Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/00035/B
Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/00035/B Applicant : Department Of Infrastructure Proposal : Construction of a new bridge over Laxey River with refurbishment of section of road to both sides of bridge, including re-surfacing of road, re-alignment and re-paving of footpaths and installation of lighting Site Address : Laxey Bridge Glen Road Laxey Isle Of Man
Case Officer : Miss Jennifer Chance Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Officer’s Report
THE APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT
THE SITE 1.1 The site is the location of the recently collapsed Laxey Bridge and the approaches thereto. The site lies in the lower part of the village adjacent to the Shore Hotel Public House. The bridge linked Old Laxey Hill and Tent Road to Glen Road and Minorca Hill. The site lies within the Laxey Conservation Area that covers the majority of the village. The area has a mix of uses, in addition to the pub there are eateries, businesses and residential properties in the vicinity.
1.2 The bridge was the subject of significant damage in the period of heavy rainfall of 3rd December, 2015 when a combination of a blockage of the bridge by debris and the lateral pressure placed upon the upstream bridge central piers resulted in the partial collapse of the bridge, exacerbated by the subsequent incident of a double decker bus becoming trapped in the collapsed structure. The remainder of the bridge and the bus were subsequently removed leaving no means of crossing the river at this point.
1.3 The former bridge was a three span stone bridge with low stone walls on the seaward side and painted railings on the landward side. No pedestrian footpath was incorporated and the bridge carriageway was wide enough to accommodate two way traffic.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The application proposes a replacement bridge. In addition to the proposed drawings, the application is accompanied by a planning statement of case (which included details of 4 different design options (1a, 1b , 2 and 3) that were subject to pre-submission consultation before the final design was chosen), and a proposed lighting scheme.
2.3 The applicants indicate that the road bridge is crucial for the village residents and for businesses to run effectively and therefore its early replacement is essential.
2.4 Planning approval is required as the bridge is not being replaced on a like for like basis with the same design and materials.
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/00035/B
Page 2 of 11
2.5 The applicants indicate that for the new bridge to be fit for purpose a number of pre- requisites were established. These were:
o The bridge be designed to the relevant codes of practice; o The new bridge be designed to have the maximum river flow capacity beneath to minimise the possibility of blockage by river debris and resultant flooding; o The traffic management layout should place the emphasis on priority to the pedestrian over the motorist with recourse to Design for Streets 2; o The traffic management layout should ensure a low traffic speed environment with improved road alignment; o The bridge be designed for 44 tonne vehicles, but not designated as an HGV route; o The design to accommodate a 1 in 200 year flood event; o The bridge be able to withstand immersion by flood waters; o The bridge be designed in sympathy with the Conservation Area status and preferably with viewing areas (historically seating was on bridge), lighting and landmark features.
2.6 The proposed bridge is to be single span and giving the greatest amount of distance possible above the bed of the river that the road levels allow for. The bridge would be aligned with railings rather than stone walls to allow for water to flow over the bridge should levels reach that height. Some stone salvaged from the former bridge will be used for stone walling in the approaches to the bridge.
2.7 The bridge is to be of a modern design with 3.5m high pepper-pot lighthouse structures at each end. Central to the bridge would be a cantilevered seating/viewing area on the seaward side containing a mast, again giving reference to the location of the site adjacent to a harbour.
2.8 The sides of the bridge are to be a polished black concrete, the intention of which is to make the structure look lightweight and, together with discreet lighting, provide the effect of the bridge floating over the river in darkness.
2.9 The former bridge allowed for two way traffic, but there was insufficient space for a footpath. The proposal is for a single lane of traffic which will require other vehicle users to give way, but allows for a 1.8m wide footpath. The applicants hope the footway and crossings will encourage residents in the village to walk and that it will improve the experience of visitors and users of the Raad Ny Foillan which runs south down Breeze Hill, across the bridge and up Old Laxey Hill. The design allows for the safe manoeuvring of large vehicles including buses.
2.10 In addition to the design elements already set out, the surface treatment of the road will include a mixture of tarmacadam and setts/slabs/paving and/or cobbles, which the applicants believe will improve the public realm on and around the bridge.
PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There are no directly relevant planning applications that relate to the bridge.
3.2 Some research work regarding Laxey Bridge was carried out by the Department's predecessor (the former DOLGE) some time ago in consideration of the potential for Registration of the former bridge. This research work was not progressed to any decision being made by the Department on whether to commence any formal proposal to register the bridge. The research indicates that the bridge evolved over the years, with earlier phases of construction being overladen by the next phase. The bridge appeared to date from the 1790s and some of that early construction surviving along with later parts until the collapse in December 2015.
3.3 Other historical records suggests there were different bridges in place prior to 1790.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/00035/B
Page 3 of 11
4.1 The site is located in an area of mixed use is the Laxey and Lonan Local Plan 2005 and is also shown as being in the Conservation Area. The relevant policies are:
L/CRB/PR4 which seeks to ensure development preserves or enhances the Conservation Area; L/TP/PR/1 which encourages further traffic management, but not where it would be detrimental to the Conservation Area; and L/TP/R/1 which encourages the designation of new footpaths.
4.2 The Strategic Plan also has a number of relevant policies. These are: Strategic Aim: To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet the community's needs, whilst having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage.
Strategic Policy 4(a) - development must protect or enhance the fabric and setting of inter alia Conservation Areas;
Strategic Policy 5 - development should be designed to make a positive contribution to the environment;
Strategic Policy 10 - new development should promote more integrated transport networks with the aim to inter alia, minimise journeys, encourage pedestrian movement;
General Policy 2 - development that is in accordance with land-use zoning will normally be permitted provided that it respects the site and surroundings in terms of layout, scale, form, design and landscaping; does not adversely affect the character of the surrounding townscape; does not adversely affect wildlife or important habitats including water courses; does not adversely affect public views of the sea; does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; provides satisfactory amenity standards, including safe and convenient access for all highway users; does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows; is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; and takes account of community and personal safety.
Environment Policy 7 - development should not cause harm to a watercourse;
Environment Policy 13 - development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site will not be permitted;
Environment Policy 22 - development must not unacceptably harm the environment in terms of pollution of the water, the air or by vibration, noise or light pollution;
Environment Policy 35 - development in Conservations Areas should preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development;
Transport Policy 2 - development should, where appropriate, make provision for new bus, pedestrian and cycle routes, including linking into existing systems.
4.3 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 - Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man also provides guidance which supports EP35, to seek to preserve or enhance the appearance or character of Conservation Areas.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 DEFA Fisheries: Some concerns regarding impact on fish populations by some aspects of the proposed lighting scheme. Light should not be directed onto the river as is could have a detrimental
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/00035/B
Page 4 of 11
effect on the migratory movements of salmon and sea trout. Developers required to complete a Development within 8 metres of a Watercourse form. (21.01.16).
5.2 Owners of La Mona Lisa Restaurant, Deepdale Complex (19.1.16): No Objections to the proposal. Property flooded on 5 December when river burst due to the collection of debris against the old bridge. 100% support for an open bridge without any arch that will allow for maximum capacity to prevent further flooding. Any other choice would be negligent as it could result in future flooding. Fully support new road layout ensuring safety of pedestrians especially as children use the bridge on their way to and from school and by people walking to the beach. The junction has been a concern for many years with motorists using it as a short cut from Ramsey to Douglas and incidents where motorists have failed to stop at the bottom of Minorca Hill. Traffic calming is most welcome. Construction materials is a matter of taste, but old bridge was covered in tarmac and housed rusting metal railings and rusting green support beams. The introduction of other materials is positive and in keeping with other regeneration work. The new design is sympathetic to the local area recognising the history of the village and reflecting the lighthouses in the harbour. The old bridge was poorly lit and the new lighting will make it safer. Business is currently affected by lack of a bridge, unable to determine the financial impact at the moment but hope that a speedy rebuilding will shorten all the problems caused by the lack of a bridge.
5.3 La Marguerite, Croit-e-Quill Road (20.1.16): Disappointed at the public consultation exercise which was a waste of time as the decision had already been made. Most plans of this option showed a white sided bridge, only the small print and the planning application indicates that it is black. Shiny black concrete will look obtrusive in a heritage area and will not be in keeping with the rest of the village. Reducing the road width so two cars cannot pass each other is a retrograde step and which will result in traffic problems. What research has been done into what traffic levels are likely to be in 10 and 25 years time? A significant number of motorists use Minorca Hill as a short cut between Ramsey and Douglas, internet forums show that it 'saves more than 30 seconds, especially if you get a move on..' and so on. At peak times it will be difficult for local users to get a foot-hold onto the bridge. Traffic lights may be a sensible way forward and they could provide a deterrent to people driving past the school as a short cut. Could the road not be twin tracked with the footway cantilevered over one side as the seating balcony is? There will be danger for pedestrians who will have to cross the road twice, at each end of the bridge. What is the use of lighting underneath bench seats? Will the granite setts be replaced by gravel in keeping with Laxey Station? How long will it be before a visiting boatman misreads the lighthouses and believes these to be a nautical waymark and tries to pass through at high tide? The bridge is designed to meet short term requirements only and the final design has been chosen with little thought as to how it will blend in with its surroundings. A cheap Bailey bridge should be installed allowing time for proper consultations and realistic designs to be considered. Given now it is a done deal, get on with it, preferably with concrete coloured sides.
5.4 Laxey Laundry, Deepdale Complex (20.1.16): Business badly damaged by the flood and resulting ongoing chaos and disruption to both business and home life. The alleged target for construction work to be completed by TT is misinformed. There are daily difficulties for suppliers, deliveries, customers, visitors, collections related to the business. It is difficult to recover business from flood damage which needs skip deliveries, plumbers, joiners, electricians and is difficult for staff. Oil deliveries cannot be carried out (having to fill the tank with 20 litre containers from the back of a car). The thought of having to wait for a full public consultation so that people who do not live or have a business in the area can comment on what design elements they find pleasing would be unbearable. The DOI made it clear that they wanted to move quickly and that public comment would be welcome. I feel this has now been done. I attended early meetings (as a member of Laxey Regeneration Committee). I have no preference on the design so long as it has the capacity to allow as much water to pass under it as possible. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, I don't agree with all the design elements of the scheme but am willing to compromise to get it underway. The proposal all for maximum water capacity, retains some stonework, allows for safer pedestrian crossing and incorporates some regenerative elements reflecting the harbour lights.
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/00035/B
Page 5 of 11
5.5 The Shore Hotel Brew Pub (22.1.16): Support proposal. The Shore has been flooded before and we carried out remedial works including a drain into the culvert that runs under the car park. In December the pub was not flooded until the Bridge collapsed which effectively dammed the river. Any design must allow for maximum water flow to prevent future flooding. Fully support new road layout. There has been a drastic drop of in business, support speedy replacement. After listening to concerns of heritage groups would ask the Commissioners and Government to listen to businesses and people in lower Laxey. You cannot please everyone but please listen to people who find it hard to get insurance in the future.
5.6 Cronk-Ny-Marrey, Old Laxey Hill (25.1.16): My wife and I live on one side of Laxey and our son and his family live on the other side of the valley. Providing a new bridge is a priority and this is shared by the majority of Laxey residents. Incorporating a footpath is appreciated as it was intimidating to cross the old bridge at times because of inconsiderate traffic. We will still be plagued by traffic to and from Ramsey in rush hour but possibly the Police can be persuaded to take action against flagrant disregard for halt signs and speed limits. Preferred design is 1a (nb, not the one before the Committee). Options 2 and 3 are over the top (nb, application is option 2) and neither have architectural or heritage based merit and not many people would want to use a seating area exposed to exhaust gases. The proposed one lane will cause problems when rush hour traffic meets parents on the school run coming in the other direction. Two lanes would be better with the walkway outside the carriageway, e.g. by hanging off the outriggers.
5.7 St Nicholas House, Breeze Hill (25.1.16): Support the proposal as it allows for no restrictions in a monsoon flood condition. Design adds value to amenity with seating area and improved lighting and materials. Other new arched stone clad bridges look fake. Bridge allows traffic to pass in both directions. Layout should allow for large vehicles to use the shared space of the public footpath as they do on North Quay as there are sometimes oil tankers, postal vehicles and other HGV's accessing the village. Introducing raised kerb stones at this pinch point would make access to Breeze Hill difficult, a flat road surface would be sensible. Hope this can be delivered in a quick timescale, oil deliveries cannot be made, fire rescue would be impossible, and cars are being damaged at the access point to Breeze Hill.
5.8 Nyn Ayrn, Old Laxey Hill (28.1.16): In favour of application. It has been well designed and feel that when it is up and running with lighting and traffic calming, people will like it and it will improve the whole of the Old Laxey Area. The lighthouses should not be too dominant (i.e. not as large as appears on the drawings and should be on the harbour side of the new bridge).
5.9 Laxey Beach Café, The Prom, Laxey (29.1.16): Preference is option 2. Best compromise in terms of the practicality of rising water levels and a feature representing the harbour.
5.10 Lossan y Twoaie, Glen Road, Laxey: what is the point of offering an opinion on one of the options if this was not suitable_ Her preference was for the option which was not available, the other options being totally out of character with the area. If the bridge is to be a single carriageway then traffic lights will be required as there are seven entry points to the bridge plus private entrances and traffic could back up to what is a dangerous bend on Old Laxey Hill. Regardless of the design, the bridge should accommodate two way traffic and if made only one way, this could not be rectified if this proves to be the wrong choice (01.02.16 and 07.02.16).
5.11 The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society strongly objects to the application, considering that the application should include the demolition as well as the new structure, regardless of whether it is retrospective and properly dimensioned drawings should be provided and they ask whether the original part of the bridge recorded prior to demolition and is there information on the former bridge provided in the current application_ They suggest that were this a private sector application, this information would have been required. They consider that the former bridge fitted in to the Conservation Area and was functional, albeit with utility service pipes added at a date later than its construction. Whilst they support the single lane aspect of the bridge and the inclusion of the pedestrian footway, they are opposed to the design and appearance of the bridge.
==== PAGE 6 ====
16/00035/B
Page 6 of 11
They ask how the "harbour lights" and mast fit in to the historical context and they consider that the black slab sides and horizontal railings will be incongruous and introduce in the landscaped setting of a winding river between hills and also the bridge fails to relate to the older bridge. If the boat associated with the proposed mast were heading up river it would have a curved stern with the seating all around but they consider that any mast would detract from the views towards and from the bridge. They question what the relevance of the fact that the new bridge could accommodate 1.3 times the volume of water of the original bridge and the flat design 2.8 times and question the accuracy of this and whether this is in fact enough. They note that the new bridge has no bywaters to prevent large boulders from hitting the bridge abutments (03.02.16).
5.12 2, Glen View, South Cape: accepts the principle of a new bridge but opposes the design. Detailed comments were made as follows: ~ She notes that there are no details of the former bridge in the application, a bridge which was identified for consideration for Registration and she considers that the application should have followed the guidance in PPS 1/01. As the application does not include the demolition of the existing bridge, it is an incomplete application and should not be considered. There is no information on how the proposal will tie in with the remaining fourth rounded arch of the tailrace from the former turbine house and which supports a 100 year old fig tree. ~ She considers that the proposed mast will obscure views up and down the river from the bridge and will be likely to accommodate CCTV cameras. It is usual Conservation Area practice to seek to remove masts and there is no historical precedent for a mast in this location. ~ She endorses the inclusion of the deck but not in the "Titanic" style proposed and is concerned that the bridge and deck may not be safe, particularly in respect of the proximity to the public house and beer garden. ~ She considers that there should be seating on the landward side and supports the reduction in width for vehicular traffic. ~ She suggests that the village blacksmith could design railings which are more in keeping with the village than those proposed which look like those alongside Douglas Harbour. The ornamentation of this option is not welcome. At the pre-application consultation, it was suggested that a curved arch or finished based on Option 1a would be better. The river curves and winds and the bridge is very straight and out of keeping. ~ Whilst consultation has taken place, some of those have no direct interest or involvement with Lower Laxey: the businesses who have indicated that the the replacement bridge should be built as quickly as possible, the Regeneration Committee who are concerned principally with the station area of Laxey and Manx National Heritage have no specific remit for Lower Laxey and were consulted. The Laxey and Lonan Heritage Trust has no remit to speak for the whole of Laxey and they were not informed of the pre-meeting and the person who attended the meeting is not a serving member of the Committee. None of the residents who had been promsied consultation on the options were given a proper exhibition or presentation by the architect/applicant. The bridge is central and important to all of the village and not just those living and operating around the bridge site should be afforded interested person status. Simply living next to a construction site is no reason to forcing an incomplete application through the planning system. ~ As DEFA manages the water and fishery population in the river and as such DEFA should not be dealing with the application and the proposal should be dealt with through an Inquiry. ~ She lives in an area which experiences additional traffic whilst the bridge is out of use and having been appointed to examine the old bridge with a view to registration, she suggests she should have interested person status (02.02.16).
In a further email submission dated 8th February 2016, further comments were made relating to ~ Consultation. Concerns "at the action undertaken by Minister Phil Gawne on ...Friday 5th February 2016 concerning his request that over 50% of the Laxey electorate should advise him if they are against Option 2 before he would change his mind over it. The action is directing people to respond to him. I am aware of one person in response to this has been told that Mr Gawne needs another 500 equivalent responses to fulfil the above (that incidentally is more than you get voting at a Commissioners election). However the main concern is that people who actually intend to comment on the planning application are being directed to respond now to either Minister Gawne or
==== PAGE 7 ====
16/00035/B
Page 7 of 11
to [email protected]. How many comments have gone to places where they are simply swallowed up by the system and not publicly viewable as on the planning application system? I firmly believe that it is actions such as these that justify the need for a public inquiry into the application / design of a replacement bridge." ~ Design. "At the public 'consultation' the suggestion was made that the bridge could reflect the proposed amalgamation of Lonan, Laxey and Maughold local authorities this year. As previously stated in my earlier submission modifications on Option 1a would be preferable to 2 and, in revised wall / railing design to disguise the 1m high black flat road deck, could incorporate such a theme - eg include the insignia of the individual Commissioners on the upstream side of the bridge and include with the outline of the old bridge around a curved seating area in the downstream side. Without pillars and a mast the design could be much more sympathetically matched into the surrounding Conservation Area and not have an adverse impact on the nearest residences Bridge House / Oaklands on the north west side and Glencairn on the south east side who otherwise will have direct views out onto these 11ft high columns."
5.13 Knock-e-Dhooney, Andreas: objects to the proposed design of the bridge as the design is inappropriate. In particular, concern is expressed that the design is alien to the area and out of place with the Conservation Area, with particular concerns raised about the "faux masts", "faux yacht rails" and lighing scheme. In addition, concerns are raised about the application not including the demolition of the bridge as it is within a Conservation Area, the adequacy of pre-submission consultation and the adequacy of submitted drawings (04.02.16).
5.14 Harcroft, Old Laxey Hill: Raised concerns about the impact of the proposed design on the Conservation Area, and specifically stated "The bridge is in the heart of the conservation area and the majority of the houses/cottages are small therefore a bridge that towers over Old Laxey would be totally out of keeping and indeed spoil the experience for tourists wishing to visit a small fishing village. I do believe we are hoping to appeal to more tourists in the future." The response then went on to say: "We do not need to reflect the harbour and indeed at the time the lost bridge was built there was no harbour. The ships bringing the segments of the rocker arm for the mine were pulled up onto the beach." Aside from these concerns about the apprearance of the design, the response then went on to support to design from a traffic management perspective stating: "I have no objection to the bridge having a designated foot path making it a safer route for children walking to the local school. A single vehicle crossing may well result in it being less of a rat run and therefore an even more peaceful place to live. I do not see the need to make it any wider in order to accommodate a small footpath and the width of a car as I believe there is already a weight restriction on Old Laxey Hill and if not I suggest that there should be." (06.02.16)
5.15 Mona Villa, Glen Road: Objects to the proposed design as "I think it is overpowering especially to the neighbouring cottages nearby. I think it is trying to be too modern with its two pretend phallic lighthouses on each end. I thought 1b was more sympathetic to the surroundings and would look as if it has always been there." (06.02.16)
5.16 Laxey Village Commissioners: Support the application. The Board went on to state they would prefer that the bridge railing are a bespoke design, incorporating panels depicting scenes around the village and perhaps commemorating events such as the flood and the loss of the original monks bridge. (05.02.16)
5.17 4, Minorca Crescent, Minorca Hill: supports the application stating "I live in Old Laxey & I really love the design of the 'Pepper pot' bridge! Option 2, because it will allow vast amounts of water under it! As the bridge is a matter of urgency, I am really looking forward to seeing it in situe, as soon as possible. The area at the moment is looking tired & shabby!" (07.02.16).
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The key considerations in the determination of the application are the design of the proposal and its impact on the Conservation Area, the highway implications of the scheme and impact on flooding.
==== PAGE 8 ====
16/00035/B
Page 8 of 11
Design of the Proposal and Impact on Conservation Area 6.2 In Conservation Areas there is generally the approach to preserve those buildings and structures that give an area its special quality and character. The bridge has gone, so there is no practical purpose in suggesting that it should be kept or to seek a process which requires approval for the removal. It is however appropriate to give thought to the qualities of the former bridge and then assess whether the proposed bridge preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the area. The former bridge was not only attractive, with its stone arches and walls, but it also represented a historical development of the village. There is no doubt that its collapse is a loss of a feature that had a special quality within the area. Thought has been given to attempting to replicate the bridge as was, but this has been dismissed as it would not allow for a sufficient flow of water underneath it, and its solid sides would not allow water to flow over it in times of heavy rainfall. Furthermore, any new bridge, even if it is designed to visually replicate the old bridge, would not provide a bridge with historical veracity and/or the patina of age that the former bridge had.
6.3 Conservation Areas are not intended to be preserved without change. That the bridge itself changed over the years reflected the needs of the people at the time. There are a number of potential design solutions to a new bridge, but the assessment needs to be whether the proposal preserves (in the context that it doesn't result in a negative impact) or enhances the Conservation Area.
6.4 As those making representations have said, the proposal is likely to have its supporters and objectors. The relatively lightweight structure with black concrete sides is to be lit in such a way that it would appear to float over the river. This element of the scheme would provide for a bridge that is relatively unobtrusive and provided it is constructed using good quality materials and paving, would be an attractive feature. The proposed pepperpot lighthouses and mast are quite bold and potentially divisive, but certainly would be landmark features.
6.5 The proposal provides for the use of stone setts/paving/cobbles to improve the public amenity of the area. Although the drawings show what these are to be, it is probably more appropriate to condition surface materials to allow for some flexibility during construction and if the road layout needs to change slightly.
6.6 It is considered that the proposed bridge would have a positive impact on the Conservation Area.
Highways Implications: 6.7 The proposal would change the bridge from being one that allows for two way traffic to pass on two lanes, to one that will be single lane with priority/waiting junctions. It also provides for pedestrian use where there is none at the current time. Some of those people making representations have raised concerns regarding the single lane, believing that it could cause congestion particularly as this route is used as a short cut relative to using the main road through Laxey, but some people also wish for traffic calming. All of these points are understood.
6.8 Traffic levels indicate that the number of vehicles using this route are sufficiently low that a priority junction system would work. Although there is suggestion that the bridge should be designed to cope with an increase in traffic, it needs to be remembered that the approach roads, as a result of their gradients and widths are, similar to most villages, narrow and full of obstructions. Certainly travelling up or down Old Laxey Hill, a driver is likely to need to wait behind parked vehicles for other cars to pass. The highway design of the new bridge is intended to reflect the fact that it is in a village setting and where it is appropriate to reduce the speed of cars and give more space to pedestrians. The roads are not meant to be for through traffic and if cars will need to wait it may discourage commuters from using this as a short cut. From a planning perspective the changes to the road are an improvement and meet the desire set out in the local plan to improve pedestrian access in the area. It does perhaps need to be remembered that the road layout can change without needing planning approval, should the DOI think it is appropriate.
==== PAGE 9 ====
16/00035/B
Page 9 of 11
Impact on flooding: 6.9 As stated throughout the report, the bridge has been designed to take account of high rainfall and would decrease the risk of flooding relative to the previous bridge.
Other Matters: 6.10 It is understood that the applicants are in discussion with DEFA Fisheries regarding the lighting scheme and will ensure that it is carried out in such a way as to protect fish. An additional condition is proposed.
Recommendation. 7.1 To approve the application
Party status (Standard Planning Application)
By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material; (d) The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons have sufficient interest by reason of their proximity to the bridge or the approach roads, and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person:
The occupiers/owners/proprietors of: Nyn Ayrn, Old Laxey Hill; Cronk-Ny-Marrey, Old Laxey Hill; The Shore Hotel Brew Pub; Laxey Laundry; La Mona Lisa Restaurant; St Nicholas House, Breeze Hill,
Those who are considered not to have sufficient interest due to their location or general interest; The proprietor of Laxey Beach Café; La Marguerite, Croit-e-Quill Road Lossan y Twoaie, Glen Road 2, Glen View The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society Knock-e-Dhooney, Andreas Harcroft, Old Laxey Hill Mona Villa, Glen Road 4 Minorca Crescent, Minorca Hill
SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT
==== PAGE 10 ====
16/00035/B Page 10 of 11
The Planning Committee approved the application as submitted at its meeting of 15th February, 2016.
The reporting officer updated the Committee on the further representations which had been received since the publication of the officer's report, namely those from:
2, South Cape (12.02.16, 12.02. 16) Mona Lisa restaurant (12.02.16) Glen Cairn (11.02.16, 12.02.16) The Old Bakery (11.02.16) Knock-e-Dhooney, Andreas (15.02.16) Bridge Cottage (formerly Oaklands) (12.02.16) 3, Shore Road, (11.02.16) 41, Ard Reayrt (11.02.16) Brookside, Glen Road (11.02.16) Riverbank House (12.02.16) 2, Rosedene Cottages (09.02.16 and 12.02.16) Lewins Cottage, Glen Road (12.02.16) Laxey Harbour Chalets and Thie yn Droghad (12.02.16) and Manx Utilities (Drainage) who advised that the new bridgw will have less impact on flooding than did the former structure (11.02.16).
The Committee wished to add a note to the decision to encourage the applicant to discuss the details of the ornamentation and railings with the Commissioners and Regeneration Committee with a view to potentially finding a solution which was acceptable to a greater number of local residents.
Following consideration and approval of the application, the members studied a map of the eastern part of Laxey with those who had submitted a response marked on and indicated which they considered should be afforded interested person status. These were as follows:
Lewins Cottage Brookside Mona Lisa Restaurant Laxey Laundry, Deepdale Complex Lower Cairn Holiday chalets and Thie yn Droghad Glen Cairn Bridge House 2, Rosedene Cottages Shore Hotel
as well as MUA.
The remainder of the parties who had submitted comments were not considered to have sufficient interest in the application to warrant being afforded interested person status.
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation:
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
==== PAGE 11 ====
16/00035/B Page 11 of 11
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. Notwithstanding the details provided in the submitted drawings, further details of the precise road alignment and surface materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The work shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and impact on the conservation area.
C 3. Notwithstanding the details provided in the submitted drawings, further details of the means of lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The lighting scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity and to prevent light pollution, including detrimental effect on migratory movements of salmon and sea trout.
N 1. The applicant is encouraged to discuss the details of the ornamentation and railings with the Commissioners and Regeneration Committee with a view to potentially finding a solution which is acceptable to a greater number of local residents.
The approval relates to the following drawings:1710 11 P-01; 1710 11 P-02; P163516010112-01.
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : APPROVED Committee Meeting Date:...15.02.2016
Signed : S CORLETT Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO
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.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal