISDERED A DEPARTURE BUT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL THE SITE 1.1 The site is the curtilage of the Home Of Rest For Old Horses which is situated on the northern side of the A5 Richmond Hill as you approach Mount Murray from Douglas. The Building which is the subject of the current application faces south with its frontage having views to the western entrance to the site. The application property is enclosed by the buildings on the site with Bulrhenny House situated southwest of the property, the shops on site situated directly south, Miden and the loose boxes situated west, while a covered yard is situated north. 1.2 The building which currently serves as the Café on the site is a two storey, largely traditional stone building with external walls painted white. The roof of this property is covered in slate with two rooflights situated on either of the roof panes. There is a flat roof extension at the rear which serves the store, staff room and WC for the Café.

113

THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the erection of extension to café with associated ramp access. The works will involve the demolition of the flat roof extension on the rear elevation and its replacement with an extension with a mono-pitched roof with slope almost identical to that of the main building. 2.2 The proposed extension would be 8m long and 5.2m wide, projecting 1m beyond the existing rear elevation and 1.2m beyond the existing walls on the north east elevation. The lower sections of the external walls of this extension will be made of white rendered base wall, while the upper sections will be clad in dark coloured artificial timber boarding. Also new windows will be installed on the rear and side elevation of the extension with a rear access double door 1.6m wide and 2m high installed on the rear elevation. 2.3 The works will also involve the installation of three rooflights 1.2m x 650mmas on the roof, as well as a ramp access on the rear elevation. The new concrete access ramp would have steel posts and rails with safety glass panels. The ramps would measure 6.5m long and be 1.1m wide, leading from the rear entrance doors to the rear of the disabled toilet within the cafe. 2.4 Additional works would include the opening up of the wall on the right of the electric cupboard on the north east elevation to enable the installation of a window to serve the main café. The window would be 2.7m long and 2.1m high. Also, a mono-pitched closed porch 1.1m deep would be installed above the entrance door on the south west elevation. There would also be internal alterations to improve the functionality of the spaces within the property. PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The application site lies within an area zoned as an Area of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance on the 1982 Development Plan Order and the site is also classed as Private woodland or Parkland under the Braddan Local Plan of 1991. In the draft Area Plan for the East the site lies within a much wider area not designated for a particular purpose. 3.2 Due to the site location and nature of the proposal the following policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are relevant for consideration: 3.3 General Policy 3 Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment; 3.4 The IOMSP also includes Environment Policies which are relevant: 3.4.1 Environment Policy 1: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative." 3.4.2 Environment Policy 2: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLV's) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and

114

guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that: (a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or (b) the location for the development is essential." PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site has been the subject of a previous planning application which is considered to be materially relevant to the current application given that the current application will involve the alteration of the external walls of the building to incorporate new windows. 4.2 Approval was granted under PA 06/01478/B for Door and window alterations in October 2006. REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only. 5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they 'do not oppose' in the letter dated 28 June 2020. 5.2 The Braddan Commissioners have stated that they have no objection to the application in a letter dated 18 June 2020 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The main issue to be considered in the assessment of this application is the visual impact of the structure, and the impact upon the surrounding countryside. 6.2 Visual Impacts 6.2.1 It is considered that the fundamental issue to consider in the assessment of this planning application is the visual impact of the proposed works on the surrounding area which is rural in nature and character. The extension as proposed would be at the rear of the property and at a position that would not be visible from any vantage point along the abutting highway due to the nature of the site which ensures that the surrounding buildings on the site conceals the work area. 6.2.2 Whilst proposed extension would not be publicly viewable, what is proposed would be an improvement on the existing flat roofed extension at the rear of the building. It is noted that the new roof structure will not have a pitch angle that completely mirrors the existing roof pitch on the main building; however, the roof angle would be considerably similar to the main roof angle and its finishing in slate, as well as its subdued position will ensure that it remains a subordinate addition to the main building. Besides, the external finishing of the walls would add to the external appeal of the rear elevation which is particularly bland in its current state. As such, it is considered that the scale, design and finish of the extension would ensure that it becomes an appropriate addition to the existing building. 6.2.3 Another factor worthy of consideration is the fact that the development would improve the situation within the broader site area given that it would improve the appearance of the application site which is an integral part of the wider area, besides making the building more functional. The proposal will clearly alter the existing situation but on the basis of the submitted evidence it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and justifiable in terms of its contributions to the area. 6.3 Impact on countryside 6.3.1 With regard to the Impact on the countryside, it is important to establish if any real harm would result with respect to ecological and environmental concerns that could result from the

115

development. What is proposed would not introduce any harm to trees nor would the development involve the alteration of the open fields surrounding the site given its location within the core of the site and away from the surrounding countryside. Therefore, it is noted that there would be no impacts on the landscape sufficient to warrant a refusal of the proposal. CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal would comply with the relevant planning policies of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016 for the reasons outlined within this report and therefore it is recommended that the application be approved. 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

116

PLANNING AUTHORITY AGENDA FOR 27th July 2020

Item 5.9 Proposal : Erection of welfare unit and toilet block (retrospective) Site Address : Technical Site

The Old Airfield Braust Andreas Isle Of Man IM7 4JB

Applicant : Birchall Plant Hire Application No. : Principal Planner :

20/00544/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 welfare unit and toilet block hereby approved shall be removed from the site in the event that they are no longer used. Reason: To ensure that the buildings are removed from the site if no longer required, given the location and nature of the development. Reason for approval: The proposal in terms of the principle of the uses and the visual impact are both aspects which raise no concern and therefore accords on balance with the aforementioned strategic plan policies and is recommended for approval.

______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons None

_____________________________________________________________

Planning Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMMITTEE AS IT COULD BE CONSIDERED A DEPARTURE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL 1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is a small section of land which sits within the former Andreas Airfield, at the Andreas Village side. The site has permission to be used for the temporary storing and sorting of inert construction, demolition and green waste material prior to bulk removal to disposal facility. Waste metal is brought to the site to be dealt with on this site. Accordingly, the character of the site is large areas of hard surfacing with different piles of waste which is stored, processed and taken off site. 2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of welfare unit and toilet block (retrospective). The Welfare unit would measure 6m x 2.4m while the toilet block would

117

measure 2.4m x 2.4m. Both units are located within the centre of the site and have the appearance as portacabins. 3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area of 'white land' albeit noted as "Airfield (disused)" - land not zoned for development, on the Town and Country Planning (Development Plan) Order 1982. There is therefore a general presumption against development in this area. This presumption is further outlined and clarified in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan policies below. 3.2 Environment Policy 1: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative." 3.3 General Policy 3 sets out a presumption against development in the countryside but includes instances where there may be exemptions: (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); (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services; (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry; (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage. 3.3.1 "Previously-developed land is that which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.' The definition includes defence buildings, but excludes: o Land that is or has been occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings. o Land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill purposes where provision for restoration has been made through development control procedures. o Land in built-up areas such as parks, recreation grounds and allotments, which, although it may feature paths, pavilions and other buildings, has not been previously developed. o Land that was previously-developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape in the process of time (to the extent that it can reasonably be considered as part of the natural surroundings)." 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The previous planning application is considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application:- 4.2 Erection of a workshop/garage building - 09/01933/B - APPROVED

118

4.3 Additional use of the existing site to include the temporary storing and sorting of inert construction, demolition and green waste material prior to bulk removal to disposal facility - 02/01800/C - APPROVED 4.4 Change of use to storage of equipment and storage and processing of scrap metal - 90/00874/C - APPROVED 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services have no objections to the application (18.11.2019). 6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 The two main considerations in the assessment of this application are the principle of the development and its likely visual impact on the character of the countryside. 6.2 Principle of the development 6.2.1 There is a general presumption against new development in the countryside, as per the IOMSP policies outlined in section 3. This strict approach prevents the gradual loss of open countryside on the Island. 6.2.2 The site in question is already developed and used for the storage, processing and disposal of waste. The proposed buildings would provide staff welfare buildings and toilets in association with the use of the site. Accordingly, the land therefore is already in use. In relation to General Policy 3 which can provide exemptions for development in the countryside including on "previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building", this land is regarded as previously developed. The erection of the compound therefore is not considered likely to increase the impact on the wide countryside. 6.2.3 Further, the former airfield has a number of industrial uses located on it and it seems to have been generally accepted that the area is a brown field site. 6.2.4 The proposed use would site well within the established uses within the airfield and therefore for these reasons the principle of the use is considered acceptable. 6.3 Visual Impact 6.3.1 The proposals if it were to be situated in the middle of a prominent field in the countryside, is unlikely to be acceptable on visual grounds. However, the nature of this area is unique in that it is interspersed with large industrial sheds and buildings, some formal and some informal. The neighbouring large sheds to the proposed are taller and more visually prominent than the proposed. In addition, the existing use of the application site for the storage of waste and including larger sheds are likely to draw the eye more than the proposed buildings. 6.3.2 The proposed siting of the building close to larger existing buildings, near the centre of the site which is surrounded by waste piles or the other buildings/structures. Also the proposed location is relatively sheltered from public vantage points and not within an area of particular natural beauty - being on an old runway, all limit the likelihood of an unacceptable adverse visual impact which could be of detriment to the character of the countryside. In relation to visual impact and Environmental Policy 1, the proposal is considered acceptable. 7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 In summary, the proposal in terms of the principle of the uses and the visual impact are both aspects which raise no concern and therefore accords on balance with the aforementioned strategic plan policies and is recommended for approval. 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

119

(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