112598 — 18/00980/B | Planning Portal IoM | Isle of Man Planning Portal

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  1  of  21

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 18/00980/B Applicant : Kelnorth Limited Proposal : Residential development of 17 dwellings with associated roads, plots and drainage Site Address : Part Of Field 121388 And Former Dale Nurseries Oatlands Road Andreas Isle Of Man

Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken : 04.10.2018 Site Visit : 04.10.2018 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 22.03.2019 __

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to 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. Each dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the dwelling and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

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

C 3. No development shall take place until a further landscaping plan of soft landscaping works surrounding the substation have been submitted to and approved in writing by Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include additional planting as already shown on drawing (03) 002 but additional planting in and around the Public Open Space Area and to the frontage/entrance of the site. All planting shall be carried out in accordance the approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation of each dwelling permitted. Any trees or shrub which within 5 years from the completion of the development dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species unless the planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

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

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  2  of  21

C 4. Prior to the commencement of development a 'Timetable Scheme' for the provision of the Public Open Space areas as shown on drawing (03) 002 is to be submitted to and approved by the Department which gives a timetable of when all the Public Open Space will be completed and all made available for recreational use before the occupation of the last dwelling. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the agreed timetable.

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

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

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

C 6. All planting, seeding or turfing not included within the areas of public open space (mentioned within Conditions 3 & 4) comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development. Any trees or plants which within a period of five years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

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

C 7. Prior to the commencement of the development (including demolition) the proposed new access is to be installed (required to be completed prior to last dwelling being occupied) with visibility splays of 2.4m x 70m in both directions and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1.05m in height above adjoining carriageway level.

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

C 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no fences, gates, walls or other means of enclosure shall be erected or placed within the curtilage of any dwelling house forward of any wall of that dwelling house which fronts onto a highway, without the prior written approval of the Department.

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

C 9. The Detention Basis and associated drainage scheme as shown on drawing 10 REV B are required to be in place before the occupation of the first dwelling and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure appropriate surface water drainage of the site

C 10. No site works or clearance shall be commenced until protective fences which conform with British Standard 5837:2012 (or any British Standard revoking and re-enacting British Standard 5837:2012 with or without modification) have been erected around any existing trees and other existing or proposed landscape areas in positions ****. Unless and until the development has been completed these fences shall not be removed and the protected areas are to be kept clear of any building, plant equipment, material, debris and trenching, with the existing ground levels maintained, and there shall be no entry to those areas except for approved arboricultural or landscape works.

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

Plans/Drawings/Information;

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  3  of  21

This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers (03) 001, (03) 002 REV C, (03) 005, (03) 100, (03) 110, (03) 120, (03) 130, (03) 140, (03) 150, (03) 160, (03) 170, (03) 180, (03) 500, (03) 003, (03) 115, 10 REV B, LS-01 REV B, LS-02 REV B, (03) 004 REV A), (03) 006, Design And Access Statement (Cornerstone Architects), Tree Survey Report (Manx Roots), and Flood Risk Assessment (BB Consulting Engineers) received on 14th August 2018, 14th December 2019, 22nd March 2019 and 28th March 2019. __

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that although they have made written submissions these do not relate to planning considerations:

Manx Utilities as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy and are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy

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

The owner/occupier of Ballachurry Farm Cottage, Bernahara, Andreas - As they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). __

Officer’s Report

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

0.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 0.1 As discussed during the Planning Committee on the 1st April, additional comments were received from Manx Utilities and Highway Services. Accordingly, these are now included within the representation section of this report (paragraphs 5.5.3 & 5.5.1). Other changes include the updating of the plan number in Condition and the approved again to reflect this update. No other changes have been made to this report since the application was deferred.

1.0 SITE 1.1 The site defined in red is a parcel of land, 2.8 acres (1.1 hectares or 11331sqm) which is made up of part of part of Field 121388 and Former Dale Nurseries all located to the north western side of Andreas Road, northeast of Little Meadow Housing Estate and to the west of Andreas Village.

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

1.3 The second part of the site which makes up the remaining 1.8 acres is more irregular in shape (the maim section almost L-shaped) which is currently covered by a larger amount of built

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  4  of  21

development, in the form of three detached glass greenhouses, all in a state of disrepair. The greenhouses have a total floor area of approximately 3092sqm which covers the 7149sqm site (1.8acres).

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

2.0 PROPOSAL 2.1 The application seeks approval for the residential development of 17 dwellings with associated roads, plots, drainage and public open space.

2.2 The proposal includes a total of six houses types, ranging from 2 bungalows, 3 two storey semi-detached properties, and 9 two storey detached properties. The dwellings would be finished in a mixture of painted render, stone cladding, slate effect concrete tiles, slate grey aluminium/uPVC windows and conservation style roof lights.

2.3 A total of 2258sqm of public open space is proposed within the site, the main part within the centre section of the site. Further, more useable Public Open Space can be found to the southern corner of the site (running parallel with Oatlands Road). There is further public open space scattered within the estate, in the form of amenity spaces (i.e. landscaped areas). Additional native tree planting and additional landscaping is proposed within and around the southern boundaries of the site.

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

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

3.3 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under- used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."

3.4 Spatial Policy 3 states: "The following villages are identified as Service Villages o Laxey o Jurby o Andreas o Kirk Michael o St Johns o Foxdale o Port St Mary o Ballasalla o Union Mills

Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such villages so as to maintain and where appropriate increase employment opportunities. Housing should be provided to meet local needs and in appropriate cases to broaden the choice of location of housing."

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  5  of  21

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

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

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

3.8 Environment Policy 42 states: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."

3.9 General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

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

3.10 General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10); (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11); (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  6  of  21

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."

3.11 Housing Policy 4 states: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10; (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."

3.12 Housing Policy 5 states: "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more."

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

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

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

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

The current standards are set out in Appendix 7."

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

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

4.2 Approval in principle for erection of five dwellings addressing means of access and siting - 15/00875/A - Field 121388, Oatlands Road, Andreas - 15/00875/A -APPROVED (expired on 21.09.2017)

4.3 Extension to existing glasshouses for preparation of plant feed, Dale Nurseries Ltd, Andreas

85/01119/B - APPROVED

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  7  of  21

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

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Andreas Parish Commissioners have objected to the application. Their objections can be summarised as (06.10.19, 22.11.2018 & 16.01.2019): object till the surface water drainage culvert and open ditch has been rectified in Bride Road which is situated in front of Lawn House to Andreas Stores; the reason being that this watercourse at present takes all the surface water from Little Meddow, Croit Ny Kenize, Croft Park, Orchard Close, Larivane Meadows and Cooil Ny Chibbyr and this existing water course would have to take all surface water from the new development; during heavy rainfall the existing storm water course in Bride Road is unable to cope; To the Commissioners knowledge the existing culvert has been partly filled in or blocked by a previous owner of one of the properties between Lawn House and Andreas Stores; They also believe DOI were to carry out works to rectify the problem but such works has not been carried out; and only when the drainage problems have been overcome will Andreas Parish Commissioner approve the proposed development.

5.2 Highway Services initially objected to the application (18.10.2019) and following these concerns the applicant provided amended plans to try overcome the issues raised. However, Highway Services retain their objection to the application making the following comments (21.03.2019): "Following the previous highway response dated 18/10/18, the applicant has submitted additional information.

The proposed vehicle tracking plan (drawing no. (03) 005) shows that the proposed site access junction onto the B14 Oatlands Road would have inadequate junction radii as a 10m rather than a 11.5m length large refuse vehicle has been shown, and the vehicle would need to cross the Oatlands Road centreline to turn left in and left out of the site which is deemed unsafe. Revised tracking with a 11.5m length vehicle and changes to the site access junction and radii accordingly are therefore required. If the amended tracking is undertaken with the 10m length vehicle then the applicant would need to submit written evidence from the waste authority that they would not use a larger vehicle than this to access the site in the future.

Emergency service vehicles (up to 8.6m in length) should be able to access and egress the site based on the information submitted to date. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed site access roads could accommodate the turning movements of large refuse vehicles as a 10m length vehicle track plot has been provided and it shows the turning head opposite plot 6 is too small for that vehicle. Revised vehicle swept path analysis for an 11.5m long refuse vehicle is therefore needed to demonstrate that the turning heads would be of a sufficient size to enable such vehicles to turn around so they can enter and exit the site safely.

The speed limit on Oatlands Road is 30mph which requires highway visibility splays of 2.4m x 70m in both directions to comply with the visibility standards in the 'Design Manual for Roads and Bridges' (DMRB). The proposed site plan shows a highway visibility splay of 2.4m x 70m to the north with an offset of no more than 0.5m into the carriageway from the kerb line which is acceptable. As with the previous site plan, the 2.4m x 70m visibility splay to the south encroaches up to 2.5m into the carriageway which prevents vehicles approaching the site travelling northbound from being seen by vehicles exiting the site which is unacceptable and unsafe. It is suggested that the applicant considers relocating the site access junction or increasing the 'x' distance above 2.4m to achieve sufficient visibility to DMRB standards. Any offset of the visibility splay from the nearside kerb line must not be more than 0.5m.

The 2.4m x 25m visibility splays of the internal highway junction at plots 3 and 12 would comply with the 'Manual for Streets' visibility standards for a 20mph road. The splays of 2.4m x 25m adjacent to plot 13 have been incorrectly drawn but adequate visibility should be achievable. The developer would need to fund a Traffic Regulation Order for the proposed 20mph speed limit which would be dealt with as part of the Section 4 Highway Agreement needed for the development to become adopted. The proposed boundary treatments on the plot frontages should

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  8  of  21

not adversely affect the highway visibility of the driveways as currently shown. There can be nothing above 1m in height within the visibility splay areas.

The revised proposed site plan (drawing no. (03) 002 revision C) shows that the proposed footways along the main entrance road would be 2m wide as requested. The proposed carriageways without adjacent footways would have 2m wide adjacent service strips apart from at plots 4, 5 and 17 which should be adequate. The vehicle swept path analysis for a large car over 5m in length demonstrates that the proposed roads without adjacent footways would be wide enough to allow a car to turn in and out of the off-street parking spaces.

The parking standards in 'The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016' require 2 car parking spaces per dwelling. Each dwelling would have 2 driveway spaces except for plots 7 to 11 which only have one, but there would be 5 off-street spaces opposite these plots which would provide a second space for these dwellings. All the spaces comply with the minimum dimensions in the 'Manual for Manx Roads' design guide.

The proposed site levels along the new roads would be suitable for vehicular, pedestrian and disabled access. The applicant should ensure that all the proposed off-street parking and footpath areas have gradients no steeper than 1:12 to facilitate disabled access to the dwellings.

The highway drainage, highway surfacing, tactile paving and traffic calming proposals have not been considered and may be subject to potential change when they are reviewed as part of a future Section 4 or Section 109A Highway Agreement. Since this application was first submitted Highway Services have adopted a new road safety policy which requires a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) to be submitted with certain planning applications. In this particular instance Highway Services would accept the RSA as part of the Highway Agreement rather than the planning application due to the recent change in policy.

Summary Highway Services oppose the current proposals on highway safety grounds as the application fails to demonstrate that the proposed site access junction would have adequate highway visibility, and a large refuse vehicle could not be safely accommodated. In order to overcome the highway objection the applicant would need to provide the following:

o A revised highway visibility splay of at least 2.4m x 70m to the south with no offset of more than 0.5m from the kerb line along any point of the splay, or alternatively a relocated site access junction to provide 2.4m x 70m visibility splays.

o Revised swept path analysis for a 11.5m length refuse vehicle to provide: o adequate junction radii of the proposed site access junction onto Oatlands Road o no requirement for the vehicle to cross the Oatlands Road centreline when turning left in and left out of the site o revised turning heads to accommodate the turning movements of large refuse vehicles.

Recommendation: Objection"

5.2.1 Following additional plans and information Highway Services still object to the proposal making the following comments (29.03.2019):

"Following the previous highway response dated 21/03/19, the applicant has submitted additional information.

The proposed vehicle tracking plan (drawing no. (03) 005 revision A) shows that the proposed site access junction onto the B14 Oatlands Road would have inadequate junction radii as a 10m rather than a 11.5m length large refuse vehicle has been shown, and the vehicle would need to cross the Oatlands Road centreline to turn left in and left out of the site which is unsafe. Revised tracking with a 11.5m length vehicle and changes to the site access junction and radii accordingly are therefore required. If the amended tracking is undertaken with the 10m length vehicle then the

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  9  of  21

applicant would need to submit written evidence from the waste authority that they would not use a larger vehicle than this to access the site in the future.

As stated previously, it has not been demonstrated that the proposed site access roads could accommodate the turning movements of large refuse vehicles as a 10m length vehicle track plot has been provided and it shows the turning head opposite plot 6 is too small for that vehicle. Revised vehicle swept path analysis for an 11.5m long refuse vehicle is therefore needed to demonstrate that the turning heads would be of a sufficient size to enable such vehicles to turn around so they can enter and exit the site safely.

As stated in the previous highway response "The speed limit on Oatlands Road is 30mph which requires highway visibility splays of 2.4m x 70m in both directions to comply with the visibility standards in the 'Design Manual for Roads and Bridges' (DMRB). The proposed site plan shows a highway visibility splay of 2.4m x 70m to the north with an offset of no more than 0.5m into the carriageway from the kerb line which is acceptable. As with the previous site plan, the 2.4m x 70m visibility splay to the south encroaches up to 2.5m into the carriageway which prevents vehicles approaching the site travelling northbound from being seen by vehicles exiting the site which is unacceptable and unsafe. It is suggested that the applicant considers relocating the site access junction or increasing the 'x' distance above 2.4m to achieve sufficient visibility to DMRB standards. Any offset of the visibility splay from the nearside kerb line must not be more than 0.5m." In relation to the photographs provided by the applicant, Highways never accept photographs to demonstrate highway visibility for the following reasons: o Photos are not an accepted method of defining visibility splays in the DMRB (or Manual for Streets) visibility standards. Only visibility splays drawn correctly on scale site plans can show compliance with visibility standards which have not been submitted for this application o Photos do not confirm the 'x' and 'y' distances and the height the photo was taken o Photos are taken from a pedestrian not a driver perspective, and a pedestrian has much better visibility due to the fixed positioning of a driver in a car, the drivers inability to turn their head beyond a certain point, the position of the vehicle door frame, etc. Due to the curved nature of the road, part of the carriageway is outside the visibility splay area and the full carriageway width needs to be fully within the splay area, apart from the 0.5m width area between the splay and the nearside kerb line. The maximum possible visible distance available as quoted is irrelevant as part of the carriageway must closer to the site access could not be seen by vehicles. It is difficult, and often impossible, for site accesses on bends and curved highway alignments to achieve adequate highway visibility. The proposed site access would have inadequate highway visibility and would be unsafe.

The visibility envelope clarification drawing (no. (03) 006) is unacceptable as it has been drawn incorrectly and not in accordance with visibility standards. Not all of the highway shown hatched would be visible to motorists leaving the site.

As stated previously, the highway drainage, highway surfacing, tactile paving and traffic calming proposals have not been considered and may be subject to potential change when they are reviewed as part of a future Section 4 or Section 109A Highway Agreement. Since this application was first submitted Highway Services have adopted a new road safety policy which requires a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) to be submitted with certain planning applications. In this particular instance Highway Services would accept the RSA as part of the Highway Agreement rather than the planning application due to the recent change in policy.

Summary Highway Services oppose the current proposals on highway safety grounds as the application fails to demonstrate that the proposed site access junction would have adequate highway visibility, and a large refuse vehicle could not access and egress the site safely without encroaching over the carriageway centreline into the path of oncoming traffic.

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  10  of  21

Due to the highway objection on highway safety grounds, Highway Services could not enter into a Section 4 Highway Agreement to adopt the development or a Section 109A Highway Agreement to allow the site access junction onto the public highway to be built.

Recommendation: Objection"

5.3 The Public Estates and Housing Division (DOI) comment (23.09.20018) that there are currently 71 persons on the general public sector waiting list for affordable housing for rent in the north of the Island and 11 persons on the active first time buyers register seeking to purchase a first time home in the north of the Island. The department seeks the usual 25% of the 17 dwelling on the site, which equates to 4.25 units. 4 units are proposed by the application and are suitable for affordable housing, and therefore a commuted sum will be required for the difference between the 25% AH (4.25) and the proposed number (4).

5.4 The Arboricultural Officer (DEFA - 02.10.2018) originally sought additional information regarding tree protection to the two trees in the northern corner of the site and the importance of their retention. Following additional plans being submitted the Officer raised no objection, subject to a condition requiring the tree protection measures as shown be undertaken prior to development commencing.

5.5 Manx Utilities initially made the following comment (12.10.2018): "The Oatlands road, Little Meadow and Croit Ne Kenzie areas are known to be at risk of flooding as a result of the surface water network surcharging during heavy rainfall events. The public surface water systems in Andreas is complex and currently considered to be at capacity. In addition to this the areas stated also lie in a ground depression and as such are at risk from rainfall runoff / pluvial sources. We have an island wide surface water flood risk map which identifies areas where rainfall is likely to pond. Because of its coverage this map is not currently in the public domain but a snap shot has already been provided to BB Consulting.

Given the sensitivity of flood risk to existing residents in the area it is necessary to request that a detailed Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) is carried out in support of this planning application. We note as part of the application in the attached document '1800980B Support Docs 1 of 4.pdf' a brief section on flood risk has been supplied (Section 5. Flood Risk Assessment). The statement unfortunately does not provide the level of detail that is required for this site or demonstrate the potential impact on residents downstream / down system. As such we are unable to assess the appropriateness of the development from a flood risk perspective. Before commenting, Manx Utilities need to be sure that the development will not increase the risk of flooding to the surrounding area. Culverting of a watercourse will also require Manx Utilities' consent under the Flood Risk Management Act 2013. The FRA should confirm that this will not impede the flow or worsen the situation elsewhere. To assist the applicant we have attached some guidance on what our requirements are. Some of the detail has already been provided it just needs to be consolidated into one FRA report for our records. It should be noted that completion of the FRA does not guarantee approval of the application." 5.5.1 Following these comments the applicants entered into discussion with Manx Utilities (20.11.2018) and also produced a Flood Risk Assessment as requested. Following this Manx Utilities made the following comments (21.03.2019):

"The revised planning drawings for the above development indicate the proposed detention basin as being "online", with the existing ditch running through the basin. During various rainfall events this detention basin will provide benefits by storing volumes of water from the ditch within the basin and releasing these volumes of water into the downstream system at a controlled discharge rate. Unfortunately as this basin has not been hydraulically modelled by the applicant the exact benefits and the return periods of these benefits are unknown.

If the basin was situated "off line" (with the existing ditch running separate) in order to deal with the development flows only, it is recognized that any existing flooding within the catchment would not be exacerbated as flows from the development catchment would be attenuated and discharged into the existing downstream system as a controlled rate unlike than the existing

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  11  of  21

arrangement. Without confirmation through further modelling, this offline approach is Manx Utilities' preferred option.

The future maintenance and ownership of the detention basin remains unclear. Manx Utilities will not consider this basin for public adoption of a drainage system and it is advisable that any such agreement with the local authority / landowners is confirmed prior to any planning approval being granted.

Manx Utilities acknowledge the various correspondences from the Commissioners and local residents concerning known surface water flooding within the Andreas catchment. The extent of the existing ditches, culverts and partial piped surface water systems have been previously investigated by Manx Utilities with various solutions to address this flooding being developed and priced but any localised drainage improvements for the catchment have not been progressed at this time due to them not being economically viable.

The flood scheme however remains on the National Strategy on Sea Defences Flooding and Coastal Erosion Priority list but it is unlikely to be progressed within the next ten years."

5.5.1 Further discussion with Manx Utilities where had with the Department (22.03.2019): "Manx Utilities would prefer the applicant to situate the detention basin offline and as such we would have no objection to this.

If the applicant wishes to retain the existing "online" proposal we would require further information in order to fully understand the impact/ benefits. This may require hydraulic modelling of the existing and proposed systems and / or understanding the hydrology of the receiving catchment from the ditch.

The reference to the term "offline" basically means that the ditch does not flow through the basin and any such flow in the ditch is kept totally separate to the basin storage volume. Surface water flows from the development hardstanding would discharge into the basin and be connected to the downstream ditch via a restriction control. During certain rainfall events excessive water from the hardstanding will be stored within the basin until the storm abates, with flows being discharged at a controlled rate to the downstream system.

The response in this and my previous email are the overall comments from Manx Utilities on this application."

5.5.2 The Department sought further clarity, specifically whether MU where objecting to the scheme as currently proposed, and while accepted they would prefer the 'offline' approach to the 'online' approach. They made the following comments 25.03.2019):

"MU would object if the basin proposals were "online" as the drawings currently show. This is due to the fact the full Impact and benefits are not clearly demonstrated, if the applicant changes the basin proposals to "offline" these benefits are easier to demonstrate."

5.5.3 Following amended plans which showed a "offline" approach, Manx Utilities made the following final comments (29.03.2019):

"Thank you for confirmation of the proposed drawing change, although Manx Utilities had discussed this with BB consulting and received a drawing it is always best to ensure the planners have the same revision.

The proposed change indicating the detention basin as now being "off line" from the existing ditch is the preferred option to Manx Utilities, as any surface water flows generated from the development hardstanding during heavier rainfall events will be now stored within the detention basin and discharged back to the existing ditch in a control manner via the flow control on the basin outlet. The basin has been designed to store flows in a 1:100 year return period, which exceeds Manx Utilities requirements for adoptable surface water attenuation systems of 1:50

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  12  of  21

years. It is considered that this proposal will not exacerbate any existing flooding within the catchment.

It is recommended that the proposed detention basin is constructed in accordance with UK best practice (Ciria C697 The Suds Manual), Manx Utilities have previously confirmed that the proposed basin will not be considered for public adoption and as such the ownership and maintenance of this should be established by the developer.

Consent under the Flood Risk Management 2013 will be required for the culverting of any sections of the watercourse or the construction of any headwalls. Manx Utilities will only enter into a section 8 drainage adoption agreement with the developer for the adoption of foul and surface water sewers within the development."

5.6 The owner/occupier of Ballachurry Farm Cottage, Bernahara, Andreas who owns land adjacent to the site (opposite side of Oatlands Road - Fields 121424, 124284 &121285) objects to the application on the following summarised grounds (25.09.2018); proposal would exacerbate a bad drainage situation that has no resolve without cost and is rendering some farm land beyond the site useless; the surface water of the site is proposed to enter a existing historic trench that serves Andreas Village and which runs alongside the side of the Little Meddow Housing Estate, under the back gardens of Nrs 1a to 14; when these where built the ditches were infilled (create larger garden) with lay pipes installed, but these were too high to handle the natural fall of the water from the agricultural lands and drains beyond; discussions with the then developer (JCK) did not resolve the issue and this lead into discussions with the drainage authority, who looked into the matter but no further action resulted as ultimately it would be cost restrictive to fix the problem and I understand no further action is intended; any approval to suggest more water being directed to the drains which no longer work will cause more problems for the land which is no longer viable as farmland, unable to take stock or be planted to crop and is only worsening as the water build up just sits; the problems are now extending to the fields in from of the church which again brings prominent acreage into misuse; and I would suggest by forcing more water into this inactive drain will have repercussions on the residential dwellings in the proximity.

5.6.1 Following the amended drainage scheme, the owner/occupier of Ballachurry Farm Cottage made the following additional comments (24.03.2018): the proposed soak away (plots 13 to 16) would not be helpful to land that could potentially already be waterlogged; in general I feel any development should be delayed until the wider issues have been resolved via a National Strategy; any water from the site to the open culvert, regardless to any attenuation arrangement is just not satisfactory; considerable of land within village zoned for development has yet to be taken up and I would suggest that is it because the drainage issues remain; existing open culvert is not current draining and impacts my families land; and the only way to resolve the issue to lower pipes within the Little Meddow Estate, although even this would not sort the village drainage problems beyond this area.

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

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

6.3 The recently adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 has been undertaken and adopted, which identified that a total of 770 new dwellings are required to be provided between the years of 2011 to 2026 in the North of the Island. A total of 5,100 dwellings are required over this same

==== PAGE 13 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  13  of  21

period throughout the Island. Andreas Village is regarded as a Service Village under Spatial Policy 3 which also states that "Housing should be provided to meet local needs and in appropriate cases to broaden the choice of location of housing.".

6.4 While the Draft Area Plan for the East has no significant weight at this stage the evidence base does have some weight. The Site Assessment framework published as part of Preliminary Publicity includes net density assumptions (including open space but not strategic provision) - High (40 - 100 dph) i.e, "Town centre development, typically development which is apartments or terraced housing. Medium density (15 - 30dph) i.e. Larger sites close to the settlement centre, typically estates incorporating different dwelling types including some apartments and terraced housing and low density i.e. larger sites towards the edge of settlements, consisting of mainly houses and bungalows with relatively few apartments or terraces and low density (5 to 10dph).

6.5 This proposal would be on the low side of medium density being 15dph.

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

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

6.8 Firstly, General Policy 3 paragraph (C) indicates that; "previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;".

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

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

The definition includes defence buildings, but excludes:

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

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

==== PAGE 14 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  14  of  21

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

6.11 The fact no objections to the application has been made from local residents or the Commissioners on this matter is perhaps supportive of this conclusion. The site has been in a poor state of repair for many years and a blight to the village and street scene, which is unlikely to be brought back into it original use, given this condition.

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

6.13 Given the reasons stated it is considered the principle of developing the site for residential purposes is acceptable. This is not an automatic reason to allow development as further material planning matters as indicated previously need to be considered, to determine if the 17 dwellings on the site is appropriate.

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

6.15 The site from public views would be noticeable when passing the site, with the two bungalows on Plot 1 & 2 which directly front onto the site being the most apparent features on the site from Oatlands Road. These dwellings would fit with the existing character of properties along this section of Oatlands Road which currently are mainly made up of bungalows (Oatlands Bungalow & Oatlands Lodge) to the northeast of the site. Furthermore, within the garden of Oatlands Bungalow there was a recent AIP application for a further single storey dwelling (16/00811/A - since expired but a new application (18/01257/A) is currently under consideration). Views would also be achievable from Oatlands Road between the dwelling on Plot 2 and Oatlands Bungalow of sections of the proposed estate, albeit the closest views would be over the public open space and landscaped area, which essential would create a more natural buffer between the dwellings and Oatlands Road. Additional, should a dwelling within the garden of Oatlands Bungalow ever been completed (land designated) then this would lessen the impact further of the housing development.

6.16 The layout, density, housing types, design of dwellings and finishes are considered to be a high standards and would result in a housing estate which would be a nice place to reside and see from Oatlands Road, resulting in a beneficial development in terms of its visual appearance in the street scene.

==== PAGE 15 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  15  of  21

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

POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES 6.18 The second issue relates to the potential impact of the development upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties. Given the size of the site and number of dwellings, all properties adjacent to the site will be impacted by the development. Any development would have an impact, the issue to consider is whether the proposed development would significantly impacts upon the amenities of the neighbouring properties. Generally the main issue relate to overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy, overbearing impact upon outlooks and/or loss of light.

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

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

6.21 Overall, whilst the proposed development will have an impacts upon existing surrounding neighbouring properties, it is considered for the reasons given the proposed development would not having an significant impacts upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and therefore comply with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP.

POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON HIGHWAY SAFETY 6.22 Firstly, all properties meet the required parking standards providing at least two off road parking spaces.

6.23 Highway Services as indicated by their comments have two outstanding issues. The first relates to the length of refuse vehicle that the applicants have shown, which is 10.2m rather than the 11.5m as requested by Highway Services. The applicant's agent had discussed this with the Andreas Commissioners Clerk regarding the length of refuse vehicles they use and it is the 10.2m length vehicle. Accordingly, while Highways current guidelines may seek this, in reality that is not the length local Commissioners use. While an argument could be made they may purchase a larger refuse vehicle in the future, and therefore such a vehicle would find it more difficult (not impossible) to travel and turn within the estate; the likelihood would be that it would struggle around the majority of estate/roads in the Parish of Andreas also. Accordingly, it is likely any future refuse vehicles would be purchased on the basis of this fact, as has been the case before.

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

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

==== PAGE 16 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  16  of  21

POTENTIAL DRAINAGE ISSUES 6.26 As can been seem from the comments of all parties and the applicant, there is an accepted issue with the existing surface water drains within Andreas Village. From comments received there maybe two area of concerns with the existing drains. The first is the drainage pipe within and underneath the rear gardens of Nr 1a to 14 Little Meadow, which from comments received indicate that the filling up of the original ditch (to create larger gardens) and not properly installing appropriate drains, results in the water backing up towards the site and neighbouring fields. The second area of concern seems to be the potential partial or fully blocking up of the existing drains between Lawn House and Andreas Stores.

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

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

6.30 The FRA indicates that currently the surface water runs directly from roof and hard surfaces on the site into the existing ditches (along southern boundary of site) with no meaningful attenuation and runs into the surface water drainage network, in Little Meddow. The applicants indicate there is currently hard surface run-off from the existing site totalling 3171sqm. The proposed site equates to 5049sqm of hard surfacing (i.e. roads, driveway, roofs etc). Due to this increase in hardsurfacing and due to the sensitively to surcharging of the receiving surface water network, the above mentioned detention basin is proposed to accommodate all hardsurfacing on the site. The applicants advise that the proposals will reduce the amount of surface water entering the existing system and therefore can only have a beneficial effect on the flooding currently experienced in the locality. They comment that it would certainly not make the existing flooding any worse. These conclusions are not currently supported by Manx Utilities who have sought additional information or the applicant to consider an "offline" approach i.e. the sites surface water would not drain off the site into an existing ditch, which is Manx Utilities preference. The applicants have indicated that they hope to have the information to the Department soon (likely to be a slightly alteration to layout of the detention basin), who will then seek Manx Utilities comments. It is hoped these comments should be available at the Planning Committee meeting. If not then the application may need to be deferred until such information is available.

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

6.32 As indicated above, until additional information and updated comments have been received the Department cannot advise whether the scheme would comply with Environment Policy 13 & Environment Policy 10 at this stage. However, the Department is comfortable that the principle of the "offline" solution appears to be acceptable with Manx Utilities and the applicant's drainage engineers, without major alteration to the scheme. Further, at the time of writing this report the applicants believe they have the relevant additional information in time for Manx Utilities to be able

==== PAGE 17 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  17  of  21

to comment all before the next Planning Committee. Therefore, it is hoped written confirmation of this acceptance from Manx Utilities will be available for the Planning Committee Meeting.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION 6.33 As indicated by Housing Policy 5 the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing when developments are of 8 dwellings or more. On this basis a total of 4.25 affordable units would generally be required. In this case the applicants have been in discussion with the DOI Housing Division and both parties have agreed that the applicant will provide 4 dwellings and a commuted sum in lieu of the shortfall of 0.25. A Section 13 Legal Agreement will need to be agreed.

OPEN SPACE PROVISION 6.34 Recreation Policy 3 indicates that where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan.

6.35 The proposal would provide one main area of open space within the centre of the site, with other smaller areas to the south of the site and others around the site. The latter being more of an amenity benefit rather than being useable as POS. In total the proposal would provide 2258sqm. The required amount is 1568sqm. Therefore the proposal complies with Recreation Policy 3.

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

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

POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON TREES 6.38 As outlined by both the Arboricultural Officer (DEFA) there was initial additional information sought. However, following tree protection plan being prepared the Officer is now happy with the proposal subject to a condition.

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

7.0 CONCLUSION 7.1 Overall, for the reasons indicated within this report it is concluded the proposals complies with the relevant planning policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and the Douglas Local Plan, subject to confirmation from Manx Utilities of the proposed "offline" drainage system being provided. Accordingly, on this basis it is recommended the application is approved subject to conditions as listed and subject to a Section 13 Legal Agreements relating to Affordable Housing provision and Public Open Space provision.

8.0 SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENT 8.1 This application is recommended for an approval subject to a Section 13 Legal Agreement for four affordable houses within the site and a commuted sum payment in lieu of the shortfall of the 0.25 units.

9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 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;

==== PAGE 18 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  18  of  21

(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.

9.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

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

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 15.04.2019

Determining officer

Signed : S BUTLER

Stephen Butler

Head of Development Management

Customer note

This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.

==== PAGE 19 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  19  of  21

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 15.04.2019

Application No. :

18/00980/B Applicant : Kelnorth Limited Proposal : Residential development of 17 dwellings with associated roads, plots and drainage Site Address : Part Of Field 121388 And Former Dale Nurseries Oatlands Road Andreas Isle Of Man

Principal Planner : Mr Chris Balmer Presenting Officer As above

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee agreed with the recommendation and approved the application (15.04.2018) subject to the following conditions being altered:

C 7. Prior to the commencement of the development (including demolition) the proposed new access is to be installed (required to be completed prior to first dwelling being occupied) with visibility splays of 2.4m x 70m in both directions and thereafter kept permanently clear of any obstruction exceeding 1.05m in height above adjoining carriageway level. This also requires no obstruction (i.e. any vegetation, trees, fences, gates, walls, sheds, greenhouses, play equipment, and any other structures) exceeding 1.05m in height above adjoining carriageway level within the front garden of the dwelling on Plot 2.

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

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area and to ensure visibility is not impeded by building/structures forwards of the dwelling on Plot 2.

C 9. The Detention Basin and associated drainage scheme as shown on drawing 10 REV B are required to be in place before the occupation of the first dwelling and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure appropriate surface water drainage of the site.

C 10.

==== PAGE 20 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  20  of  21

No site works or clearance shall be commenced until protective fences which conform with British Standard 5837:2012 (or any British Standard revoking and re-enacting British Standard 5837:2012 with or without modification) have been erected around any existing trees as shown on drawing Nr (03) 004 REV A. Unless and until the development has been completed these fences shall not be removed and the protected areas are to be kept clear of any building, plant equipment, material, debris and trenching, with the existing ground levels maintained, and there shall be no entry to those areas except for approved arboricultural or landscape works.

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

Conditions of Approval

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.

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

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

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

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

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

==== PAGE 21 ====

                                      18/00980/B                                     Page  21  of  21

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

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

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area and to ensure visibility is not impeded by building/structures forwards of the dwelling on Plot 2.

C 9. The Detention Basin and associated drainage scheme as shown on drawing 10 REV B are required to be in place before the occupation of the first dwelling and maintained thereafter.

Reason: To ensure appropriate surface water drainage of the site.

C 10. No site works or clearance shall be commenced until protective fences which conform with British Standard 5837:2012 (or any British Standard revoking and re-enacting British Standard 5837:2012 with or without modification) have been erected around any existing trees as shown on drawing Nr (03) 004 REV A. Unless and until the development has been completed these fences shall not be removed and the protected areas are to be kept clear of any building, plant equipment, material, debris and trenching, with the existing ground levels maintained, and there shall be no entry to those areas except for approved arboricultural or landscape works.

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

Plans/Drawings/Information