CHIEF SECRETARY'S OFFICE

Olk yn Ard-Scrudeyr

Our Ref: DF11/0019 Planning Application Ref.No: 11/01091/B

THE TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT (PROCEDURE ORDER) 2005

Planning Secretary Department Of Infrastructure Planning And Buiolding Control Division Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas

| Applicant: | Holden Properties Ltd | | --- | --- | | Proposal: | Erection of a block of 68 apartments with landscaping and parking and demolition of no 6 Summerhill to provide amended vehicular access, Former Tours (IOM) Site Summerhill Quarry Summerhill Douglas Isle Of Man IM2 4PF |

In accordance with paragraph 10 of the above Order, the person appointed by the Council of Ministers to consider this application has submitted her report. In accordance with paragraph 10.3(a) and (b), a copy of the appointed person's report is enclosed. On the 14th June 2012, and after consultation, the Council of Ministers accepted the recommendation contained within that report and the application was refused for the reasons specified below.

| Date of Issue: 19th June 2012 | | | --- | --- | | Chief Secretary's Office | | | Government Offices | | | Bucks Road | | | Douglas | |

Mr W Greenhow ACMA Chief Secretary

REASON(S) FOR REFUSAL:

1. The height, scale and design of the proposed apartment building would be harmful to its surroundings, and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the adjoining Douglas Promenade Conservation Area, contrary to Environment Policies 42 and 36 of the IoMSP.

2. There is insufficient information to demonstrate how the quarry's rock face would be stabilised. The future safety of nearby residents and their property cannot therefore be assured.

3. The proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on highway conditions, particularly at the junction of Summerhill Grove and Summerhill Place, contrary to General Policy 2(l) of the IoMSP.

4. The proposed development would be harmful to the site's wildlife, particularly the peregrine falcons, contrary to Environment Policies 4 and 5 of the IoMSP.

5. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of nearby residents, principally because of overlooking and loss of privacy, contrary to General Policy 2(g) of the IoMSP.

6. Living conditions for the occupants of the proposed apartment block would be adversely affected by the shortfall of amenity open space, contrary to Recreation Policy 3 of the IoMSP.

Crown Division Government Offices Douglas Isle of Man 18 May 2012

To the Council of Ministers Case Reference: DF11/0019 Planning Application: 11/01091/B

Application by Holden Properties Ltd for planning approval for the erection of a block of 68 apartments with landscaping and parking, and the demolition of No 6 Summer Hill to provide an amended vehicular access, at the former Tours (IOM) site, Summerhill Quarry, Summerhill Place, Douglas.

1. I have the honour to report that on 18 April 2012 I held an Inquiry in connection with the above application. The attendees are listed at the end of this Report. I did a pre-Inquiry site visit on 16 April 2012.

2. The proposed development includes highway land owned by the Department of Infrastructure. For that reason, the application cannot be considered by the Planning Committee. It must therefore be determined by the Council of Ministers.

THE SITE AND ITS SURROUNDINGS

3. The principal part of the application site is a quarry. It lies behind the houses in Summer Hill, Summerhill Place and Summerhill Grove. Within the quarry there is an unattractive collection of vacant industrial-style buildings with a total floor area of approximately 2,034m².

4. The rock face at the back of the quarry is about 30m high and almost vertical in places. Some of it is covered in scrub vegetation. The rocks and vegetation are clearly visible from Douglas Bay, the beach and the promenade. Above the quarry are the detached houses of Montreux Court. Some of their rear gardens extend almost to the edge of the rock face.

5. Access to the quarry is from Summerhill Place, a narrow cul-de-sac leading off Summer Hill. At the bottom of Summerhill Place is an end-of-terrace corner property, No 6 Summer Hill. This is the house that the applicant intends to demolish. Halfway up Summerhill Place is the narrow entrance to Summerhill Grove, a short cul-de-sac serving a terrace of about 8 houses. Near the top of Summerhill Place, just before the gated entrance to the quarry, is a terrace of 3 houses. An access lane separates the quarry from the rear of some of the houses in Summerhill Grove, Summerhill Place and Summer Hill.

6. The houses in Summer Hill (at the bottom of Summerhill Place) are within the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area. The quarry and the houses in Summerhill Grove and Summerhill Place are just outside the conservation area.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

7. The block of apartments would be built on 9 levels in a curved shape to reflect the shape of the quarry's rock face. The lower 2 levels would be used predominantly for basement car parking. On the floors above there would be 68 two-bedroomed apartments, including 3 penthouse apartments on the top floor. The design of the block would be uncompromisingly modern with large expanses of glass. Vertical columns clad in precast stone would contrast with the strong horizontal lines of the apartments' glazed balconies. The principal outlook from the front of the block would be towards Douglas Bay. The back of the apartment block would be within a few metres of the quarry's rock face, and the rear communal walkways on each level would be enclosed by a perforated aluminium mesh.
8. There would be two areas of open space at the front of the apartment block. In addition, there would be roof terraces at either end of the building's upper levels.
9. The proposed demolition of No 6 Summer Hill would enable the widening of Summerhill Place, the approach road to the apartment block. It would also enable improvements to be made to visibility at the junction of Summerhill Place and Summer Hill.

ADVICE FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE'S PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL DIVISION

10. There have been no previous applications for residential development on this site.
11. The site is within an area designated as Predominantly Residential in the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Douglas Local Plan) Order Map No 3 (North).
12. Relevant policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (IoMSP) include:

• Strategic Policy 1 - development should optimise the use of previouslydeveloped land
• Strategic Policy 2 - development should be located primarily within existing towns and villages
• General Policy 2 - subject to various criteria, there is a presumption in favour of development that accords with the site's land use designation
• Environment Policies 4 and 5 - except in exceptional circumstances, development will not be permitted if it would adversely affect species and habitats of national or international importance
• Environment Policy 36 - development will be permitted only where it will not detrimentally affect important views into and out of conservation areas
• Environment Policy 42 - new development must be designed to take account of the buildings and landscape features in the immediate locality
• Housing Policy 5 - schemes in excess of 8 dwellings are expected to have 25 % affordable housing
• Recreation Policy 3 - recreational and amenity space should meet the Department's standards
• Transport Policy 1 - new development should be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes
• Transport Policy 7 - parking provision should meet the Department's standards.

REPRESENTATIONS BY HOLDEN PROPERTIES LTD IN SUPPORT OF ITS APPLICATION

The material points: 13. The principle of the proposed development. The proposed residential use accords with the land use designation for the site. 14. Design. The apartment block has been designed so that it follows the profile of the cliff face whilst not exceeding its height. It would be a tiered development on 9 levels, with parking underneath and landscaping in front. Its scale would be appropriate for its location. Its modern, uncluttered design would be a suitable backdrop to the conservation area. Despite what is depicted on the drawing of the building's front elevation, it is accepted that trees could not effectively screen the development. About 500 cubic metres of soil and rock would need to be excavated in order to construct the basement parking areas. During the excavations, ground vibrations would be monitored and, if necessary, the method of excavation would be adjusted in order to minimise disturbance to nearby residents and their properties. The development would be built in 2 phases, and could take about 3 years to complete. 15. The rock face. It is acknowledged that parts of the quarry's rock face are unstable. Further detailed surveys are needed before a stabilisation scheme can be designed. The scheme could include the removal of loose and overhanging rocks, rock-bolting, cladding with wire mesh and spraying with concrete. The residents of the proposed apartments would not be allowed access to the rear of the building for safety reasons, and there would be routine inspections by rock specialists. 16. Contamination. Trial pits and boreholes have revealed exceedances of ground contaminants such as arsenic and lead. It is accepted that these could cause a risk to human health, particularly in the landscaped areas in front of the apartments. In order to minimise the risk, areas of open ground would be covered with a geotextile membrane topped with a 600 mm layer of imported topsoil. 17. Traffic. The site is in a sustainable location. Local facilities are accessible by public transport, on foot and by bicycle. The highway network has sufficient capacity for the amount of traffic that the 68 apartments would generate. Visibility for drivers turning out of Summerhill Place into Summer Hill would be improved. The improvements would involve a slight narrowing of Summer Hill, but this would not detrimentally affect the ability of Summer Hill to accommodate the free flow of traffic. Indeed, there would be direct and indirect safety benefits to all highway users as a result of the proposed improvements. 18. Parking. There would be 127 car parking spaces, including 10 visitors' spaces. This represents a deficit of 9 spaces when measured against the Department's parking standards. However, it is considered that 127 spaces would be enough. If there were any more it would merely encourage car ownership and be contrary to the sustainability objectives of the IoMSP. In any event, the parking standards allow for some flexibility where, as in this case, public transport, employment and public amenities are nearby. 19. In addition to the 127 spaces, a further 21 dedicated parking spaces would be provided for the residents of the houses that adjoin the site. There would also be 11 motorbike spaces and 11 bicycle spaces for the occupants of the proposed apartments.

20. Wildlife. It is acknowledged that the quarry's peregrine falcons are a protected species. It is also acknowledged that the building works and the stabilisation of the rock face could make the quarry less attractive as a breeding and roosting site. In mitigation, a nest box and landing platforms would be provided high up on the east-facing wall of the apartment block. To minimise disturbance of the nest box, the nearest roof terrace would be accessible only to maintenance personnel.
21. A survey of lizards, another protected species, has not been undertaken. However, any lizards that were found in the quarry would be transported to another suitable site. Any that remained would still be able to find sunny ledges for basking.
22. A preliminary survey has revealed that bats might be present in one of the site's buildings. A more detailed survey would need to be undertaken and, if roosting bats were recorded, a detailed mitigation scheme would be drawn up.
23. Affordable housing. The Housing Division requires 25 % (ie 17) of the 68 apartments to be affordable. Fifteen affordable units would be provided within the building, and a commuted sum would be paid in respect of the remaining 2 units.
24. Living conditions. The apartment block has been designed to minimise overlooking into the rear gardens and rear-facing rooms of the nearest houses in Summerhill Grove, Summerhill Place and Summer Hill. The separation distances would vary between 25 m and 50 m , which is generally considered to be an acceptable distance. Furthermore, despite its height, the apartment block would not cast a shadow over the houses because it would lie to the north of them.
25. Future occupants of the apartments would have a total of 2,920 \mathrm{~m}^{2} of amenity open space; the maximum that the site could accommodate. The amount of open space is considered to be sufficient, notwithstanding the fact that there would be a shortfall of 1,432 \mathrm{~m}^{2} when assessed against the Department's standards for open space.

REPRESENTATIONS FROM LOCAL RESIDENTS WHO OBJECT TO THE APPLICATION

26. Letters of objection have been submitted by 19 people who live near to the application site or who have a financial interest in land or property nearby.

The material points are: 27. The principle of the proposed development. The objectors accept that the site is previously-developed land in an area designated as Predominantly Residential. The principle of residential development is therefore acceptable. However the need for more flats in Douglas is questioned. Many of the flats on the promenade remain unsold, and a high percentage is used by the Department of Social Care. 28. Design. The site is currently an eyesore and something needs to be done about it. But the proposed apartment building would be too large and too intrusive, particularly bearing in mind its location next to a conservation area. Its 9-storey height would dwarf the Victorian terraced houses around it. The building would be prominent when viewed from the beach and the promenade. It would obscure the outline of the quarry's top. The proposed demolition of No 6 Summer Hill and

the widening of Summerhill Place would open up views of the apartment block, a block that would look more at home in Benidorm than in Douglas. 29. The rock face. There are regular mini avalanches and rock falls from the face of the quarry, particularly after heavy rainfall. The vibrations from excavations and drilling could result in more rock falls, and could damage nearby drains and houses. There are no method statements for the stabilisation of the rock face or the construction of the building. This is a matter of great concern. Caging the rear elevation of the building would not be a suitable way to protect the residents of the apartments from rock falls. It is wrong to build where there are inherent risks, and where stringent safety measures would be required. 30. Contamination. Great care would be needed when the existing buildings on the site are demolished. At least one of them has an asbestos roof. Moreover, ground contamination, and the manner in which it would be dealt with, is a matter of concern. 31. Traffic. At present, drivers have to reverse into Summerhill Grove from Summerhill Place because there is insufficient space to turn around in front of the terraced houses in Summerhill Grove itself. When they drive out of Summerhill Grove, they have to enter Summerhill Place "blind" because of the high walls on either side. The traffic generated by the proposed 68 apartments would make Summerhill Place five times busier than at present, making these manoeuvres even more dangerous. The proposed widening of Summerhill Place would not help. 32. Moreover, the additional traffic would cause further delays and hazards on Summer Hill, a road that is often bottlenecked at peak times. The nearby bend in the road, the gradient of the hill, the poor visibility, and the high speed of the traffic make this stretch of Summer Hill dangerous. The proposed development would make matters worse. The applicant's traffic survey takes no account of the traffic problems in Summer Hill during TT and Grand Prix weeks, or during bad weather. 33. Parking. There would not be enough parking spaces for the 68 apartments. Some people would be tempted to park on the promenade in front of Strathallan Crescent, thereby denying tourists of spaces. The 21 parking spaces that the applicant intends to provide for nearby residents would be of little benefit. The residents already have their own parking spaces, the rights to which are contained in their deeds, so nothing would be gained. 34. Wildlife. The peregrine falcons have enjoyed unrestricted access to the quarry for many years. They nest and roost on the cliff face. They currently lead an undisturbed life. It is inconceivable that the birds would remain undisturbed if the proposed apartments were to be built. There is no incentive for the applicant to protect the birds. The financial penalty for harming them is so small relative to the cost of the whole development. 35. Living conditions. There would be an invasion of privacy for the residents of Summerhill Grove, Summerhill Place and Summer Hill. Homes and gardens would be overlooked from the windows, balconies and roof terraces of the proposed 9 -storey apartment block. Above the quarry, residents of the houses in Montreux Court would be disturbed by noise emanating from the apartments' roof terraces. 36. Vehicles going to and from the apartments would pass within 1 m of the front of the terraced houses in Summerhill Place. This would be disturbing. The noise of

building works and construction vehicles would also be a major long-term disruption for nearby residents. 37. For the future occupants of the proposed apartments, living conditions would be poor. The mesh protecting the rear of their apartments from rock falls would make them feel as though they were living in a cage, and they would not have enough amenity open space.

OTHER REPRESENTATIONS

38. Brenda Cannell MHK has reiterated many of the concerns of local residents. She asks that the planning application be refused on the grounds that the apartment block would be inappropriate, overbearing and incongruous in the landscape. The reasons for refusal should also include the negative impact on existing residential properties, together with the unacceptable and dangerous increases in traffic and congestion.
39. Chris Robertshaw MHK supports the views of the local residents who object to the proposed development.
40. Manx National Heritage recommends that the application be refused. The proposed apartment building would be too large and too visually intrusive, particularly bearing in mind its location next to a conservation area. It would impose on views from the promenade and the beach. This would be contrary to Environment Polices 35 and 36 of the IoMSP. In addition, more work needs to be done to produce a sufficiently robust mitigation scheme for the protection of peregrine falcons, lizards and bats, all of which are protected species.
41. Douglas Borough Council has no objection to the proposed development. However, an earlier response by the Council's Building Control Manager raised concerns about the number of parking spaces that would be provided.
42. Dr Richard Selman, Wildlife and Conservation Officer at the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, confirms that the presence of peregrine falcons in the quarry has been noted in previous years, and that the birds have been nesting there again this year (2012). They are listed on Schedule 1 of the Wildlife Act 1990. There can be no certainty that they would use the nest box proposed by the applicant.
43. The quarry also provides an ideal habitat for lizards, another protected species. The proposed building could cast a shadow over the sunny rock ledges that lizards need for basking. A survey of lizards should be carried out. It is also possible that bats roost on the site, and more survey work should be carried out.
44. J P Halliwell, architect for the Department of Social Care, has confirmed that there is a considerable need for affordable housing in Douglas. The applicant's proposal to provide 15 affordable units, and to pay a commuted sum for 2 more, would need to be the subject of a Section 13 Legal Agreement.
45. A resident of Summer Hill has written to say that he does not object to the proposed development provided that the creation and allocation of a dedicated parking space for his property is made a condition of any approval that might be granted.

INSPECTOR'S ASSESSMENT

46. My assessment of the planning application covers the following matters:

• The principle of the proposed development
• The design of the apartment block and its impact on the conservation area
• The stability of the rock face
• Ground contamination
• Traffic generation
• Parking provision
• The impact on the quarry's wildlife
• The provision of affordable housing
• The effect of the development on the living conditions of nearby residents and on the future occupants of the proposed apartments.

The principle of development

47. The proposed residential use of the application site is in accordance with the Douglas Local Plan. Furthermore, the site is previously-developed land within an urban area and, as such, its redevelopment would accord with the sustainability objectives of Strategic Policies 1 and 2 and Transport Policy 1 of the IoMSP. The principle of residential development is therefore acceptable; a strong point in the proposal's favour.

The design of the apartment block and its impact on the conservation area

48. In my view, the distinctive character of Douglas derives from the sweep of its bay, the length of its beach and promenades, the imposing terraces of its seafront buildings and the cliffs and hills behind them. In the vicinity of the application site, at the northern end of Douglas Bay, the scrub and trees on the face of Summerhill quarry form a green and attractive backdrop to the seafront. If the proposed apartments were to be built, the majority of the quarry's face would be hidden from view and a prominent feature of Douglas's distinctive character would be lost forever. To my mind, this would be harmful.
49. Furthermore, in my opinion, the design of the proposed apartment building fails to take account of the appearance of the buildings around it, contrary to Environment Policy 42 of the IoMSP. The expanses of reflective glass would be incongruous. The building's scale and height would dwarf the nearby Victorian terraced houses. As a result, there would be a harmful visual impact on the surrounding area.
50. Environment Policy 36 of the IoMSP seeks to protect important views in and out of conservation areas. To my mind, the proposed apartment building would fail to meet that objective. It would be an incongruous and prominent backdrop to the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area; clearly visible when viewed from the bay, the beach and the promenade. My unfavourable findings about the building's design, materials, scale and height have led me to the view that the proposed development would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the nearby Douglas Promenades Conservation Area. Moreover, the proposed demolition of No 6 Summer Hill would deprive the conservation area of a Victorian end-of-terrace house in good condition. In my opinion, this is unwarranted.

The rock face

51. It is generally accepted that the quarry's rock face is unstable. However, there is no detailed description of how it would be stabilised. Detailed surveys have yet to

be carried out. I find this to be a weakness in the applicant's case. Until such time as a stabilisation scheme has been devised, it is not possible to be certain about the future safety of the people and property above the quarry (in Montreux Court), below it (in Summerhill Grove, Summerhill Place and Summer Hill), or right next to it (in the proposed apartments).

Contamination

52. The applicant intends to deal with contamination by covering the areas of open ground with a layer of geotextile membrane and 600 mm of imported clean topsoil. I am satisfied that this would minimise risk to human health. However, I am concerned that a 600 mm layer of topsoil would not be deep enough to support the size of tree that would be appropriate for the landscaping of a building of this scale.

Traffic generation

53. Whilst I accept that the local road network has sufficient capacity to support the additional traffic generated by 68 apartments, I am not convinced that highway conditions would be unaffected. In particular, I am concerned about the junction of Summerhill Grove with Summerhill Place. When emerging from the dwellings in Summerhill Grove, drivers have to edge out "blind" between the high walls on either side of the narrow entrance to the cul-de-sac. Furthermore, drivers often reverse into Summerhill Grove from Summerhill Place because of the lack of turning space in Summerhill Grove itself.
54. If the proposed apartments were to be built, there would be a significant increase in the amount of traffic going up and down Summerhill Place, making manoeuvring in and out of Summerhill Grove even more inconvenient and hazardous than at present. Indeed, the applicant estimates that the vehicle movements in Summerhill Place could be as frequent as one movement two-way approximately every 1.25 to 1.6 minutes; far in excess of current traffic levels.
55. General Policy 2(i) of the IoMSP seeks to prevent unacceptable effects on road safety or traffic flows. In my view, the proposed development would fail to satisfy that objective.

Parking provision

56. Transport Policy 7 of the IoMSP requires parking provision to meet the Department's standards. The 127 parking spaces that the applicant proposes to provide would be 9 fewer than the standards require. However, I note that the standards allow for some flexibility. I have also taken into account the fact that the proposed apartments would be in an urban location where public transport, cycling and walking are feasible alternatives to the private car. In addition, I consider it unlikely that all 68 apartments would be occupied simultaneously, thereby lessening the demand for spaces. On that basis, I have reached the view that the shortfall of 9 parking spaces is not, by itself, sufficiently serious to warrant a refusal of the planning application.

Wildlife

57. I find that the applicant's submissions in relation to the site's wildlife to be sadly lacking in detail. Whilst acknowledging that peregrine falcons, lizards and bats are protected under the Wildlife Act 1990, the applicant has yet to carry out full surveys to assess their presence, or to propose any detailed mitigation strategies.

58. The IoMSP's Environment Policy 4 makes it clear that development will not be permitted where it would adversely affect protected species and their habitats. In the absence of any information to the contrary, it is impossible to say with any certainty that peregrine falcons, lizards and bats, and their habitats, would not be harmed. This is a matter of great concern to me.

59. Moreover, Environment Policy 5 of the IoMSP states, amongst other things, that where development is allowed which could adversely affect protected wildlife and their habitats, new or replacement habitats should be provided so that the loss to the total ecological resource is mitigated. In my opinion, the applicant has failed to offer satisfactory replacement habitats for the site's peregrine falcons or, if they are found to be present, for the site's lizards and bats.

60. Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, and in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, I have reached the view that the proposed development would be harmful to the site's wildlife, particularly the peregrine falcons.

Affordable Housing

61. I am satisfied that the provision of affordable housing would be in accordance with the 25 % required in Housing Policy 5 of the IoMSP. A Section 13 Legal Agreement would be needed to secure this provision.

Living conditions for nearby residents and for the occupants of the proposed apartments

62. The windows, balconies and roof terraces of the proposed apartments would overlook the houses in Summerhill Place, Summerhill Grove and Summer Hill. There would be uninterrupted views into some of their rear gardens and rearfacing rooms. Despite the intervening distances, I anticipate that the residents of the overlooked houses would reasonably feel that their privacy was being invaded. In my view, this would have a materially adverse effect on their living conditions, contrary to General Policy 2(g) of the IoMSP.
63. For future occupants of the proposed apartments, the amount of useable open space would be limited to the roof terraces and the two landscaped areas in front of the building. There would be a significant 1,432 \mathrm{~m}^{2} shortfall of amenity space when measured against the Department's open space standards. This would be contrary to Recreation Policy 3 of the IoMSP. The shortage of open space is, to my mind, an indication of overdevelopment. In practical terms, it would make living conditions for the residents of the apartments less pleasant than they should be.

CONCLUSION

64. In summary, my findings are as follows:

• The principle of residential development is acceptable.

• The height, scale and design of the proposed apartment building would be harmful to the character of the surrounding area, and would neither preserve nor enhance the character and appearance of the Douglas Promenades Conservation Area.

• The applicant has failed to describe how the quarry's rock face would be stabilised. The future safety of people and property cannot therefore be assured.

• It would be possible to deal with ground contamination in a way that would minimise the risk to human health.

• There would be an unacceptable effect on highway conditions, particularly at the junction of Summerhill Place and Summerhill Grove.

• The shortfall of 9 parking spaces is not, in itself, sufficiently serious to warrant a refusal of the planning application.

• The proposed development would be harmful to the site's wildlife, particularly the peregrine falcons.

• There would be a materially adverse effect on the living conditions of nearby residents, principally because of overlooking and a loss of privacy.

• The 1,432 \mathrm{~m}^{2} shortfall of amenity open space would make living conditions for the residents of the proposed apartments less pleasant than they should be.

65. My concerns about the visual impact of the building, the stabilisation of the quarry's rock face, highway conditions, the site's wildlife and residents' living conditions outweigh the fact that the principle of residential development is acceptable. I have therefore concluded that the application should be refused.
66. However, if the Council of Ministers were to take a different view, I have provided a list of suggested conditions in a Schedule at the end of this Report. Section 13 Legal Agreements relating to the provision of affordable housing and open space would need to be in place before an approval was granted.

RECOMMENDATION

67. I recommend that the planning application for the erection of a block of 68 apartments with landscaping and parking, and the demolition of No 6 Summer Hill to provide an amended vehicular access, at the former Tours (IOM) site, Summerhill Quarry, Summerhill Place, Douglas be refused for the following reasons:

1. The height, scale and design of the proposed apartment building would be harmful to its surroundings, and would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the adjoining Douglas Promenades Conservation Area, contrary to Environment Policies 42 and 36 of the IoMSP.
2. There is insufficient information to demonstrate how the quarry's rock face would be stabilised. The future safety of nearby residents and their property cannot therefore be assured.
3. The proposed development would have an unacceptable effect on highway conditions, particularly at the junction of Summerhill Grove and Summerhill Place, contrary to General Policy 2(i) of the IoMSP.
4. The proposed development would be harmful to the site's wildlife, particularly the peregrine falcons, contrary to Environment Policies 4 and 5 of the IoMSP.
5. The proposed development would have an adverse impact on the living conditions of nearby residents, principally because of overlooking and loss of privacy, contrary to General Policy 2(g) of the IoMSP.
6. Living conditions for the occupants of the proposed apartment block would be adversely affected by the shortfall of amenity open space, contrary to Recreation Policy 3 of the IoMSP.

Ruth MacKenzie BA(Hons) MRIGR Independent Inspector

PRESENT AT THE INQUIRY

For the applicant:

• Mark Savage of Savage & Chadwick Architects - the applicant's agent
• David Leathem of Holden Properties Ltd - the applicant
• Ian Copley of Curtins Consulting Ltd- civil and structural design engineers
• Phil Preston of URS Scott Wilson Ltd - wildlife and ecological consultants
• Ian Ladbrooke of Sanderson Associates - highway consultants

For the Department of Infrastructure:

• Steven Stanley - Planning Officer, Department of Infrastructure
• Derek Sewell - Highways Division, Department of Infrastructure

For the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

• Richard Selman, Senior Biodiversity Officer (Zoologist)

Objectors:

• Oliver Helfrich - Long and Humphrey, Advocates
• Carol Glover - Isle of Man Enterprises Ltd
• Roger Gimbet - Isle of Man Enterprises Ltd
• George Li - Hartford Homes
• Paul Drew - Hartford Homes
• Wendy Leece - local resident
• Alan Clarke - local resident
• J Crook - local resident
• John Campbell - local resident

SCHEDULE OF SUGGESTED CONDITIONS

1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice.
2. This approval relates to the erection of a block of 68 apartments with landscaping and parking, and the demolition of No 6 Summer Hill to provide amended vehicular access, at the former Tours (IOM) site, Summerhill Quarry, Summerhill Place, Douglas, as shown in the following plans and documents:

• Drwg No SC1214-P-10-00, location plan
• Drwg No SC1214-P-10-01 Rev B, Level 0 Plans, received 9 Feb 2012
• Drwg No SC1214-P-10-02 Rev A, Level 1 Plans, received 9 Feb 2012
• Drwg No SC1214-P-10-03, Level 2 Plans, received 3 August 2011
• Drwg No SC1214-P-10-04, Level 3-6 & 7-8 Plans, received 3 Aug 2011
• Drwg No SC1214-P-10-05, Level 9 Plans, received 3 Aug 2011
• Drwg No SC1214-P-10-06 Rev A, Site Layout Plan, received 9 Feb 2012
• Drwg No SC1214-P-11-01, Site Sections, received 3 August 2011
• Drwg No SC1214-P-12-01, Elevations, received 3 August 2011
• Drwg No 1106, measured survey, received 3 August 2011
• Drwg No IM1136/DR01, Drainage Plan, received 3 August 2011
• Drwg No 6248-002 Rev B, Swept Path Analysis, dated 3 August 2011
• Transport Assessment received 9 February 2012
• Report No11/016 on the Stability of the Side Walls, dated July 2011
• Report No 11-6349 Ground Investigation, dated July 2011
• Report No IM1136.008/CF/EF Land Contamination, dated 3 August 2011
• Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, dated July 2011

3. The easternmost roof terrace on Level 7 of the building hereby approved shall be accessed only for maintenance purposes. It shall not be used as an amenity area for the apartments' residents.
4. Prior to the occupation of any of the apartments, the access road and parking arrangements shall be constructed and available for use in accordance with Drwg No SC1214-P-10-06 Rev A.
5. Prior to the commencement of development, a landscaping scheme together with a timetable for its implementation, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of the means by which the contaminated ground would be capped and the Japanese Knotweed permanently removed. All aspects of the landscaping scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. Any tree or plant that, within a period of 5 years of being planted, dies, is removed, or becomes seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season by another of a similar size and species.
6. Prior to the commencement of development, and following a detailed survey, details of the methods to be employed in respect of cliff stabilisation, excavation and ground works, together with the timing and monitoring of those methods, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The cliff stabilisation, excavations and ground works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved methods.
7. Prior to the commencement of development, detailed surveys, risk assessments, management plans and mitigation proposals for the protection of peregrine falcons, bats and lizards on the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The management plans and mitigation proposals shall be implemented as approved.
8. Prior to the commencement of development, an Energy Impact Assessment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority.