142319

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                                 16/00601/B
                                 Page  1  of  16

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 16/00601/B Applicant : Braddan Commissioners Proposal : Erection of a multipurpose Community Centre incorporating Braddan Commissioners offices / headquarters with associated car parking and landscaping Site Address : Strang Corner Field Braddan Road Strang Isle of Man

Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken : 15.06.2016 Site Visit : 15.06.2016 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NATURE AND SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED.

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE 1.1 The application site is an irregularly shaped parcel of land located to the east of the mini roundabout located at the Strang Crossroads, and known as The Strang Corner Field. The site is open and undeveloped and is somewhat overgrown. The site is almost entirely visible from the highway, which rises up from the highway but also seems to dip slightly to the east, giving the impression of it being rather larger than it actually is - this impression is added to by the buildings to the northeast and east not being fully visible from the highway due to this sloping topography. A survey drawing submitted with the application shows a 10m difference between the highest (the eastern corner) and lowest (the northwest corner) points on the site.

1.2 To the immediate west the site abuts the Braddan Road for a length of roughly 235m; to the northwest, it abuts the Ballaoates Road for a length of roughly 50m. At the north is the sole residential development immediately adjacent the site in the form of the detached Harold Cottage. To the northeast, east and southeast are hospital- and healthcare-related buildings: clockwise, there is a GP surgery (the Palatine Health Centre), and the Newlands medical ward just to the east of this, the Ballamona Farmhouse complex that provides care for adults with learning disabilities as well as the Department of Health and Social Care's Estates Division, and finally to the southeast lies the Mwyllin Doo Aah residential accommodation for hospital staff. The buildings are almost entirely two storeys - or equivalent - in height and are finished in a variety of different materials (render, stone, steel frames), reflecting their construction period and original use.

1.3 Across the Ballaoates and Braddan Roads are residential dwellings in the form of a fairly modern estate to the west (Strang Close) and older, more traditional properties to the northwest.

1.4 Boundary treatment is varied: to Braddan Road there is a stone retaining wall topped with metal railings - broken roughly halfway along its length by a bus stop - and this continues around onto the Ballaoates Road before it ends at Harold Cottage. A footpath immediately abuts the southeastern boundary, and this is heavily vegetated on both sides for a short stretch but to the southeastern side (and therefore outside the side) for much of its length. Otherwise, the car park and buildings described above form the boundaries to the site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                                 16/00601/B
                                 Page  2  of  16

2.1 Full planning approval is sought for the erection of a multi-purpose building to provide some 3200sqm of floorspace for community facilities, comprising (in no order): a dispensing and retail pharmacy; a dispensing and retail optician practice; a dental practice; a children's nursery unit; a soft play facility; a café / restaurant; a multi-purpose / community hall, and a gym / yoga and pilates studio. The building, which would be situated lengthways along a northwest-southeast axis, has a very varied form based around a largely two-storey massing, but some elements are larger - with a prominent cylindrical rotunda central to the building being perhaps the dominant feature - and others are smaller.

2.2 The form of the building is not straightforward to describe given its varied form, massing and finishes, and also given that it is partly set into the landscape in some places and not in others. The only consistent feature across the whole building is the use of curved, overhanging roofs finished in zinc with photovoltaic solar panels, but these are set at different heights, angles and levels, and consequently collectively give something of a 'wave' effect across the building's diverse form.

2.3 Spreading out from the central rotunda are two distinct elements, providing two distinct kinds of use. To the northwest will be the largest element of the building: this will provide four indoor sports pitches along with a viewing area capable of accommodating some 111 sitting spectators in addition to four separate areas for people with disabilities (up to a maximum of 280). It will be finished in a variety of reconstituted stone, self-coloured render (a cream or buff colour) and Western red cedar, positioned vertically. There would also be some large louvres to service the associated plant rooms, and these would have horizontal spacing.

2.4 Beyond this to the northwest is a single storey element, the roof of which overhangs quite significantly and is a continuation of the larger element's roof. This would provide a children's nursery complete with various activity rooms, staffrooms and bathrooms, and would take something of a pan-handle shape. It would be finished in a self-coloured, royal blue and light green renders, which it is understood reflect the Braddan Commissioners' corporate colours.

2.5 The rotunda itself, although the tallest element of the building, would only provide single storey use in the form of a soft play area, with a large void above. Another element of the building would surround the rotunda to the southwest: much of this is open plan but a first floor above this provides a separate gym and yoga / pilates studio. Beneath this is the largely open plan area that would have a large curved elevation that faces out over the open land to the west, and would provide entirely for a café seating area. The rotunda would be clad in vertical Western cedar timber, while a large vertical glazed section is set within this.

2.6 Extending southeast from the rotunda is a part-one-storey and part-two-storey element that is perhaps best described as an L-shape in plan form. This would provide for a pharmacy, dental surgery and optician at ground floor, while the second floor element would provide for new office space for the Commissioners, as well as a pair of therapy rooms and an internal balcony that would overlook the café seating area adjacent the rotunda. This part of the building would be finished in the largest variety of finishes: large glazed areas, stone, self-coloured render (blues and the buff / cream mentioned above) and also Western cedar cladding.

2.7 Access to the sports hall 'out of hours' will be possible as a separate entrance door is shown, while access from this wing of the building to the remainder can be prevented via the locking of a single door. The badminton courts can provide for international standard matches, while the hall itself can also provide for national standard basketball matches.

2.8 The agent explains that the scheme is has been strongly informed by a public consultation exercise, which yielded some 619 responses, with a view to ascertaining opinions on existing and desired service provision in the district.

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                                 16/00601/B
                                 Page  3  of  16

2.9 The application has been furnished with a Planning Policy & Substantiation Report, a Traffic Statement and also a Design Statement.

2.10 In the latter, the architect explains that the building has been designed in order to reduce its massing to a minimal level, and is broadly arranged around its various internal functions, with the rotunda intended to provide the central focal point around which internal circulation and reception functions will operate. It has previously been explained as well that the intention is to provide something of an architectural statement in a muted form, though this has not been stated within the application's particulars.

2.11 In terms of the land surrounding the building, in the first instance access would be provided off the existing estate road within the Nobles Hospital complex. The access road to the building would become a landscaped car park broken up with tree planting, providing some 74 spaces to the building's eastern side. This would be more or less hidden from view from the highways to the west and north by the existing and proposed buildings.

2.12 Beyond the building to its southwestern side are four separate hardstanding areas: a nursery play area off the proposed nursery that would be fully secure; a pair of play areas for 8-12 and 4-8 year olds respectively, and between the latter and the internal café seating area would be an external seating area for the café. In and amongst these area of hardstanding would be grass banking that would more or less respect the existing topography of the site - between the two age- specific play areas a short set of access steps is required, indicating the difference in level between the two (the area for the younger children is roughly 500mm higher).

2.13 Between the nursery and the garden associated with Harold Cottage would be a Sensory Garden Area, and where heavy planting is shown. There is also, due south of the building and west of the Palatine Health Centre, proposed a 'Braddan Community Green Area', designed to accommodate community events and possibly to include a marquee on occasion. Almost all the remainder of the land is to be landscaped but left open for general amenity: within this area is a selection of footpaths, which would occasionally break through the existing wall fronting Braddan Road to provide additional pedestrian access. One specific section of these footpaths is exactly 500m in length, designed to provide a useful benchmark for those wishing to exercise. A number of trees, to include specimen (i.e. semi-mature) trees, are shown surrounding the building, car park and sensory garden - some specimen trees are also shown to the far northwest of the site, lining the footpath at the point it joins the Braddan Road pavement, but otherwise the remainder of the site is to be kept open.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 Unsurprisingly, the site has been included within much larger application sites that related to the development and alteration of the Nobles Hospital facility. Most of these applications are from 15-20 years ago and none appear to have proposed specific development within the land that is the subject of the current application. The most recent applications have related to the creation of the Palatine Health Centre (PAs 06/01672/A and 07/01960/REM), and also its subsequent extension (15/01319/B) - these latter two applications are the only ones submitted since the adoption of the Strategic Plan, although it is to be noted that the Braddan Local Plan has not changed since the hospital site was approved and developed.

3.2 It is not considered that the neighbouring planning history is itself material to the assessment except in the sense that the resulting development has created a healthcare-related complex.

4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN 4.1 The site would appear to fall within an area zoned as 'Ballamona Hospital' on the Braddan Local Plan. The zoning lines are not particularly clear and the field itself has the word 'Strang' written on it, alongside the number 4 (which is a residential zoning), but it is likely that both of these refer to the village of Strang situated to the north, west and south of this word / number

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                                 16/00601/B
                                 Page  4  of  16

rather than anything else. In either case, though, it is considered reasonable to conclude that the land is zoned for development of some kind.

4.2 Reference to the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) (Government Owned Land) Order 2012 does not help clarify this particular matter as the Hospital site defined on that Order extends westwards to match the eastern boundary of the current application site without overlapping the application site to any meaningful degree. It is helpful to note that the landowner, and applicant, and partial end-user of the site, is Braddan Commissioners. One of the representations received in respect of the application (see Section 5, below) states that the field was conveyed by the Department of Health and Social Care to the Commissioners about 16 years ago, with the understanding it be used as a village green with an associated village centre erected thereon. It is also worth noting that the site has not been identified for residential use in any Planning Policy document, and nor does it appear to have formed a part of an Employment Land Assessment.

4.3 The site has not been put forward for any particular use in the recent past. If the site were promoted for any particular purpose in the Area Plan for the East, it seems reasonable to assume that the landowners - who as noted are the current applicants - would promote it for a use not at all dissimilar (indeed, quite possibly identical) to that the subject of this application. Whether or not such a mixed use scheme would find favour in the Area Plan process is, of course, a matter for speculation - but the intention of the proposal to meet a defined local need, and on some levels strategic and national needs, is such that it is likely such a scheme as proposed would not immediately be discounted as being fundamentally inappropriate for the site.

4.4 In view of the above, it is considered appropriate to assess the application against General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, which sets out general development criteria to be met in applications for development on land zoned for it. Strategic Policies 3 and 5, Community Policy 2, Environment Policy 42, Business Policy 8 and Transport Policies 6 and 7 also provide important assessment points.

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

(b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan."

4.6 Environment Policy 42 reads: "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."

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                                 16/00601/B
                                 Page  5  of  16

4.7 Community Policy 2 reads: "New community facilities should be located to serve the local population and be accessible to non-car users, and should where possible re-use existing vacant or underused buildings."

4.8 Transport Policy 6 reads: "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."

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

4.10 Strategic Policy 3 reads: "Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by:

(a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character."

4.11 Strategic Policy 5 reads: "New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies."

4.12 Business Policy 7 reads: "New office floor space should be located within town and village centres on land which is zoned for the purpose on the appropriate area plan; exceptionally, permission may be given for new office space

(a) on approved Business Parks for Corporate Headquarters which do not involve day to day callers; or (b) in buildings of acknowledged architectural or historic interest for which office use represents the only or most appropriate practicable and economic way of securing future use, renovation and maintenance."

4.13 Transport Policy 8 requires that applications for major development require the submission of a Transport Assessment; the matters requiring to be covered in a TA were perhaps covered in the Traffic Statement submitted with the application.

4.14 Similarly, Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan indicates that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) might be required for a development of this type. However, the sort of issues raised by the proposal that would ordinarily require definition and assessment in an EIA - noise and traffic creation, primarily - are well-covered in the supporting Design Statement, Transport Statement, and Planning Policy & Substantiation Report, all of which were submitted with the application in the first place. Moreover, the wording of Appendix 5 is such that only development of this kind in an 'urban area' would normally require an EIA, which is not considered the case here. No EIA was therefore sought.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure assessed the application at some length, in comments received 18th October 2016. In respect of the four key highway safety issues, they note that: (1) of the 128 car parking spaces required, only 74 (five of which to be disabled) are proposed, while it is also understood that the DHSC are currently undertaking a review of parking provision throughout the Hospital site; (2) while it is welcome that there will be new pedestrian connections to Ballaoates Road and existing Braddan Road bus stops, it is not known if these will be lit, and a pedestrian crossing facility should be provided on Braddan Road; (3) the proposed highway access is adequate, and (4) the traffic generation has not been quantified in the submitted Traffic Statement, but none of the surrounding roads are operating to capacity and with the majority of traffic movement likely to be outside of peak hours, this is acceptable. They conclude by

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                                 16/00601/B
                                 Page  6  of  16

not objecting to the application, but request a condition requiring a new pedestrian crossing facility be provided on Braddan Road.

5.2.1 On 15th June 2016, the Services part of Manx Utilities objected to the application on the ground that a high voltage cable over which the proposed building would sit. Having spoken with the applicant to confirm that adequate arrangements were in place to divert the cable, they withdrew their objection to the application on 16th June 2016.

5.2.2 On 29th June 2016, the water management team of Manx Utilities requested that a decision be deferred on the application until their operations team could assess the proposals in detail. On 21st October 2016, they made comments on the application that set out some requirements on the part of the applicant, none of which amount to either an objection or a requirement sufficient to amount to a planning condition:

"I have reviewed the application for the new multipurpose community centre at the Strang Cross Roads and can comments as follows:-

o Although the existing foul drains that cross the development site are private and not the responsibly of Manx Utilities, these currently serve Nobles Hospital and it is crucial that any such diversions are approved by the Hospital Estates. o The location of the proposed foul connection from the Community Centre to the public foul sewer must be agreed in advance with Manx Utilities. o Surface water discharges from the proposed community Centre must be attenuated as detailed on drawing 72/001 Rev D1."

5.3 The then-Minister for Health and Social Care (now Chief Minister) wrote in support of the application in comments received 2nd August 2016. He notes that the field was conveyed by the Department of Health and Social Care to the Commissioners about 16 years ago, with the understanding it be used as a village green with an associated village centre erected thereon; there is a new staff accommodation block [understood to be under construction at the time of writing] with a range of accommodation provided and the Commissioners' facilities will benefit the staff and their families; the inclusion of a [children's] nursery, café, gym and sports hall could also provide benefit to all staff, and he finally indicates that at peak times (weekends and evenings) the car park associated with the [adjacent] Palatine Surgery can be used for overflow purposes, with a reciprocal arrangement during the hospital's own peak times potentially also of great benefit.

5.4 Braddan Parish Commissioners, who it should be remembered are the applicants, offered no objection to the application in comments received 1st July 2016.

5.5 The possible owner / occupier of 1 Ballaoates Road (they make no reference to ownership or residency in their letter, which carries the address "C/O 1 Ballaoates Road"), which is a detached dwelling sited adjacent the Strang Stores and opposite the application site, raise a number of concerns with the application. Specifically, though they see the need for a community centre for the Parish and understand the members thereof were also in support, the inclusion of office space is in contravention of part (a) of the Resources Strategic Objective and Business Policy 8 of the Strategic Plan. They also feel the recreational facilities are excessive even though those proposed may be of value, and the nearby such facilities should be respected; they therefore query if the application complies with part (c) of Strategic Policy 1, Spatial Policy 4 and paragraph 10.6.3 of the Strategic Plan. They note that the buildings proposed are not of vernacular design and will not be in keeping with the area, in contravention of parts (b) and (d) of the Environment Strategic Objective, part (b) of Strategic Policy 3, paragraph 5.9, parts (b) and (c) of General Policy 2 and parts (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of paragraph 7.34.1 of the Strategic Plan. They agree that the proposed access to the site through the hospital road is the most suitable but would have strong objection to any new access onto Ballaoates Road: this would be contrary to part (f) of the Resources Strategic Objective, part (j) of the Environmental Objective, part (c) of Strategic Policy 1 [this is assumed, as

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                                 16/00601/B
                                 Page  7  of  16

paragraph .2.1 (sic) is referenced, and paragraph 4.2.1 refers to SP1, and part (c) thereof makes reference to existing infrastructure] and part (c) of Strategic Policy 10 of the Strategic Plan.

6.0 ASSESSMENT 6.1 It is considered that the following issues must be addressed in the assessment of the proposal:

a. The zoning of the land; b. The acceptability of the various uses proposed; c. The acceptability of the design of the building; d. The impact of the proposal on neighbouring living and working conditions, and e. The impact of the proposal on highway safety (including parking provision).

The zoning of the land

6.2 It has been concluded that the application site is zoned for development - but not for a mixed use scheme such as that proposed. Therefore, consideration must be given as to whether or not the various uses are appropriate for this location, and whether or not the loss of the land from other potential uses is acceptable.

6.3 In respect of the latter issue, it is noted that the representation received explaining that the land has been intended for use as a community centre since the previous owner conveyed it to the current owner. This carries strong material weight. Moreover, the fact that the land has not been formally proposed for a specific use for many years suggests that there is no particular need for it to be brought forward for any other use. Finally, it is to be remembered that the likeliest zoning of the land is as Hospital, and the then-Minister of the Department responsible for the management of the Hospital and its longer term, strategic needs raised no objection to the loss of the land - indeed, positively supported the current application.

6.4 In the absence of any expressed concern about the loss of this land from any other use, it is concluded that to object to the application on this ground would be inappropriate.

The acceptability of the various uses proposed

6.5 In the first place, it could be considered that a proposal of this scale is premature relative to the adoption of the Eastern Area Plan. That said, the application is quite well-evidenced, and includes and addresses many of the important considerations that would go into the assessment of a site of this size for development of this scale in the formulation of an Area Plan. However, it remains true that the evidence supplied relates to this site, and by definition does not reflect on more strategic needs for the entirety of the East of the Island, which of course an Area Plan would do.

6.6 It is also to be borne in mind that some of the uses are likely to be more acceptable than others.

6.7 It is noted that each of the facilities proposed are those that were raised as being desirable during the consultation by those Parish residents that responded, with nearly two thirds of respondents also indicating a desire for some kind of "Parish focal point". In this sense, it is arguable that the proposal meets a defined local need. It is also noted that some of the facilities sought (such as a 'fun barn') are not included within the application building, which indicates that the proposal is designed to reflect on the most clearly defined requirements of the Parish.

6.8 Further, the Commissioners in submitting these plans have been considering the proposal for many years and have been mindful of their position within the East and the fact that, as and when a new Area Plan is adopted, additional housing land will be zoned and this will need to rely on certain facilities - such as those found within the proposed building. Again, though, there must be a

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                                 16/00601/B
                                 Page  8  of  16

concern that the scheme is premature. To propose a building of this size - and with such specific facilities - in advance of knowledge of the specific housing numbers that the building would need to serve, represents a large risk on behalf of the applicant and also makes reaching a view on the acceptability of the principle of this proposal difficult.

6.9 In view of the position outlined above with respect to the zoning, and having due regard to the surrounding uses, the healthcare-related uses are clearly acceptable here. They would be complementary to the hospital site. The nearest of each of these facilities is not especially close (reference is made to such facilities in Douglas, Farmhill, Ramsey and the Isle of Man Business Park)

• and not within walking distance of many people - and so co-locating additional such facilities and in a single place is understandable.

6.10 The population centres of Braddan are fairly spread out, though a number benefit from public transport, and it is probable that the highest density of people is to be found in the nearby villages of Strang and Union Mills. The architect also notes that the Palatine Health Centre is one of the largest on the Island with 9,500 patients on their register, drawn from an area that goes well beyond Braddan itself.

6.11 The site itself also benefits from good access to public transport, and so in this sense having a number of specific community facilities in one place is to be welcomed - even if there does not appear to be a number of these facilities spread out across the Parish at present. The proposal would, therefore, probably reduce the distance of journeys made by private car while also reducing the number of such journeys to some degree.

6.12 Having the Braddan Commissioners' offices within Braddan is an obvious necessity. It is understood that their existing premises would be closed should this application be implemented. The floorspace proposed for their offices is really quite limited (almost to the point of appearing insufficient) and so it is concluded that only the absolute minimum required space is being sought. While it would normally be preferred for office space to be within areas zoned for it, this location is a community hub of sorts and represents an appropriate place for the Commissioners to sit.

6.13 Consideration must be given as to whether or not a condition should be attached to any issued approval requiring that the use of the office space be limited to the Commissioners. While their being in this location is essentially unobjectionable, the use of the building by other organisations (such as commercial businesses) as more generic office space would definitely be presumed against by the policies of the Strategic Plan, which aim to direct all new office space to land so zoned for it, and generally within or on the edge of existing population centres. As such, and even while acknowledging the particulars of the application, it is concluded that a condition restricting the office to use by Braddan Commissioners only would be appropriate.

6.14 Of perhaps most concern in respect of the uses proposed, though, are the café, nursery and sports facilities. While it is accepted that these have been sought by Braddan residents, the sports facilities in particular are not at all related to the surrounding uses here. If an application was submitted for the sports facilities alone then it is unlikely that it would receive officer support. It is of a significant scale and while the enthusiasm and aspiration of the applicant for the facilities should not be doubted, it must be remembered that there are existing, good quality sports facilities throughout the Island, with the National Sports Centre just 2km to 2.5km away. The objection to the application on this ground is reasonable.

6.15 A café is an understandable use to seek in view of the number of employees in the area likely to desire use of such facilities. However, the area proposed - with up to 100 covers - is really quite significant and would represent one of the larger such establishments on the Island. Again, this is something that, if submitted as a standalone proposal, would likely be resisted on the basis of similar concerns as those raised above. The wider site is also one that has visiting members of the public, unlike the Isle of Man Business Park where such uses are specifically presumed against. It is

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                                 16/00601/B
                                 Page  9  of  16

noted that a limited range of food, some of it heated, can be purchased within Nobles Hospital itself.

6.16 The architect explains that the nursery (and associated 'soft play' facility) is a much-needed and conveniently located facility for hospital staff as well as local residents. Similarly, this seems reasonable. Moreover, there is always the question of where children's nurseries should be located

• while the initial reaction is often that a residential area is best, some such facilities cause a great deal of concern to local people in terms of both noise and highway safety concerns. It could be argued that any location that is safe (i.e. can be contained to prevent children running into traffic or simply becoming lost) and away from a significant number of dwellings would address these concerns and would consequently be acceptable.

6.17 In this case, it is noted that the nursery itself would be located on the side of the building nearest the only residential dwelling bordering the site. This seems a little strange - as does the fact that the soft play facility is some way away from the nursery element of the building - but in any case it is noted that there has been no objection received from this dwelling. The building will be new, and access to it is from within the car park proposed rather than via people parking on the street and so in this sense the principle of a children's nursery here is not considered to be sufficiently objectionable to warrant the application's refusal. Again, though, a standalone building for this use alone would raise different concern.

6.18 It is, therefore, the café and sports facilities that cause the most concern in and of themselves. To re-cap, it is considered that - individually - these two uses would not be appropriate in this location in and of themselves. They are independent of main settlements and go against the general principle that new buildings providing such uses would in most circumstances be directed towards existing settlements.

6.19 In this case, however, to take a narrow view on this would seem to miss the wider purpose of the application. The overall aim would appear to be a desire to create a focal point for the people of the Parish and also to provide community facilities that have been defined by local people as desirable. While it is true that many people, if asked "Would you like a new community facility nearby?" are likely to respond in the affirmative, it is equally true that there has been an independent survey conducted that has underpinned the submitted application. What is proposed is not a collection of individual uses so much as a collective community facility, and one that meets a defined local need. While that local need may well change as the Area Plan for the East evolves, and there must be a concern that the proposal (albeit understandably) fails to properly address any quantified strategic need, this is considered to be a risk for the applicant to take rather than - in this case - a reason to object to the overall principle of the proposal.

6.20 The scheme overall is judged to represent a premature one, but not to a degree so harmful as to warrant a fundamental objection to it.

6.21 Before concluding absolutely on this, it is - as ever - worth considering the harm from the scheme. Perhaps of greatest concern in this regard is that of precedent: could this proposal lead to others of this kind that would be difficult to resist?

6.22 In the first place, it is to be remembered that the land is zoned for development. While an argument has not been put forward to this end, it is considered that the likeliest zoning for this site is quite unlikely to be pursued in the near future. Representations confirm this. Its loss from such purposes is therefore acceptable. If other schemes were to come before the Department then they would be treated on their own merits, and similarly there would be an expectation that any issues of prematurity or conflict with the adopted Development Plan would be addressed within the formal submission, much as been the case here. This is a very well-evidenced application.

6.23 It is unlikely that the uses proposed will be unviable. While there has been a formally expressed interest in only the nursery unit, it seems unlikely that the applicant would be willing to

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                                 16/00601/B                                      Page  10  of  16

take a risk in constructing a building of this scale without having carefully considered the implications of any one of the individual uses failing. Even in such a circumstance, though, it is to be remembered that the land is (and the building would be) in public ownership and it is to be hoped that any alternative use would reflect what the respondents to the survey initially sought.

6.24 It is also noted that the existing site, though in public ownership, is not in public use and has the feeling of being somewhat 'leftover' following the development of the hospital site. While certainly not an eyesore by any reasonable viewing, it nevertheless gives the impression that it is awaiting development of some sort or other.

6.25 In view of all of the above, then, it is concluded that the principle of the mixed use development hereby proposed is, somewhat on balance, acceptable.

6.26 What remains for consideration is the detail.

The acceptability of the design of the building

6.27 The design of the building is evidently bespoke and clearly takes its lead from some key considerations - namely, (1) the specific uses proposed, (2) the desire to make a muted architectural statement, and (3) the desire to ensure that statement reads very clearly like a building in public ownership. On the latter two points, it is considered that the proposal is successful. On the former point, and also with respect to how the building ties in with its neighbouring buildings in terms of both appearance and use, it is considered that the proposal is less acceptable. It also does not make best use of the land available. However, none of these issues is considered so significant as to warrant the application's refusal.

6.28 While concern that the building does not reflect local vernacular is understood, it does reflect vernacular for public buildings and this is logical. The Palatine Health Centre is not a particularly ambitious form of development, and the design of the building proposed here is considered a significant and marked improvement on it, but even so there are some older buildings in the area that are, subjectively, more attractive. However, there are few (if any) of the scale of the building required here such that reflecting the architecture of nearby residential dwellings probably would not have achieved the space required - and nor would it allow for the building to have a clearly 'public building' vernacular such as is proposed. Finally, it is to be remembered that design standards should not be prescriptive and innovation should not be stifled (albeit that this is a paraphrase of Housing Policy 6).

6.29 In respect of the design of the building itself, it is considered that the overall approach is a welcome one. The building provides a large amount of floorspace and the design breaks up the building's massing successfully through the use of curved roofs, different widths and heights of particular elements, as well as a varied material palette. That this palette in part (most notably the stone) reflects that of buildings throughout the Nobles Hospital is welcome.

6.30 The largest element - the sports hall - is also the most conspicuous by virtue of both its size and also given that the remainder of the building will be cut more clearly into the sloping topography, and this gives the building something of a lopsided feel.

6.31 While the design will not be to everyone's taste, it remains clearly a building providing public facilities and represents a tailored and unique response to both internal and external requirements. It is therefore considered that the proposed building complies with parts (b) and (c) of General Policy 2.

6.32 Returning to the first point raised in paragraph 6.27, there is a strong logic to how much of the building has been laid out internally: a central 'reception' area, populated by café customers, that acts to separate the healthcare and Commissioners uses on the one side from the sports and leisure facilities on the other side. What is slightly odd is the positioning within the central rotunda

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                                 16/00601/B                                      Page  11  of  16

of the soft play facility, which will be disassociated from the nursery unit - it would seem sensible that these two facilities would be located close by one another, and especially so away from a café area where patrons may seek peace and quiet. However, there is also some logic to the argument that leaving children within that facility will allow parents / carers to keep an eye on them from the café.

6.33 Turning to the other concern, the site is of an unusual shape and size and there is an opportunity for the building to be positioned elsewhere, perhaps further away from existing buildings, or at the least in a manner that better marries in with those buildings from a visual point of view. The application scheme seems designed to maximise the green space in front of the building, potentially to the detriment of how the parking is arranged, and results in the overall site plan producing a somewhat 'squashed' appearance at its eastern edge.

6.34 However, it is also appreciated that parking areas are seldom the most attractive. This scheme would appear to provide sufficient parking for the uses proposed, with much of the use likely to be during weekend and evenings, when the nearby Palatine Health Centre can provide for some overflow capacity. While it is on the absolute minimum of space, and this will have a somewhat negative effect on visitors' approach to the site, the resulting positive impression the building will offer and that will be achieved by the land in front of it in terms of community use balances positively against this concern.

The impact of the proposal on neighbouring living and working conditions

6.35 Following on from the above, the desire to site the building as far east as possible has resulted in its being situated very close to existing buildings, both residential and non-residential.

6.36 In respect of the latter, it is not considered that the presence of the building at the distances indicated (9m from the Palatine Health Centre, and 30m from the nearest building on the Ballamona Farmhouse Complex) will result in unduly harmful impacts on the working conditions of people using those buildings.

6.37 The Health Centre is that most likely to feel any kind of effect from the building proposed, and only then in the recent extension such that there will be no change to the existing amenity levels in the five rooms facing the building proposed since they, in fact, do not yet exist. On the first floor, there is only a single room and this has triple aspect; at ground floor, four rooms would face the building proposed, and one of these would have dual aspect. Those rooms with more than one aspect would not feel harmful impacts from the building proposed. Those with only one aspect, facing that building, will do so over a vegetated footpath / service road and at an angle. It would be inappropriate to conclude that the relationship between the two buildings will be sufficiently uncomfortable to warrant the application's refusal.

6.38 Of more immediate concern, though, is the impact on Harold Cottage. The residents of this house have seen significant development take place in and around their home in recent years, and the proposed building will essentially 'enclose' their landholding with non-residential buildings (though it is noted that a handful of dwellings are situated opposite, to the north of Ballaoates Road). It is noted that no objection has been received from the owners of this dwelling.

6.39 The new building's nursery unit - single storey in height, with a roof curving down towards Harold Cottage - will sit just over 10m south of and at angle to Harold Cottage. There is one window in the proposed building's elevation that faces Harold Cottage, and this is small and somewhat 'hidden' below the overhang of the curved roof. There is a fairly high stone wall within the ownership of the dwelling that would help prevent direct overlooking, and while Harold Cottage has three windows (only one above ground floor) facing south, one of these appears to serve a garage. There will be a new footpath adjacent the curtilage of Harold Cottage meaning that people may walk here in a manner not previously the case, but equally it is noted that this footpath

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                                 16/00601/B                                      Page  12  of  16

extends only outward from the proposed building - it is not a through route, like the others proposed on the site, and consequently the level of use will be low.

6.40 It would certainly be welcome were the proposed building to be sited further away, or for the noise-generating children's nursery to be located away from Harold Cottage. However, this is very much at the edge of the building and site, and this edge - certainly externally - is unlikely to be used a great deal. With this in mind, the most significant impact from the building will arise from its overbearing impact and loss of outlook at Harold Cottage.

6.41 It was noted from the site visit that Harold Cottage's grounds are quite well-landscaped and mature and that the dwelling itself is quite close to the boundary wall. In this, the outdoor amenity space associated with the property is to the west and east - and also to the north to some degree - such that although the wider views are to the south the majority of the value of the openness afforded the property is to directions other than the south, where the proposed building would sit. It is also material that the proposed building would, by virtue of its varied massing and positioning on the site, by no means completely extinguish views to the south, and a sense of openness in this direction would remain.

6.42 On the basis of the above, it is concluded that while there will undeniably be an impact on the living conditions of Harold Cottage and its garden land, this impact will not be so significant as to warrant the application's refusal.

The impact of the proposal on highway safety (including parking provision)

6.43 As noted, Highway Services have considered the application in respect of four specific matters, and on each has found the application to be acceptable overall. The provision of an additional pedestrian crossing be provided on Braddan Road is not unreasonable in the circumstances even though it would be on land outwith the control of the applicant. As the land would be in control of the Department that has made this request, though, there is a reasonable proposition of a crossing, should the Committee deem one required, being provided. It is considered that a condition to this end would be appropriate and one is recommended accordingly.

6.44 Although there is some surprise that more concern has not been raised in respect of the parking provision (not much more than half of that which is likely to be required), this seems entirely reasonable. The wide variety of uses proposed for the building would not all be in use at a single time and so there would not be a permanent demand for those 128 spaces. Some crossover of demand would be likely, but with the neighbouring car park associated with the Palatine Health Centre being available for use (albeit, again, outwith the application site) this is considered acceptable. The highest demand is likely to be during evenings and weekends when sports events (with up to 280 spectators) are held, and during evenings / weekends the other uses are unlikely to be in such high demand - and, in some cases, may not even be in use.

6.45 Although the objection received raises concern that there may be a new highway access onto Ballaoates Road, this does not form a part of the planning application.

Other matters

6.46 Manx Utilities' position is sufficient to conclude there are no flooding or foul water drainage concerns with the application.

6.47 No specific comments have been raised by the Arboricultural Officer. However, it would be appropriate to attach a condition seeking the submission of a hard and soft landscaping plan to ensure the site is landscaped in a manner apparently envisaged on the proposed site plan.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION

==== PAGE 13 ====

                                                 16/00601/B                                      Page  13  of  16

7.1 The application has raised a number of potentially contentious and difficult issues to address. It is a well-evidenced application that reflects Braddan residents' needs and desires, and has also raised perhaps more limited objection than might have been expected for such a major scheme. In view of the generally acceptable conclusions on the key issues, even though a number were on balance, it is concluded that the application is acceptable and carries a recommendation to approve.

7.2 Conditions in respect of tree-planting, a new pedestrian crossing and also limiting the office space to the Commissioners are all recommended as per the foregoing Assessment.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; o 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; o Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure, and o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2.1 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.

8.2.2 In this instance, it is considered that the following persons have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person:

o The resident of 1 Ballaoates Road, Strang (this dwelling sits opposite the application site); o The Minister for Health and Social Care, and o Manx Utilities.

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 24.10.2016

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. The office space hereby approved and as shown on Drawing P/10-11 Rev C, date-stamped as having been received 23rd May 2016, shall be used by Braddan Parish Commissioners only, and shall not be offered for use by any other party.

Reason: The Commissioners' offices approved are acceptable in this out-of-town location only because they would be used in association with the wider community hub proposed in the application. Any other use of these offices will need fresh consideration.

==== PAGE 14 ====

                                                 16/00601/B                                      Page  14  of  16

C 3. No development shall be commenced until a hard and soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Such a scheme shall include details of all walls, fences, trees, hedgerows and other planting which are to be retained; details of all new walls, fences and other boundary treatment and finished ground levels; a planting specification to include numbers, size, species and positions of all new trees and shrubs, the location of grassed areas details of the hard surface treatment of the open parts of the site, and a programme of implementation.

All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Department. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Department. All hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.

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

C 4. Prior to the building hereby approved coming into use, details of the siting and design of a pedestrian crossing on Braddan Road, Strang shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Department. The installation of the pedestrian crossing shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The pedestrian crossing shall be installed and ready to use prior to the building hereby approved coming into use.

Reason: To ensure safe pedestrian access to the site.

The development hereby approved relates to Drawings P/10/10 Rev B, P/10-11 Rev C, P/10-100, P/10-101, P/10-102, P/10-103, P11/01 Rev B, P/12-01, P/12-02 and 45215-CUR-00-XX-DR-D- (72)/001 D1, all date-stamped as having been received 23rd May 2016.

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 : Permitted

Committee Meeting Date: 31.10.2016

Signed : E Riley 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 See below

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 15 ====

                                                 16/00601/B                                      Page  15  of  16

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 31.10.2016

Application No. : 16/00601/B Applicant : Braddan Commissioners Proposal : Erection of a multipurpose Community Centre incorporating Braddan Commissioners offices / headquarters with associated car parking and landscaping Site Address : Strang Corner Field Braddan Road Strang Isle of Man

Presenting Officer : E Riley

Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee were supportive of the application but had concerns on a couple of matters. Firstly, they felt that the wording of Condition 2 was overly restrictive and would prevent community or charitable groups (for example) from using the Braddan Commissioners' offices. The wording of that condition was duly amended to allow a little more freedom over the users of the site.

Secondly, there was discussion regarding the finishes, in terms of both colour and materials, of the building proposed, and it was agreed that a condition requiring the submission of samples of these be added to the decision notice as a fifth Condition.

Finally, the Planning Committee also wished the applicant to engage with both Highway Services regarding highway improvements and also the owner of 1 Ballaoates Road, Strang regarding appropriate boundary treatment to the southwest of the site and opposite to their property. Both of these matters can be addressed by way of Advisory Notes on the Decision Notice.

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.

C 2. The office space hereby approved and as shown on Drawing P/10-11 Rev C, date-stamped as having been received 23rd May 2016, shall be used by Braddan Parish Commissioners only, and shall not be used by any other party, other than for the purpose of meetings ancillary to the uses within the building hereby approved.

Reason: The Commissioners' offices approved are acceptable in this out-of-town location only because they would be used in association with the wider community hub proposed in the application. The permanent use of these offices by any other organisation will need fresh consideration.

C 3. No development shall be commenced until a hard and soft landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Such a scheme shall include details of all

==== PAGE 16 ====

                                                 16/00601/B                                      Page  16  of  16

walls, fences, trees, hedgerows and other planting which are to be retained; details of all new walls, fences and other boundary treatment and finished ground levels; a planting specification to include numbers, size, species and positions of all new trees and shrubs, the location of grassed areas details of the hard surface treatment of the open parts of the site, and a programme of implementation.

All hard and soft landscaping works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with the programme agreed in writing with the Department. Any trees or plants indicated on the approved scheme which, within a period of five years from the date of planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced during the next planting season with other trees or plants of a species and size to be first approved in writing by the Department. All hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.

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

C 4. Prior to the building hereby approved coming into use, details of the siting and design of a pedestrian crossing on Braddan Road, Strang shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the Department. The installation of the pedestrian crossing shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The pedestrian crossing shall be installed and ready to use prior to the building hereby approved coming into use.

Reason: To ensure safe pedestrian access to the site.

C 5. Prior to the building hereby approved coming into use, samples of the materials and colours of those materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

Reason: In the interest of ensuring an appropriate design for the building.

N 1. Prior to commencing work on the site, the applicant is advised to engage with Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure regarding highway improvements in the immediate vicinity.

N 2. Prior to addressing the condition with respect to the landscaping of the site, the applicant is advised to engage with the owner of 1 Ballaoates Road, Strang regarding appropriate boundary treatment to the southwest of the site and opposite to their property.

The development hereby approved relates to Drawings P/10/10 Rev B, P/10-11 Rev C, P/10-100, P/10-101, P/10-102, P/10-103, P11/01 Rev B, P/12-01, P/12-02 and 45215-CUR-00-XX-DR-D- (72)/001 D1, all date-stamped as having been received 23rd May 2016.