Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
16/01314/REM Page 1 of 20
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 16/01314/REM Applicant : J M Project Management Limited Proposal : Reserved Matters application for the construction of 21 residential units and 1 retail unit with parking (relating to PA 15/00775/A) Site Address : Field 320653 Main Road Crosby Isle of Man
Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken : 20.09.2017 Site Visit : 20.09.2017 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation: 06.11.2017
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved must be commenced before 29th June, 2020.
Reason: To comply with Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented approvals and also to accord with the approval in principle granted under 15/00775/A.
C 2. Once the development can be connected to the public sewage treatment works, it must be and the stand alone temporary works hereby approved including any associated pipework which then becomes redundant, must be removed from site and the ground made good within 6 months of the connection of the site to the public system.
Reason: To remove any unwarranted structures or apparatus to enable the land to be used for its authorised purpose (currently open space).
C 3. Landscaping, (including mitigation tree planting) and post planting maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with drawing 1060/C200F, in the first planting and seeding season following completion or occupation of any part of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants (including those retained as part of the development) which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development are removed, or, in the opinion of the Department, become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation.
Reason: To ensure that the landscaping which is an integral part of the development, is implemented and maintained.
Note: For clarification, standard trees are 2.5 - 3m tall and extra heavy standards have a circumference of 14-16cm.
==== PAGE 2 ====
16/01314/REM Page 2 of 20
C 4. No development may commence until such times as protective fencing has been erected in positions approved by the Department to protect those existing trees which are to be retained, during construction. The approved fencing must be retained during the course of construction.
Reason: To ensure that the landscaping is effected in accordance with the approved plans and in the interests of the amenities of the area.
C 5. There must be no disturbance to the bed or margins of the south eastern stream including disturbance due to in-channel works or entry to the watercourse by machinery and to ensure this, details of any proposed works to the north western bank profile of the stream running along the south eastern side of the site together with a construction method statement must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department prior to the start of the construction of the path and the culvert and any embankment works: the method statement shall outline a suitable construction approach to reduce the possibility of disturbance of fish within the stream and the works must be carried out in accordance with these details and this statement all to avoid disturbance or injury to fish and protection of the aquatic and bankside habitat.
Reason: To accord with Environment Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan and the Wildlife Act 1990.
C 6. The ground floor of the commercial unit hereby approved may be used only for uses which accord with Class 1 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (Use Classes Order) and the upper floor area may be used for office use either in accordance with Classes 2 or 4 of the Order.
Reason: To clarify the extent of the permission granted.
C 7. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the garage, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.
C 8.Prior to the occupation of the commercial unit the service vehicle parking, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter.
Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:
Manx Utilities
It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
The residents of the following properties who are close enough to the site to be considered directly affected by the proposal:
1 and 6, Eyremont Terrace
==== PAGE 3 ====
16/01314/REM Page 3 of 20
1, Eyreton Terrace Fy Yerrey, Eyreton Road 7, Kermode Road and
Marown Memorial Playing Fields Ltd
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE AND ALSO AS THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL WHERE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION
Preliminaries When the application was initially submitted in September, 2016, it proposed only the design and houses proposed on plots 8 - 28 and a commercial unit. No details were provided of the landscaping, drainage, ecological issues, access, flood risk or lighting information required in the approval in principle. All of this information was requested and provided and the description of the application was changed to include not only the reserved matters details of the seven houses proposed but also the details required by condition of the approval in principle, PA 15/00775/A upon which this current application relies, in respect of drainage, landscaping, access, lighting, pedestrian crossing and parking. The omission of these details was correctly noted by a local resident and the local authority, both noted below. The application is therefore not simply for the details of the commercial unit and the 21 dwellings, but for them and all of the matters reserved from the approval in principle to be provided as part of the reserved matters application and required as part of the overall development. A contemporaneous application is seeking approval for the reserved matters for the rest of the development which was approved in principle - ie the 7 affordable units (16/01311/REM).
In addition to the above, during the consideration of the application within the Planning Office in September, 2017 it was noticed that the proposed works included development - the proposed sewage treatment system and associated pipework - outwith the red line shown in both the application in principle and the applications for approval of the reserved matters. The Department is not in a position where it could determine an application either which included development outwith the red line of either application or which omitted the details of the proposed drainage. The scheme has thus been amended to include a drainage system within the red line area.
This current application is submitted within 2 years of the approval being granted in principle under 15/00775/A in accordance with condition 3 of that approval.
A number of conditions were attached to that approval, including a requirement for an ecological survey of lampreys in the stream and bats in and around the site to be submitted to the Department. This was undertaken and approved in December, 2016, following discussion with DEFA's Senior Biodiversity Officer and Inland Fisheries Officer. Conditions were also attached which require the installation of the access and protection of trees has been implemented and none of the buildings may be occupied until such times as the bus layby and pedestrian crossing have been implemented and are available for use. None of these conditions requires to be reiterated in any approval issued in respect of the applications for reserved matters.
It should also be noted that Cabinet Office has embarked upon the preparation of an Area Plan for the East of the Island which includes Crosby as well as the wider parish of Marown and the parishes of Braddan, Santon, the administrative area of Garff, the District and parish of Onchan and the Borough of Douglas. The application site and the land to the west has been proposed by the owners for consideration for development - the application site for residential and the wider area to the west for mixed use - housing, recreation and leisure, residential care/nursing home, retirement bungalows, cafe and car parking.
==== PAGE 4 ====
16/01314/REM Page 4 of 20
The Area Plan Process includes two main phases of public consultation - preliminary publicity (to determine the scope and key issues) and the draft plan stage. The Preliminary Publicity stage of the Area Plan for the East was completed on 26th May 2017.
In order to identify Potential Development Sites, a Call for Sites was carried out in 2016, and the Cabinet Office has also proactively identified a number of additional sites which should be considered. A Site Assessment Framework, against which Potential Development Sites can be considered, has been published with four stages. The first two stages (preliminary screening and critical constraints) sought to remove sites from further consideration which are in clear conflict with the Strategic Plan due to their location or characteristics (respectively). The third stage is to carry out detailed consideration of various issues (with no pass/fail) and the final stage considers developability.
The draft site assessments were published for comment as part of the Preliminary Publicity (and submissions for new/additional sites were also invited). The consultation documentation clarified that no decisions had been made and not all sites included in the consultation will be allocated in the final plan. It also noted that Existing Site Allocations will not automatically be rolled forward. Instead, existing Site Allocations and sites with unimplemented Planning Approval being considered as Potential Development Sites.
A draft site assessment was published for this site (ref. MH021), which due to its status as draft and due to the relatively early stage of the process, can be given very limited weight in the determination of planning applications. Nevertheless it is noted that the site passed the first two stages of the assessment process (i.e. it is adjoining the draft existing settlement boundary of a settlement named in the Strategic Plan Settlement Hierarchy and no critical constraints have been identified). The draft assessment also concludes that the site is developable (this conclusion being made at least partly due to the existing planning permission).
The majority of the application site is an existing allocation (in the 1982 Development Plan) and has an extant planning approval. The Area Plan for the East is at a relatively early stage and the draft assessment for the site does not rule it out. It is therefore not considered that the application is premature - i.e. it would not undermine the proper process for the preparation of the Area Plan.
THE SITE 1.1 The site is that of a development which has been approved in principle for residential use - PA 15/00775/A. The site lies on the south western corner of the crossroads in the heart of Crosby village and rises from the stream which abuts the children's play area, Marown Parish Commissioners' offices and Hall Caine Pavilion, BMX track and sports pitches. To the south west of the site is a field through which a proposed pedestrian link will be created to join the long distance footpath referred to as the Heritage Trail which follows the route of a former railway line. To the north west is another agricultural field as well as the remainder of the agricultural field part of which is the development site.
1.2 Mature trees line the A1 across the frontage of the site and abut the site on its south eastern boundary.
THE PROPOSAL 2.1 15/00775/A approved the principle of the residential development of the site together with the provision of a new access off the A1 and the provision of a pedestrian footpath onto the Heritage Trail. The approval required that any application for the reserved matters provide also details of the landscaping of the site, a flood risk assessment, drainage of its foul and surface water, a Construction Method Statement including working hours, drawings demonstrating that visibility splays of 2.4m by 70m can be provided, lighting and details of the pedestrian crossing, bus lay by and associated highway drainage. The current application seeks permission for all of the details of
==== PAGE 5 ====
16/01314/REM Page 5 of 20
these matters and in particular seeks approved for the details of 21 of the dwellings and the commercial unit, not the details of the 7 affordable units.
2.2 This approval contained conditions which would control the timing of certain elements of the development, for example, the commencement which must be before 29th June, 2010 or within two years of the approval of the last of the reserved matters (if this were relating to this current application, two years of the date of the final approval of that). The reserved matters application(s) had to be submitted prior to 29th June, 2018 (which they were). No building works may commence until such times as the access into the site from the A1, together with the visibility splays as approved, has been provided in accordance with the approved plans and retained as such thereafter. The bus lay-by and pedestrian crossing must be installed in accordance with a timetable to be submitted and approved by the Department (which is included as part of this current application). None of the dwellings or retail space may be occupied until the bus lay-by and pedestrian crossing are in place and available for use. No work may be commenced until protective fences are installed in accordance with a drawing to be approved. These conditions apply equally to the reserved matters applications and need not be repeated Similarly, the legal agreement in respect of the delivery of the affordable housing applies to the reserved matters and need not be repeated.
2.3 HOUSE TYPES 2.3.1 The 21 houses will take the form of only three different basic house types which have some diversity by being handed and some having timber boarding and a little Manx stone. In all cases the dwellings are four bedroomed and have very plain rear elevations with no relief or change in finish materials. On the rear elevations, some eaves level peaks have been added and the outline of conservatories or sun rooms which could be added under the provisions of the Permitted Development Order (Class 14) have been added, illustrating that these elevations could be made more interesting at the owners' discretion once the development has been completed and is occupied.
2.3.2 The dwellings will all have on-site parking in the form of driveways which are at least 5m long and 5m wide, many longer, which will accommodate two vehicles side by side, although not particularly spaciously. Most could have been extended widthways without significantly altering the character of the streetscene but providing more usable parking space. Each dwelling also has an integral garage.
2.4 COMMERCIAL BUILDING 2.4.1 The commercial building will be slightly larger than that shown in the approval in principle drawings - 18m by 32.5m and 9.6m to the ridge with small projections outward of this to provide a balcony area at first floor level compared with 30.5m by 15.5m both sets of measurements as taken from the site plan footprint. The actual building is smaller in floor area than this as the footprint includes roof overhang: the actual floor area is 15.5m by 31.5m measured externally with a first floor balcony wrapping around the eastern front corner of the building. The building is not truly single storey - the majority has a high ceiling level to reflect the sort of retail envisaged and there is also a first floor office area (around 78 sq m). The ground floor is split into two, one smaller area which has a floor area of around 78 sq m and the larger area with full height ceiling in excess of 5.5m, which is 270 sq m in area with a storage area, manager's office, staff room and toilets to the side of that.
2.4.2 An HGV parking and unloading bay sits in between the commercial unit and the back of plots 27 and 28, which is just over 6m wide and surrounded by wall which is annotated on the plan as being 2.4m high but in elevation is 3m high. The building is finished in a combination of facing blockwork, wood effect boarding, glass and Manx stone with a simulated slate roof. This is closer to the proposed path to the south east than was shown in the approval in principle, due in part to a slightly longer building and also due to the HGV parking being on the other side of the building than originally shown. The applicant has explained that the building differs from that shown in the approval in principle drawings following comments made about having the service yard next to the
==== PAGE 6 ====
16/01314/REM Page 6 of 20
footpath and stream and the building is not considered to be affected by flooding at this point. The increase in size of the building resulted from the desire to include a 6m grid and the use of stone has affected the construction. They do not consider the overall differences to be significant and the resulting area suitable for a small supermarket or convenience store with additional retail unit. The upper office is intended for the developer to manage the development but there is no indication of what the space will be used for following the completion of the works.
2.4.3 A hedgerow of Griselinia is to be planted around the commercial unit and in the rear and side garden of numbers 16, 17, 21 and 22 and along the rear boundaries of numbers 17 -28. The number of car parking spaces alongside the retail unit have decreased from 38 shown in the approval in principle to 33 and these spaces have been increased in size following suggestions from the Highway Authority. A footpath link has been proposed from the retail unit to the new Toucan crossing.
2.5 DRAINAGE 2.5.1 The site will be drained of its foul water via pipes which will link to a new Biodisc situated at the south western end of the site, within the proposed access which stops at the south western boundary of the site. This will accept the foul sewage from the development until such times as the main sewage works have been upgraded sufficiently to accept additional load. Once this has happened, the sewage will be pumped up to a new connection to the main sewer, located in the north eastern corner of the site. Whilst pipework is not usually the subject of planning applications, in this case the pipework is shown to pass very close to where there are tree roots of trees to be retained and as such, a condition should be imposed if the application is approved, to seek the details of how this pipework will be installed without harming the roots of these trees. The treatment works will remain in the control and responsibility of the management company responsible for those parts of the site which are not privately owned or tenanted until such times as the development is connected to the mains system.
2.5.2 Prior ti their formal comments on this application, Manx Utilities have advised that no adoption will be considered whilst a temporary works are in operation but that once the Crosby Treatment Works have been replaced, the site can be connected into the mains system and the temporary works decommissioned. It is important that any infrastructure is then also removed and this should be required by condition.
2.6 LANDSCAPING 2.6.1 The landscaping scheme is comprehensive and covers the whole of the site. This involves the introduction of birch and alder alternating along the frontage from the proposed access south westwards to replace the existing ash which are to be removed to make way for the visibility splays and one tree which is shown but not annotated alongside the proposed pedestrian access from the site to the new pedestrian crossing. One of the proposed trees is very close to the path, possibly unfeasibly so.
2.6.2 The majority of the dwellings, other than the affordable units, will have a cherry tree introduced into the front garden and ash, birch, rowan and hazel are to be introduced around the perimeter of the site. Public open space will be a mix of grass, native shrub mix, planted hedges and feature shrubs (hebe, fuchsia, tufted hair grass, sea pink, Mexican feathergrass, lavender, stonecrop, pittosporum and sea holly).
2.7 CONSTRUCTION 2.7.1 Information has been provided on the construction process, describing portable toilets and offices but no indication of where these will be. All deliveries, storage and access will be into the main site. A temporary footpath order is referred to, "where required" along with the fencing of the work area within the site and the setting out of the position of the road and houses with the taking of initial progress photographs and the removal of approved trees. There is provision within the Temporary Uses Permitted Development Order to allow the use of adjacent land for construction uses, subject to conditions.
==== PAGE 7 ====
16/01314/REM Page 7 of 20
2.8 LIGHTING 2.8.1 The applicant has provided details of Twilight street lighting - 5m high which a direct and narrow illumination pattern and Wow which are also 5m high, together with an illumination map which illustrates that most of the lighting will be within the estate road and that 6 Twilight standards will be positioned alongside the woodland to the south east. None is alongside the A1. The area of lighting closest to the stream is opposite the bowling club where there are floodlights approved, subject to time constraints on their operation, reflecting concerns about bat activity.
2.9 ACCESS AND BUS LAY BY 2.9.1 The construction process will involve the gaining of a temporary road closure order, the fencing off of appropriate areas, the setting out of the position of the layby on site and the undertaking of an underground utility survey and marking out on site with initial photographs. Trees approved to be removed will be so and any street furniture will be disconnected and repositioned along with the overhead electricity lines. The layby has been amended following concerns raised by various parties and now meets with the approval of the Highway Services Division. This now involves the creation of a toucan crossing with tactile paving on each kerb and the appropriate road signage, all of which can be done by or on behalf of the Department of Infrastructure, under the terms of the Permitted Development Order. The layby for buses sits to the north west of the crossing allowing an unobstructed parking area of 2.6m wide and 12.2m long (enough to accommodate a bus) with associated space for access and egress. This will provide a bus stop. A new footway will run along the front boundary of the site which will be formed by a sod hedge no higher than 1.05m and trees planted behind it.
2.9.2 Once marked out the layby will be set out, areas dug and identified for layby and associated footpaths and drainage installed with kerbing, the surface tarmacadam finished and road markings added. The existing footway which goes part way down Old Church Road and curves around the corner onto the A1 will be extended along the front of the site, stepping in by up to 2.6m to provide space for the bus to pull in. 24m to the south east of the parked bus will be the toucan crossing, with pedestrian prompted traffic lights where there will be one pole on each side of the road and appropriate road markings prohibiting parking and overtaking on the approach to the north west for around 13m and 11m in the other direction. Tactile paving will be introduced at each edge.
2.9.3 The surface of the footpath link to the Heritage Trail is to be crushed stone and free draining.
2.10 FLOOD RISK 2.10.1 The applicant has submitted a flood risk assessment. This describes the southern edge of the site flooding during high flow events where the stream is overtopped which causes flooding to the adjacent areas of the site despite none of the site being within published flood mapped areas. The stream serves a catchment area of around 2.80 sq km with the water entering the stream through a culvert under the highway under the A1. A ditch runs along the north eastern boundary of the site and discharges into the watercourse. This overflows due to cross sections of low flow capacity and poor maintenance and isolated flooding from overtopping occurs in the application site. The south eastern bank of the watercourse, which is not within the application site, is prone to overtopping with resultant flooding of the adjacent playing fields.
2.10.2 The application proposes to increase the capacity of the stream by re-profiling it and the existing ditch at the north eastern side of the site is diverted or culverted to prevent localised flooding. Subject to this being undertaken, the applicant's consultants' report that there is no risk of flooding to or from the proposed development. The proposal involves the culverting of the ditch which runs alongside the A1 with a new 450mm diameter pipe which will then discharge into the stream which runs down the south eastern boundary of the site.
2.10.3 The means of preventing flooding from this point southwards will involve re-profiling the western bank of the watercourse, where there are no trees. The exact works have not been shown and will not be known until further work has been undertaken. No works are proposed to the
==== PAGE 8 ====
16/01314/REM Page 8 of 20
stream bed, just the western bank which may affect the precise location of the proposed footpath running along this edge of the site.
PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The principle of the development of this land has already been approved and what is for consideration is only the details which were reserved from 15/00775/A for further approval. However, for clarification, it may be helpful to reiterate the comments and conclusions made in respect of the earlier application in respect of the principle of development of this land. There is a piece of land in this position shown on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Proposed Predominantly Residential. Due to the scale of the Plan (1:25,000), the quality of the base mapping and the thickness of the lines demarcating the roadways it is not possible to be precise about the boundaries of the proposed residential area. What seems to be clear by a comparison of the Order with the Digital Mapping is that the area comprises a frontage to the A1 of around 105m and it then extends back by around 132m. The north western boundary of the site as shown in the application appears to be at a slightly different angle to what is shown in the Order but takes its reference from the existing field boundary to the west which is formed by a post and wire fence. The western boundary of the development is also an informal curved line incorporating groups of trees rather than a straight edge.
3.2 The inspector commenting on the approval in principle comments as follows in respect of the land use designation:
"The size of the area on the south west side of Main Road, designated for residential development in the 1982 Plan is difficult to measure accurately because of the plan's 1:25,000 scale. The 1991 Western Sector Plan describes it as being 1.75 acres but, unhelpfully, there is no accompanying plan. The size of the appeal site is 3.88 acres. Even if the site were 1.75 acres, its development would still have a noticeable visual impact. There would be buildings and roads where currently there is a green field. The increase in size to 3.88 acres, as proposed by the applicant, would make more of a visual impact but, in my view, it would not render the proposal unacceptably harmful in terms of the character and appearance of the village. Indeed, I consider that the enlarged size has some advantages; for example, it enables generous landscaping and the provision of a footpath link to the Heritage Trail. (her paragraph 71)
3.3 She goes on, "I have balanced the material considerations described above against the undeniable fact that part of the site is designated as residential in the 1982 Plan, an adopted plan that forms part of the Development Plan. In my view, the weight that can be given to the material considerations is not enough to outweigh the site's residential designation. The principle of the proposed development is therefore acceptable" (paragraph 72).
3.4 As the development is on land which is if not all, then mostly, designated for development, the general standards of development as set out in General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan are considered applicable here:
General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space 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;
==== PAGE 9 ====
16/01314/REM Page 9 of 20
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 adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j) can be provided with all necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
3.5 It is also relevant to consider the status of Crosby within the Strategic Plan:
Spatial Policy 4: In the remaining villages development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities.
These villages are: Bride, Glen Maye, Sulby, Dalby, Ballaugh, Ballafesson, Glen Mona, Colby, Baldrine, Ballabeg, Crosby, Newtown, Glen Vine, Strang. Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such settlements so as to maintain their existing character.
Spatial Policy 5: New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.
3.6 Where development is proposed, provision must be made for affordable housing and public open space in accordance with the following provisions:
Housing Policy 5: In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more.
Recreation Policy 3: Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan.
Recreation Policy 4: Open Space must be provided on site or conveniently close to the development which it is intended to serve, and should be easily accessible by foot and public transport.
3.7 Guidance on retail developments is provided as follows:
Business Policy 9 states: "The Department will support new retail provision in existing retail areas at a scale appropriate to the existing area and which will not have an adverse effect of adjacent retail areas. Major retail development proposals will require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment". Major development is defined as those over 500 sq m measured externally)."
Business Policy 10 states: "Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exceptions of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances identified in Business Policy 5."
3.8 Other relevant policies referred to previously in the approval in principle are as follows:
Strategic Policy 1 which states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:
==== PAGE 10 ====
16/01314/REM Page 10 of 20
a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings and re-using scarce, indigenous building materials; b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards and c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services".
Strategic Policy 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3".
Strategic Policy 3: "Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by:
(a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character."
Strategic Policy 5: "New development including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases, the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies."
Strategic Policy 10: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:
a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; b) make best use of public transport; c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and d) encourage pedestrian movement."
Recreation Policy 3: "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan."
Recreation Policy 4: "Open Space must be provided on site or conveniently close to the development which it is intended to serve, and should be easily accessible by foot and public transport".
Recreation Policy 5: "Area Plans will identify areas where improvements to informal access to the countryside can be made and to the public footpath network. Existing public rights of way should be retained and any development which affects these will be permitted only if it provides diversions which are no less direct or attractive than existing routes."
Transport Policy 1: "New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes."
Transport Policy 2: "The layout of development should, where appropriate, make provision for new bus, pedestrian and cycle routes, including linking into existing systems."
Transport Policy 6: "In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users."
Transport Policy 8: "The Department will require all applications for major development to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment."
==== PAGE 11 ====
16/01314/REM Page 11 of 20
PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The site has been the subject of two previous applications 06/00055/B for the provision of temporary drainage infrastructure to serve approved residential development to the north of the Crosby Hotel. This was approved. Ballaglonney Farm of which the application site forms part was also the subject of recent applications but these are not considered relevant to the current proposal.
4.2 The most recent and relevant application for the site is 15/00775/A which established the principle of the development of the site for 28 dwellings together with retail facilities, drainage, access, landscaping and a footpath link to the Heritage Trail.
4.3 15/01156/A proposes development on the eastern side of Old Church Road. This land is not designated for development on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 and is of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on that Plan. This application was refused and is the subject of an appeal which has yet to be heard.
4.4 16/01311/REM proposes the details of the remainder of the built development on this site which was approved under 15/00775/A along with a reiteration of the infrastructure and associated works also shown in the current application.
4.5 17/00852/B was submitted to try to address the issue of the drainage works being installed outwith the red line area and proposed the development as is proposed here but with the sewage treatment works and associated pipework outwith the red line as originally defined. This was considered and deferred by the Planning Committee at its meeting of 2nd October, 2017.
REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS 5.1.1 DEFA Senior Biodiversity Officer has considered the report from the Manx Wildlife Trust and the second report from the Manx Bat Group and is happy to discount further bat issues in relation to lighting. He, however, notes mention of montbretia in the report on the north and east boundaries, which is a Schedule 8 species and must be destroyed or otherwise dealt with in an appropriate manner, prior to development commencing (09.12.16). He submits further correspondence dated 07.06.17, 29.06.17 raising concerns about the proposed pipework and ditches proposed between the proposed buildings and the Heritage Trail to discharge the surface and foul water from the site, expressing less concern at the proposed ditch to carry surface water from the Heritage Trail to the river which will not be particularly deep (300mm across and 450mm deep) but wonders why the route of the foul water will run through the land between the footpath and the river, which is of ecological interest rather than under the Heritage Trail. The applicant has advised that this is not available to them as they do not own the land and advises that Dr. Selman was advised of this and was content on the basis that the drainage material for the bedding of the pipe would be bedded in a poorly draining material such as fine sand of similar substitute. He confirms he is happy with a condition which requires the final route of the pipework to be agreed with DEFA prior to its installation to link the site to the mains via Old Church Road.
5.1.2 DEFA Inland Fisheries comment on 18.11.16 that they have already passed comments on the potential impacts on fish and lampreys and note that the current application includes work to address flood risk, to the watercourse. They have concern about the impact of this on fish habitat and seek further information on this. This is reiterated on 15.12.17. On 29.06.17, DEFA confirm that they would require conditions which ensure that there is no disturbance to the bed or margins of the stream to the south east of the site, including disturbance due to in-channel works or entry to the water course by machinery. They recommend that a construction method statement be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department prior to the start of the construction of the path, the culvert along the north eastern boundary and any embankment works and this should include a suitable construction approach to reduce the possibility of disturbance of fish within the stream.
==== PAGE 12 ====
16/01314/REM Page 12 of 20
5.1.3 DEFA Environmental Protection Unit request further information on the adequacy of appropriate sewerage to accommodate the proposed development (08.12.17).
5.1.4 Manx Utilities confirm that the information provided demonstrates that the site can be satisfactorily drained, subject to the appropriate licences and permissions from DEFA regarding discharges and confirm that they will not adopt the proposed temporary works and if there is an intention to do that, then a Section 8 adoption agreement would be required. Once the Crosby treatment works have been replaced then the development may be connected to that and the existing plant decommissioned. They advise the applicant to meet with them regarding construction and inspections. They require a detailed operation and maintenance plan be submitted to and approved by the Planning Committee and DEFA's EH Division (25.10.17). In addition, they were consulted on 25.10.17 to confirm that they have no comments or concerns in relation to flood risk, requesting any comments to be made by 06.11.17. At the time of drafting, no response has been received and it is therefore assumed that MU have no comments to make in relation to flooding. However, if any comments are received a verbal update will be provided to Planning Committee.
5.1.5 Following initial concerns, Highway Services finally raise no objections, stating,
"I am now in receipt of revised plans showing all the necessary reserved matters being complied with.
I also refer to the slightly wider parking spaces for the retail unit which have been increased in size from 2.4 x 4.8m to 2.5m x 5.0m. This has come at the expense of losing 1 parking space reducing the overall parking provision down from 34 to 33. Whilst there are no parking standards for retail, I consider 33 spaces is a reasonable provision which includes 3 disabled parking spaces (10%).
As a final point, it would be beneficial to provide 5 Sheffield style cycle racks in a convenient location to the entrance of the retail unit so as to further emphasise the choice of travel modes available to both staff and customers...this is a desirable enhancement and not essential to the development being implemented.
Given the detail on the drawings and the fact that the lay-by, pedestrian crossing facilities and estate road will all be covered under the Highways Act, the proposals are considered acceptable.
Please attach the following conditions to any future consent:
Prior to any construction the access shown on drawing to be approved by the planning authority shall be constructed and the visibility splays shall remain unobstructed at a height of 1.05m thereafter. Reason: In the interest of highway safety
Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the garage, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.
Prior to the occupation of the retail unit the service vehicle parking, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety" (12.07.17).
5.2 EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS 5.2.1 Marown Parish Commissioners are dismayed that the application as submitted did not contain the information required to comply with the conditions of the approval in principle. They also note that the applicant has not been in discussion with them about the provision of play facilities and
==== PAGE 13 ====
16/01314/REM Page 13 of 20
have declined a meeting with the Marown Memorial Playing Fields Committee in respect of funding play facilities on that site in lieu of facilities on the application site (20.10.16).
5.2.2 They later submit further concerns pointing out that there are discrepancies between the drawing which shows the test holes and that for the site layout, the reference to the houses being referred to as "social housing" and "first time buyer houses" which are not the same thing. They consider that the bus lay-by is not deep enough and the CRB plan has two pelican crossings shown and should be re-issued for clarity. They express concern that the detailed plan for the toucan crossing shows the eastbound bus stop being within the zigzag lines. The construction method statement does not include hours of working and is deficient and they have concerns about the consistency of the street lighting compared with the rest of the parish, even though the applicant indicated at the appeal that the street lighting would not be maintained at public expense. Finally they comment that they have formed no view on the style of the houses but are disappointed that the development will create a hard edge to the village. They request that the Committee refuse the application for these reasons (08.12.16, 05.01.17, 12.06.17). They confirm their discontent with the application in various updates, 22.06.17 and 20.07.17.
5.2.3 They submit further comments on 19th October, 2017, relating to the amended plans which show the drainage included within the red line area, suggesting that the development is premature pending the conclusion of the Area Plan for the East where this land, together with land in the vicinity, is proposed for development and all of the areas are interdependent. They consider that the site does not comply with Strategic Policy 10 and comparisons with other settlements are not valid. They are of the view that the development fails all of the requirements of General Policy 2 except for the impact on any view of the sea. They are opposed to the use of a Biodisc due to previous experience of such facilities where the nearest houses are not capable of being occupied due to smell nuisance. Whilst they are aware that a temporary discharge licence has been granted to discharge the Biodisc into the adjacent watercourse, they objected to this and are not sure what "temporary" means in this instance. They are opposed to rainwater run-off entering the River Dhoo unprotected and the nature of the retail unit is not disclosed. They are concerned that a lamprey survey was not undertaken at the right time. If the application is approved, the Commissioners recommend conditions to require the maintenance of the areas of Public Open Space and drainage in perpetuity, that details of street lighting, their maintenance and operation times is agreed (to be consistent with the rest of the village) and that the days and times of construction work should be controlled - no earlier than 0800hrs and no later than 1900s Monday to Friday with a later start and lunch time finish on Saturdays although this is not to be encouraged. No work should be undertaken on Sundays or on public holidays. They do not believe that this location is viable for a shop or shops and the size of the unit is contrary to Business Policy 10 and they believe that whilst a size was shown in the approval in principle, they do not believe that this was other than representative and was not indicative of the final size, location or orientation. They are similarly concerned about the houses but make no comment about their design but still consider that it is difficult to provide 28 dwellings of this size whilst maintaining the amount of open space proposed with the retail unit. They are aware that no discussion has been held in respect of recreation facilities and are not aware of the nature of the amenity facilities within the development as these have not been specified. They consider that the terrace of houses will create a hard edge to the village (these houses are not within this reserved matters application).
5.2.4 Marown Memorial Playing Fields Ltd object to the size and scale of the retail unit which they consider out of keeping with the village and its rural setting and is not the convenience store referred to in the approval in principle. The height of the building will obscure the view of the Greeba Mountain landscape and the elevation facing the children's play area is unattractive. They are concerned at the efficacy of the proposed sewage works, having had experience of others which have resulted in smell and nuisance. They remain concerned about flood risk to their site (18.12.17). They submit further views on 24.10.17, expressing concern at the route of the surface water drain and wonder whether all the relevant approvals have been granted for linking into existing infrastructure. They are confused about the reference to pumping to the main sewer and thought that the proposal was to treat the sewage in the Biodisc. They remain concerned at the
==== PAGE 14 ====
16/01314/REM Page 14 of 20
proximity of the Biodisc to the playing fields. They ask whether the retail area is now over 500 sq m and whether a retail impact assessment is now required and are not aware that the site is designated for office use where the Strategic Plan recommends that office use should be undertaken only on land designated for that purpose (Business Policy 7). They express frustration at how complex and confusing the planning process is and how difficult it is for a lay person to understand and gain access to the relevant information. They reiterate these concerns on 09.06.17.
5.3 LOCAL RESIDENTS 5.3.1 The owner of 7, Kermode Road objects to the application as the Secretary of the Marown Playing Fields as well as a resident of the village (20.12.17). He is concerned that the retail unit is now two storey and has become a supermarket rather than a community store as originally envisaged. It will completely overlook the playground and negatively affect the enjoyment of this area. He is concerned that there appears to be an indication that the roads will continue into the adjacent land which are not designated for development. He is concerned that the flood risk to Marown Playing Fields has not been addressed and neither has the impact on traffic movements around the village. He submits further correspondence on 26.10.17, reiterating his objections and how confusing the process has been. He is concerned at the proximity of the Biodisc to the playing area and refers to "ongoing mistakes" although these are not specified.
5.3.2 The owner of 6, Eyremont Terrace recommends that additional time is given for the consideration of the application as it was not uploaded until relatively recently (23.12.16). He comments on 02.02.17 that there are errors on the application form and the subdivision of the development into different applications is not in accordance with the approval that was granted. He submits a further letter dated 07.07.17, expressing concern at how difficult it is for a lay person to understand which of the very many documents are to be considered, particularly the way that they are displayed electronically. He reiterates his concern about the errors in the application, the status of the applicant and his registered office, the condition of his property and whether the applicant has funds to complete the development. He expresses concern at the adequacy of the proposed access for emergency vehicles and the vagueness of some of the information. Office accommodation was not included in the approval in principle and the balcony on it is not appropriate.
5.3.3 The owner of 1, Eyremont Terrace submits views on 26.02.17, expressing concern that the number of plans and applications has confused local people and that the approval in principle did not include an office adding that no work should be allowed to be undertaken in the bird nesting season and that the applicant must have a licence to discharge into the watercourse before any decision is taken. He asks to be advised when the application will be considered so that he can ensure any further comments are received in time to be considered. Further undated correspondence notes that the applicant has failed to meet the conditions of the approval in principle in respect of the construction method statement, lamprey survey and potential pollution to the watercourse, the bat surveys, which is flawed and flood risk. The retail unit is now within the flood risk area. The office space is at a height to intrude on the privacy of those opposite. He considers that a retail impact assessment now needs to be undertaken and recommends a series of conditions relating to control of light pollution, external lighting, no trading outside of the building, no combining of the two units to make one, no additional equipment to be placed on or around the building, no advertising displayed, delivery restriction times, reversing sirens to be switched off, a banksman to be employed at all times when deliveries are undertaken, opening times and no alcohol to be served. He raises concerns about the disposal of sewage and potential expansion of the development. He queries the accuracy of the tree survey which cites trees as dead or dying which appear to be in leaf.
5.3.4 The owner of Fy Yerrey on Eyreton Road considers that development as proposed would create a lot of disturbance to traffic flow and the need for traffic lights and wonders what residents will do in times of road closure (09.01.17).
==== PAGE 15 ====
16/01314/REM Page 15 of 20
5.3.5 The owner of 1, Eyreton Terrace objects to the application (09.02.17), expressing concern that residents may have been misled about a doctor's surgery which has not materialised and the proposal now includes office space which was not previously proposed.
ASSESSMENT 6.1 The issues in this case are whether the proposed retail unit is acceptable and whether the design, appearance and layout of the dwellings are acceptable. All other matters - lighting, drainage, landscaping other than the trees included in the current application, are dealt with in either 15/00775/A or 16/01311/REM. Any approval should relate to these matters and the development phased so that these matters are in place before commencement of the proposed development. Indeed some of this is already controlled by conditions attached to the approval in principle - such as no development commencing until the access is fully formed and no development occupied until the pedestrian crossing and the bus layby are in place. No development may commence at all until protective fences are in place to protect existing trees on site to be retained. It should also be noted that the siting of the buildings was also approved under 15/00775/A.
6.2 RETAIL UNIT 6.2.1 Concern has been expressed that the retail unit is too large and not what was envisaged at the approval in principle stage and does not represent a neighbourhood or convenience store. It is relevant that the footprint of the building is very similar to that shown in the approval in principle plans. No conditions were recommended or attached to limit or otherwise control the size or nature of the retail unit. The inspector notes in her report that the application includes provision for 4,500 sq ft/418 sq m of retail space and she makes no other comment about the principle or detail of the retail space proposed and recommends that the application is approved subject to a range of conditions, none of which control the size or nature of the retail unit.
6.2.2 As such, considerable weight should be given to the fact that approval in principle has been given to a retail building of around the size shown here. Crosby is designated in the Strategic Plan as simply a village where development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities.
6.2.3 The Strategic Plan also discusses shops in Chapter 10 where it states: "The provision within residential areas of small shops, often combined with sub-post offices and off-licence facilities, occupies an important place in the range of shopping facilities available. Many people are dependent upon such shops, these being the only shops to which access can be gained easily on foot, without relying on public or private transport. In addition, such a facility may not only be considered a desirable service but may also serve as a focus of community life and help sustain a small community." (paragraph 10.6.1).
6.2.4 It goes on: "Local shopping/neighbourhood centres, typically described as local centres, usually comprise a newsagent, a general grocery store, a sub-post office and occasionally a pharmacy, a hairdresser and other small shops of a local nature. Allied to this may also be a community centre/meeting place to serve the immediate local community. With the increased focus on recycling, local centres are ideal sites for local recycling facilities." (paragraph 10.6.2).
6.2.5 Finally, "In requesting community facilities within new and expanding developments, account needs to be taken of the size, type and particular needs of the new resident population. However account must also be taken of availability and proximity of existing community facilities. Community benefit in this context is defined as one or more of the following: sub-post office/general store, a doctor's surgery and community meeting centres" (paragraph 10.6.3). A policy is included: Community Policy 1: where relevant and appropriate, there should be provided by the developer of new or expanded residential areas, community benefits in the form of neighbourhood centres".
6.2.6 Chapter 9 deals with retail generally and states that "Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exceptions of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances identified in Business Policy 52 (Business Policy 10). It goes on
==== PAGE 16 ====
16/01314/REM Page 16 of 20
to state that "new neighbourhood shops within new residential developments will not normally comprise more than 100 sq m of floor space measured externally" (paragraph 9.4.4).
6.2.7 There is a further policy which suggests that 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 (Community Policy 2). The opportunity could have been taken at the Crosby Wholesalers site when that operation ceased to trade. However, that site now has permission for use as storage facilities (12/01367/C). The proposed retail unit is certainly larger than the small village shop that used to be located on the main road to the west of the Crosby Wholesalers site. It is also larger than the Spar shop at Union Mills (163 sq m - 16m by 9m) and the shop off Clybane Rise in Farmhill (220 sq m - 20m by 11m). It is not far off the footprint of the Anagh Coar general stores - 25m by 13m (334 sq m and single storey) which has a chemist and doctor's surgery alongside which has a footprint of 276 sq m and two storey. What is proposed is a unit whose overall footprint is 488 sq m measured externally, the internal space is subdivided into two units, one 85 sq m and the other 279 sq m with additional facilities of a manager's office, staff room and storage area: the latter two combined is slightly larger than the Anagh Stores facility albeit that that is single storey and not as tall internally or externally, as that now proposed. It is relevant to consider that in one of the objection letters to the later application, 17/00852/B, that they quote from the Institute of Grocery Distribution that convenience stores are considered to be stores with a sales area of less than 3,000 sq ft (278 sq m) with which the proposal complies, even if both of the retail areas are added together.
6.2.8 Whilst the Strategic Plan suggests that neighbourhood shops will generally be expected to be no more than 100 sq m of floor space, in this case, the shop facility is not intended to serve only the new development but all of the village of Crosby and possibly Glen Vine. The site is well placed to serve passing traffic on what is one of the Island's busiest principal distributor roads. As such, it is not considered that the size of the shop unit itself is contrary to the provisions of the Strategic Plan nor has it been demonstrated how such a size would be detrimental to the amenities of the village. Whilst it is suggested that the shop will not reduce, but will add to dependence upon the private motor vehicle by customers, at the present time, all of Crosby's population have to go outside the village for all of their shopping. If only one local resident shops here by foot, this will have improved the sustainability of the settlement. The retail unit will also provide local employment which is generally lacking within the village.
6.2.9 The visual impact of a building this size is a material consideration, particularly as the approval in principle did not provide any information on the height of the building and it may well have been anticipated that the building would be of truly single storey height. The size will have an impact on those who live in the plots nearest within the new estate and there will also be an impact on the view of the site from those passing on the A1 although this will be mitigated by the existing and new trees to be introduced. The position of the proposed retail unit is adjacent to the children's play area to the south and will be visible from there as well as from Church Road across the children's play area, albeit in both cases, mitigated somewhat by the existing trees. Whilst there is concern that the office will overlook the children's play area, it is unclear as to why this is unacceptable either in principle or particularly as the play area is a publicly accessible facility where anyone could be and much more close to those who are using it. It is unlikely that a clear view will be available from the balcony to the children's play area due to the existing trees between the two: the gap in the existing tree line appears to the west of the bowling green which relates to the proposed housing, not the retail unit. Similarly the view from the children's play area will not be obscured by the retail unit, but partly affected only by the four houses on plots 17 to 20.
6.2.10 The design of the retail unit has come from a desire to create a building which is visually pleasing whilst not trying to mimic any existing building. Crosby comprises a real mixture of buildings in terms of size, age, height, finish and style with no over-riding one. There are similarly no buildings of the size or function now proposed. The proposed building utilises some traditional materials - slate and stone in a modern form which is considered appropriate in a new estate of modern houses.
==== PAGE 17 ====
16/01314/REM Page 17 of 20
6.2.11 Whilst the approval in principle did not include any reference to office space, what is proposed is not considered to materially change the nature of what is proposed. There is proposed 78 sq m of office space which can provide an opportunity for some limited local employment. As in 6.9 above, if this results in a local resident working here instead of somewhere further from the settlement, or even someone outside of the village where their travel time and distance is less than it would be elsewhere, then this provides a sustainable function which should be encouraged.
6.2.12 There are now to be 33 parking spaces associated with the retail unit and office. This is fewer than what was shown in the approval in principle but there were no comments made about the parking, positively or negatively. This number is very similar to the number of spaces available in the car park in front of Anagh Coar stores which also serves the adjacent doctors' surgery and chemist.
6.3 DWELLINGS 6.3.1 The proposed dwellings are similar in appearance, despite having seven different descriptions. All are mainly finished in plain painted render with white or grey framed windows and a dark coloured interlocking tiled roof. All have a projecting two storey element on the front elevation and some have Cedar cladding and some stonework. The housing would be improved if there were a colour scheme for the houses, introducing variety in the colour of finishes, even just when constructed. Similarly for the roofing, it would be more attractive to have some variety in colour, for example the groups of plots 8-11, 12-16, 17-21 and 22-28 could all be finished in the same colouring but different to the others or those adjacent.
6.4 PLANTING 6.4.1 This phase introduces a hedgerow around the retail unit: and whilst there was some concern about a potential impact on hedging growing unneighbourly high around number 21, there are no windows in the side of this property which faces the retail unit. Three hazel trees are to be introduced to the east of plot 16 alongside the footpath. Two birches, an alder and a hazel are to be planted to the east of plots 17-21 alongside the footpath and a row of birch and alder trees introduced alongside the frontage of the site. A new footpath is to be introduced between an existing ash/sycamore and a proposed ash the canopies of both of which overhang the proposed footpath. Specialist construction will be required here so as not to damage the roots of the existing ash/sycamore although as this tree is growing in the bank, the roots may not be close to the surface immediately alongside where the footpath is to be created. Ash, hazel and birch trees are to be planted around the periphery of the site. The annotation on the planting scheme needs to be modified to take account of the inaccuracies pointed out by the Arboricultural Officer in the other application.
6.5 FLOOD RISK 6.5.2 There is a risk, acknowledged in the application in principle, that the introduction of hard standings and the change in the nature of discharge to the watercourse could result in flooding to adjacent land and attention has been drawn to the playing fields which have experienced flooding in the past. The applicant's flood risk assessment identifies a method of dealing with this by the culverting of the ditch which runs parallel with the A1 and the re-profiling of the banks of the stream which runs along the south eastern edge of the side such that this watercourse has greater capacity to accommodate the existing water which flows down it. As such, it is likely that the development will increase the protection of the site and the adjacent land from flooding.
6.6 THE ENVIRONMENT 6.6.1 The impact of the development on the environment has to some extent, already been determined through the approval of this number of dwellings and commercial development on this site with the ensuing about of built development, access, impact on trees, traffic and lighting. It is also the case that environmental damage can occur through how a development is undertaken and almost irrespective of what is actually being created and indeed, some of the objections relate to this as much as to what is being proposed in this application. To some extent, some of this is
==== PAGE 18 ====
16/01314/REM Page 18 of 20
outwith planning control: conditions can and should be attached regarding the implementation of the approved footpath close to the south eastern boundary of the site and the re-profiling works to the western bank of this watercourse. Whilst it would have been useful to have some or all of this information now, before a determination is made on the current applications, to some extent, some of that can only be provided after additional work has been done and this may only be reasonable to be required after the detailed layout has been approved. The critical issue is whether the proposed works are capable of being carried out without adverse impact on the environment and the professional advice appears to be that it can, subject to conditions and it is important that conditions are only attached where they are capable of being implemented without affecting the materiality of what is being approved. It is believed that this can be achieved.
6.7 ACCESS 6.7.1 The means of access into the site was accepted at the approval in principle stage and this current application includes the details of how this will be achieved. The details also include the provision of a bus layby and pedestrian crossing, all of which are accepted by the Department of Infrastructure.
6.7.2 Whilst conditions can often be attached to developments controlling the timing of opening hours and what is sold, in this case, the intended use of the shop is as a convenience store whose opening hours will be later and earlier than perhaps other shops may be to. The development is some distance from existing properties and those who choose to live close to the development will do so in the knowledge that this may be the case and it is not proposed to introduce any restrictive operational hours to the shop or office. The items for sale would not normally be controlled and if alcohol is to be sold then the appropriate licence would need to be acquired before this can occur with the relevant tests being applied. It is not considered the remit of the planning authority to interfere with safety procedures relating to vehicles coming and going, and indeed, it is not believed that any of these controls apply to the public house in the village, nor that issues have arisen in this respect. Advertising matter is controlled by separate legislation (the Advertisements Regulations 2013).
CONCLUSION 7.1 It is perfectly understandable that those with an interest in this application and 16/01311/REM have found it difficult to process the considerable amount of information which has been produced throughout the consideration of this and other applications but also understandable, given the complex issues involved, that some or all of them may take time and modifications to resolve satisfactorily. What is proposed now is considered to address the requirements of the approval in principle and to propose a development which is acceptable in those terms as well as with the general standards of development set out in the Strategic Plan and as such, the application is considered acceptable.
INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.
8.2 The decision-maker must determine:
==== PAGE 19 ====
16/01314/REM Page 19 of 20
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.
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 : Refused
Committee Meeting Date: 13.11.2017
Signed : S Corlett Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report
YES/NO See below
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 13.11.2017
Application No. :
16/01314/REM Applicant : J M Project Management Limited Proposal : Reserved Matters application for the construction of 21 residential units and 1 retail unit with parking (relating to PA 15/00775/A) Site Address : Field 320653 Main Road Crosby Isle of Man
Presenting Officer : Miss S E Corlett
Addendum to the Officer’s Report
The Planning Committee declined to accept the Officer's recommendation and refused the application for reasons relating to the inclusion of office space which was not provided for in the approval in principle, the lack of interest in the design and appearance of the dwellings and the amount of retail space which was considered inappropriately large for a village location.
Reason for Refusal
R 1. The proposed dwellings, by virtue of their design and particularly lack of detail and features of interest, would fail to accord with Strategic Policy 5 which requires new development to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island, and General Policy 2 - b and g which requires that development does not adversely affect the character and appearance of the site and its surroundings.
==== PAGE 20 ====
16/01314/REM Page 20 of 20
R 2. The proposed retail element, by virtue of its size and nature (including one large unit) is considered to exceed both what was described in the approval in principle, 15/00775/A. and what is considered to be an appropriate scale for the type of retail facilities described in Spatial Policy 4 and Business Policies 9 and 10.
R 3. Office floorspace was not included in the approval in principle (15/00775/A) and the need for it has not been demonstrate sufficiently to overcome this. In addition, its inclusion results in the commercial unit being larger than it may otherwise be, resulting in concerns that the building's height, combined with its mass, renders it out of keeping with the character of the village.
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