185445

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  1  of  21

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Application No. : 18/00528/B Applicant : Wardsley Limited Proposal : Demolition of existing building yard and structures and erection of 6 two storey and 6 three storey residential dwellings with associated car parking, gardens and communal refuse store Site Address : Workshop Office & Yard Caines Yard Templar Terrace Ramsey Isle of Man IM8 3DP

Planning Officer: Mr Owen Gore Photo Taken : 19.06.2018 Site Visit : 19.06.2018 Expected Decision Level : Planning Committee

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Refused Date of Recommendation: 26.11.2018 __

Reasons for Refusal

R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons

R 1. By virtue of the siting, scale, massing, bulk and design of the proposed dwellings on plots 7 to 12, the proposed housing development will have a significant harmful impact on the character of the surrounding area. The layout and overall density, coupled with the lack of open space will create a cramped form of development that would unacceptably harm the character of its surroundings. The proposal therefore conflicts with Strategic Policy 3, Strategic Policy 5, Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2, and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

R 2. By virtue of the number, heights and locations of the windows and Juliet balconies on the north elevation of the proposed dwellings on plots 7 to 9, the proposed development would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking, which would lead to a significant adverse impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring properties at Templar Terrace on Gibson Street. Due to the height, bulk and massing of the proposed dwelling on plot 12, The proposed development would have a significant, harmful overbearing impact on the streetscene and in particular, the properties at Nos 9-12, Marsden Terrace, as well as an unacceptable loss of outlook. The proposal therefore conflicts with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

R 3. The applicant has not provided sufficient ecological information to adequately determine that the proposed development would not result in an adverse and/or significantly harmful impact to protected species or their habitats, which are either directly using the site and/or existing buildings, or in the surrounding area. The proposal therefore conflicts with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  2  of  21

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:

Department of Infrastructure, Housing Division

It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions, they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are mentioned in Article 6(4):

2 Loch Villas, Shipyard Road, Ramsey, IM8 3DR 7 Loch Villas, Shipyard Road, Ramsey, IM8 3DR 6 Marsden Terrace, Ramsey, IM8 3DS 10 Marsden Terrace, Ramsey, IM8 3DS 11 Marsden Terrace IM8 3DS

As they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018)

The owners of the following properties have provided written representations which clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Operational Policy; such land is within 20m of the application site; and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy. The representations refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy; however they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.

17 Templar Terrace, Ramsey, IM8 3DP 18 Templar Terrace, Ramsey, IM8 3DP 1 Loch Villas, Shipyard Road, Ramsey, IM8 3DR 5 Loch Villas, Shipyard Road, Ramsey, IM8 3DR 1 Marsden Terrace, Ramsey, IM8 3DS 3 Marsden Terrace, Ramsey, IM8 3DS 4 Marsden Terrace, Ramsey, IM8 3DS 5 Marsden Terrace, Ramsey, IM8 3DS Harbour View, 9 Traie Twoaie, Ramsey, IM8 3DB 10 Traie Twoaie, Ramsey, IM8 3DB

The following properties are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy.

1 Traie Twoaie, Ramsey, IM8 3DB 3 Traie Twoaie, Ramsey, IM8 3DB Greystones, 3 Lumby Terrace, Shipyard Road, Ramsey, IM8 3DW Driftwood, 5 Traie Twoaie, Ramsey, IM8 3DB Unit 3-4 The Shipyard, Ramsey, IM8 3DT

It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status on the basis that although they have made written submissions, they are not considered to have

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  3  of  21

sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):

Manx Wildlife Trust and Manx Utilities Drainage as they do not own or occupy property that is within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy and they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status July 2018). __

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS THE APPLICATION WOULD RESULT IN A DEVELOPMENT OF 8 OR MORE RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

0.0 This application was initially brought before the Planning Committee on 07 January 2019. The Committee deferred the application in order to carry out a site visit and also for the applicant to confirm whether they wish to provide the necessary provision for affordable housing and open space through a Section 13 agreement.

0.1 The applicant has now confirmed that they will enter into a section 13 agreement attached to any approval and have informally agreed the terms with the relevant authorities.

0.2 The applicant has provided an instruction that states the following: -

In terms of the affordable housing: -

'The applicant/owner is agreeable to sell the stated obligation of affordable housing (3 No.Type A, three bedroomed houses/three of plots 2, 3, 4 or 5) to purchasers nominated by the DOI Housing and able to proceed for the regulated fixed price of £160,000. Alternatively, if nominees are not provided by DOI Housing within six months of execution of the agreement, the applicant/donor may provide a commuted sum, being the evidenced difference between the open market sale price and the regulated fixed price of £160,000 for each of the three properties'.

In terms of a commuted sum: -

'The applicant/owner agrees to provide a commuted sum of 96 x 12 x 17 = £19, 854 in lieu of a calculated shortfall in the provision of public open space'.

THE SITE 1.1 The application site is a former industrial/builder's yard between Marsden Terrace and the rears of the properties on Gibson Street, which is made up of Templar Terrace and Loch Villas; this site and the surrounding area are sited on the North Shore Area, which is a small peninsula that sits within Ramsey Harbour and Sulby River.

1.2 The site has an existing access onto Shipyard Road, which provides access to the harbour for private boats, as well as the commercial shipyard and a number of industrial type businesses. The immediate area around the site includes the terrace dwellings on both Gibson Street and Marsden Terrace, which also includes a single storey commercial building that is currently occupied by the company, 'Scott Taylor Vehicle Specialists'.

1.3 The site is currently occupied by several dilapidated buildings, including flat roofed, brick lock-up garages to the west of the site; a flat roofed and a pitched roofed workshop/office both

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  4  of  21

partially comprised of brick, timber and corrugated sheet metal; and several temporary, timber 'portacabin' type buildings. At the time of visiting the site there was no activity, but the site was partially used for parking and there was a large amount of rubble and/or construction waste.

THE PROPOSAL 2.1 The proposal is to clear the site, removing all of the buildings and waste, and erect 12 dwellings; the proposed dwellings will be a mix of 6 two storey to the western part of the site and 6 three story dwellinghouses to the east and will include associated car parking, private gardens and a communal refuse store.

2.2 A new access will be created off of Marsden Terrace on the eastern part of the site. The site includes some private amenity space for all of the dwellings and a small amount of landscaping, which is described as 'Public amenity space' on the submitted plans. As originally submitted no provision was made for affordable housing on the site and no reference was made to a commuted sum to mitigate this.

PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site is shown on the Ramsey Local Plan Order 1998 map No.2 (south) as being within the local plan area and the site is designated within an area of Light Industrial Use; although it then refers to the written statement for individual area policies. This site is not within a Conservation Area.

3.2 Part 4.11 of the Ramsey Local Plan written statement states that in the North Shore Area, indicated with the letter A on the map, 'Further industrial or warehousing units...will not be permitted unless required for the shipyard. There will be a presumption in favour of relocation/rationalisation of existing...industries in the gas works area... Only after implementation of this will any surplus land be approved for housing'.

3.3 The Strategic Plan contains a number of objectives, paragraphs and policies of relevance.

3.4 Strategic Objective 3(f), which is one of a number of Strategic Objectives that provide the basis for the policies that follow, states 'To promote urban regeneration and the re-use of derelict and redundant sites'. Strategic Policy 1 states that 'Development should make the best use of resources by:

(a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under- used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services'.

3.5 The relevant extract of Strategic Policy 2 states that 'New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages...'. Housing Policy 4 reiterates this. The relevant extract of Strategic Policy 3 states: 'Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character'. Strategic Policy 5 states that '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'.

3.6 The relevant extract of Strategic Policy 4 states that 'Proposals for development must (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  5  of  21

Interest and other designations; and (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance'.

3.7 Strategic Policy 10 states: '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'.

3.8 General Policy 3 applies to land that is not zoned for development and part (c) is considered to be applicable. It states that development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan and includes a list of exceptions. Part (c) states 'previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment'.

3.9 Although the land is not zoned for development, if the principle for residential development is accepted, it is considered reasonable to use the relevant parts of General Policy 2 to provide criteria for assessment that tie in other policies in the strategic plan, so that brownfield development can be held to the same standard as development on allocated land. This policy states that '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; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; (j) can be provided with all necessary services; (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption.

3.10 Business Policy 5 states in part that 'On land zoned for industrial use, permission will be given only for industrial development or for storage and distribution'.

3.11 Environment Policy 4 states that 'Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:

(a) species and habitats of international importance: (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites.

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  6  of  21

(b) species and habitats of national importance: (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats; (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or (iv) National Trust Land.

(c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats'.

3.12 Environment Policy 7 states that 'Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:

(a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality; (b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted; (c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and (d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species'.

3.13 Environment Policy 10 states in part that 'Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission'. Environment Policy 26 states that 'Development will not be permitted on or close to contaminated land unless it can be demonstrated that there is no unacceptable risk to health, property or adjacent watercourses'.

3.14 Environment Policy 42 states in part that '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'. Environment Policy 43 states in part that 'The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans'.

3.15 Housing Policy 1 states that 'The housing needs of the Island will be met by making provision for sufficient development opportunities to enable 6000 additional dwellings (net of demolitions), and including those created by conversion, to be built over the Plan period 2001 to 2016'. Housing Policy 3 states that 'The overall housing provision will be distributed as follows:

o North 1,200'

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

3.17 Recreation Policy 3 states in part that 'Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  7  of  21

amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan'. Recreation Policy 4 states that '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'.

3.18 Transport Policy 1 states that 'New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes'. Transport Policy 2 states that 'The layout of development should, where appropriate, make provision for new bus, pedestrian and cycle routes, including linking into existing systems'. Transport Policy 6 states that 'In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users'.

3.19 Transport Policy 7 states that 'The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards'. The standard specified in Appendix 7 is as follows:

o 'Typical Residential - 2 spaces per unit, at least one of which is retained within the curtilage and behind the front of the dwelling; o Residential Terraces - 2 spaces per unit, if not within curtilage then located as close to units as possible without compromising residential amenity.

Parking spaces should not be provided in front of the dwellings where this would result in a poor outlook for residents and would detract from the amenity of the area'.

3.20 Transport Policy 13 states that 'Development in or around harbours should neither compromise the ability of the harbour to accommodate other commercial or recreational users in a viable manner, nor be detrimental to the character of those harbours of historic interest'.

PLANNING HISTORY 4.1 The previous planning application 04/01686/A on the site for 'Approval in principle to demolish existing garages, offices, store buildings and workshop and construct new residential development with garaging and off - street car parking', is considered to be specifically material in the assessment of the current application. This application was initially refused by the committee and later refused upon review. The report for this application includes the following assessment: -

'The area surrounding the application site is a mixture of terraced housing and industrial development. By its historic nature the existing housing represents high-density development and, I would suggest, not something to be replicated. There is a known traffic and car parking problem within the area and, I would further suggest, that this would only be exacerbated by the residential development of the application site.

A significant number of objections to the application have been received from local residents. Their objections can be summarised as traffic impact, car parking provision, intensity of development, loss of privacy and loss of light. There are also objections from Ramsey Town Commissioners and the Department of Transport Highways Division.

The application was submitted with an illustrative drawing, drawing no. 2744/2, to demonstrate the applicant's perception of how residential development could be accommodated within the application site. Based on this submission it is evident that the intention is to develop three-storey town houses and three-storey apartment blocks. Rather than aid the applicant I believe that this submission actually aids to demonstrate that the application site cannot appropriately accommodate residential development. Firstly, the development would detrimentally impact on the existing surrounding area, which is predominantly two-storey, particularly in terms of traffic, car parking and residential amenity.

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  8  of  21

Secondly, the development would have a poor environment and be unacceptable in terms of quality of residential development created.

I recommend that the application be refused'.

4.2 The refusal reasons for application ref: - 04/01686/A were as follow: -

Under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Ramsey Local Plan) (No. 2) Order 1998 the application site is located within an area zoned as light industrial use. Accordingly, the residential development of the application site is contrary to this zoning and viewed as inappropriate.

Notwithstanding the above, the Planning Committee consider that the application site could not be satisfactorily developed for residential development without unacceptable detrimental impact on the existing properties and uses within the surrounding area. Conversely, the existing surrounding properties and use mean that any resultant residential environment created within the application site would be poor.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the application seeks approval in principle for the residential development of the application site the illustrative site plan, as shown in drawing no. 2744/2 date stamped the 13th August 2004, is considered to demonstrate that residential development of the application site would be inappropriate in terms of the impact on the surrounding area and the impact of the surrounding area on the application site. With particular reference to this illustrative site plan it is considered that the form of the development as shown is inappropriate by virtue of: a) the three-storey form and density of development in relation to the surrounding area; b) the impact of the development on the existing levels of traffic within the area and the subsequent detrimental intensification of such levels; c) the inappropriate level of car parking provision; d) the potential for overlooking, loss of privacy and overshadowing; and e) the poor quality of environment and amenity created for the new residential properties.

4.3 Also the applicant has referred, several times, to planning permission 13/91461/B at the Former Gas Works Site, North Shore Road, Ramsey, Isle Of Man, IM8 3DF; the proposal is for the 'Demolition of redundant gas works structures and erection of thirty dwellings with associated roads and parking and re-cladding of existing commercial building'.

REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

5.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division has been made with two formal comments, in the memos dated 19 June 2018 and 06 November 2018.

5.2 The comments dated 19 June 2018 is a request for the application to be deferred, these comments continue: -

'...The proposed junction radii of 2.6m should be increased to 6m to facilitate vehicle turning movements into and out of the site. The existing footway of 1m to 1.3m in width around the development site on Marsden Terrace and Shipyard Road would be maintained as at present. Footpaths of at least 0.9m in width would be provided to all the dwellings, with a 1.4m wide dedicated footpath to the site from Marsden Terrace via a ramp, and a 2m wide gated footpath from Shipyard Road...

The highways surrounding the site have a speed limit of 10mph due to their narrow width. The proposed highway visibility splays of 2.5m x 18m shown on the proposed site plan in both

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  9  of  21

directions are considered appropriate to comply with visibility standards for both the new site access junction and the existing junction of Marsden Terrace/Shipyard Road. Nothing above 1.05m in height can be provided within the visibility splay areas which includes the proposed planting. The boundary walls along the site frontage and side would be no higher that 1m which would be acceptable.

The site must not drain onto the adjacent public highway which would be illegal. It appears that his would be the case...which it therefore unacceptable.

The car parking standards...require 2 spaces for a dwelling. There would be 24 proposed car parking, 2 per dwelling, including driveway space and a single integrated garage for plots 10- 12, with the remaining plots (1-9) having 2 dedicated spaces in a parking court.

For plots 10-12, each of the proposed garages would have internal dimensions of 2.95m x 6m with a 2.4m wide door according to the proposed floor plan. This complies with the minimum garage size of 3m x 6 m with a 2.4m wide door... The proposed garages can therefore accommodate a parked car. However, the proposed site plan shows smaller garage sizes below this standard and the plan therefore needs to be amended accordingly for consistency. Each of the driveway spaces would be at least 2.4m x 6m with an adjacent 0.9m wide footpath to the front door of the dwelling. the MfMR requires a driveway space to be a minimum of 3.4m x 5.5m where the footpath is adjacent to the parking space and therefore the driveways should be slightly widened from 3.3m 3.4m. There would be a width of at least 6m on the adjacent site access road to allow cars to turn in and out of the driveways.

The MfMR requires car parking spaces to be at least 2.5m x 5m, with a minimum aisle width of 6m to allow cars to be able to manoeuvre in and out of the spaces. The proposed parking court for plots 1-9 is therefore inadequate and needs to be revised accordingly.

Ideally the bin store should not have doors opening outwards onto the turning head of the adjacent site access road. It would be preferable for the doors to open inwards or the bin store set back or relocated'.

5.3 The comments dated 06 November 2018 confirm that highways do not oppose, subject to conditions; the comments continue: -

'Drawing No.1701-020-A shows a track plot for an 8.8m length refuse vehicle which is acceptable for emergency vehicle access to/from the development as it is slightly longer than an 8.6m length fire engine. However, a large refuse vehicle is longer than this and therefore it has not been demonstrated that a large refuse vehicle could access, turn around and egress the site. As refuse collection would already be undertaken for existing property nos.1 to 12 Marsden Terrace opposite the site without the provision of a turning area, on this particular occasion it is considered that this drawing should be accepted with the smaller size refuse vehicle shown despite this proposal not being ideal.

Drawing no.1701-001-C is acceptable subject to the planning conditions below. A S109 highways agreement is needed to construct the proposed site access junction onto the adopted highway'.

5.4 The conditions suggested by highways include confirmation of the internal floor area of the integrated garages, in accordance with the amended plans; confirmation of the proposed site levels in relation to the road/footway gradients; confirmation of drainage arrangements; confirmation of the hardstanding being implemented prior to the occupation of the dwellings; and confirmation of maintenance of the visibility splays to ensure that they are kept clear.

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  10  of  21

5.5 Ramsey Town Commissioners have provided two sets of comments on this application, in the letters dated 28 June 2018 and 23 October 2018. The comments of the 28 June 2018, for the original submission are as follows: -

'I am directed to advise that the Commissioners considered the above application at their meeting held on Wednesday 17 October 2018, and whilst they had no objection to the proposal, they made the following observations: - o Whilst Ramsey Town Commissioners agree in Principle with the use of the site for residential development, they have concerns in respect of the vehicle access to the site. In addition, the proposed service road/vehicles turning are and bin store access would not be accessible to larger service vehicles. The proposed 'onsite' parking provision does not allow for easy access to the car parking bays with only one times car length allowed between opposing parking bays.

o The existing vehicle access on Gibson Street is compromised on occasion, particularly for larger service vehicles and this is proposed to be the primary access for the new development.

o The development does not comply with the relevant requirements as set down in the strategic plan 2016 General Policy 2 (g) and (h).

5.6 The comments of the 23 October 2018, for the original submission are as follows: -

'I am directed to advise that the Commissioners considered the above application at their meeting held on Wednesday 17 October 2018, and whilst they had no objection to the proposal, they made the following observations: -

o Whilst the Commission are in favour of the improvements to the development access to allow for service vehicles to manoeuver into and within the site, concerns still exist in respect of the overall Traffic management issues to the development.

o Such concerns relate to the main access from the North Shore Road onto Shipyard Road and also Marsden Terrace where existing property occupiers park vehicles on the roadway. Such parking can and would increase the detrimental effect on all vehicles but especially larger service vehicles and their ability to turn into and drive from the development.

5.7 The DEFA Environment, Safety and Health Division have commented on the application in their email of the 31 May 2018. The comments confirm that 'HSWI does not have concerns or objections relating to the proximity of this proposed development to a hazard zone'.

5.8 Manx Utilities Drainage team have commented on this application and have recommended that 'the finished floor levels are set to a minimum of 6.24mAD02. This is the tide level for the 200-year + CC (2115) design event at 5.64mAD02 with the addition of a 600mm freeboard...'. The comments acknowledge the flood level suggested by the applicant and that, in lieu of the freeboard, they are proposing several different floor protection measures.

5.9 The DOI Housing Division have commented on this application, in the memo dated 12 June 2018. The comments state that there are 11 persons on the active first time buyer register and 85 on the general public sector waiting list in the northern region. The comments continue: -

'The department would therefore request that consideration be given by the Planning Committee to include a requirement, in respect of any approval granted for this site, for the applicant to enter into a Section 13 Agreement with the Department to provide 3 affordable housing units, based upon the usual calculation of 25% of the total'.

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  11  of  21

5.9 The DEFA Ecology team have commented on this application, in their email dated 16 November 2018. These comments state: -

'it is an offense under the Wildlife Act 1990 to damage or destroy wild birds, their nests (whilst being used or built), or eggs and therefore if birds are using this building for nesting it is up to the applicant to ensure that no damage or destruction takes place during the works.

Our recommendation is that demolition works should be undertaken outside of bird breeding season and thorough checks for breeding birds, even outside of the breeding bird season, should be undertaken prior to demolition.

I would not recommend planning demolition works for within the breeding season, though this is possible with forward planning and by undertaking certain measures such as restricting access to nesting areas now before the breeding season starts, because there is still the change [sic - chance] that measures taken to restrict birds will fail and birds may continue to use the building. Any work planned for this period would have to be delayed to allow the birds to breed and fledge successfully.

I don't know what birds nest there but it is likely to be house martins and house sparrows therefore I would also recommend that provision is made in/on the new buildings for new nesting areas through the installation of nest boxes or "bird bricks". There are a variety of nest boxes/bricks available for house sparrows and house martins for a relatively low price. House Sparrows are Schedule 1 birds which have seen huge declines in their numbers in recent years so I would really encourage these measures to be taken'.

5.10 A consultation response has been received by the Manx Wildlife Trust, in the letter dated 15 November 2018. The comments state: -

There are no photos to deal with the current state of buildings and structures that may offer potential for wildlife. Even if this is negligible risk it can clearly be shown through simple steps such as this. Apologies if it somewhere within the numerous documents but we could not find photographs.

The site may even require a bat survey from the description'.

5.11 A total of 37 comments have been received from the following 20 local residents:

1, 2, 5 and 7, Loch Villas, 17 and 18, Templar Terrace 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10 and 11, Marsden Terrace 1, 3, ,5, 9 and 10, Twaie Twoaie Unit 3, Shipyard Road and 3, Lumby Terrace

Of these 23 were made in relation to the initially submitted plans. The principal planning points made are as follows:

o Access and Shipyard Road is not suitable for extra traffic that would result from the proposed development or the construction vehicles; o Already an issue with parking and bin wagons gaining regular access; o Existing limited access for large deliveries and emergency service vehicles; o Loss of privacy and light to small rear yard and rear windows; o Will restrict access to properties and will not be able to use rear yard during construction phase due to noise, pollution or dust; o Increased noise, light and air pollution from traffic; o Cars shining lights into houses;

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  12  of  21

o Will devalue the property; o Already an issue with parking and further properties will impact parking and the road surface; o No further development should be permitted until 'structural problems' of Shipyard Road have been addressed; o Parking during construction phase will be impacted; o No visitor parking provided; o Large construction/demolition vehicles turning on the highway will be hazardous; o No existing pavement on side roads, dense parking and additional traffic dangerous for children playing in the area; o Loss of storage for existing residents wheelie bins and bikes; o Relocating bins will lead to increased smells into properties in summer and will be exposed to heavy winds in winter; o 3 storey properties is overdevelopment of the site; o Density of properties on the site is harmful; o Lack of public open space; o Centralised bin storage will become dirty and cause litter/spillages, which will attract vermin; o Proposed parking is unusable, spaces are too small and would be difficult to manoeuvre into; o New properties will displace floor water and could cause flooding to existing properties; o Applicant has ticked 'No' under the question regarding trees, which is not correct and there are seagulls nesting on the roof of one of the buildings;

5.12 Following negotiations between the applicant and highways, amended plans were submitted; 14 additional comments were provided. The principal planning points made are as follows:

o Same concerns as previous objection, amended plans do not address existing issues; o Parking and highways still a concern; o Little consideration appears to have been given with regard to the concerns raised previously;

5.13 There are no formal letters of support; however some of the objections reference that this is a residential area and the proposal could have a positive impact by enhancing this.

ASSESSMENT 6.1 Although there are residential properties in this area, the North Shore Area is not within an area of 'predominantly residential use', nor is the application site zoned for residential development. Accordingly, the application is contrary to the provisions of the zoning of the area within the Ramsey Local Plan. However it could be argued that the residential use of the site represents brownfield development. Whilst some brownfield development can be acceptable, and indeed a positive use of land, it is still important to assess the impact of the surrounding area both in terms of the impact of the development on the surrounding area and the impact of the surrounding area on the development.

The principle of development 6.2 The application site is within a larger area designated as 'light industrial' in the Ramsey Local Plan. Policy R/I/P1 A is implicitly supportive of the release of surplus employment land to residential use; however this are somewhat conditional on the moving of the existing businesses to an alternative location elsewhere in Ramsey and this policy doesn't explicitly support the use of the application site for non-light industrial purposes.

6.3 The loss of this light industrial land could potentially reduce the availability of employment land in Ramsey and have a knock on effect that will be harmful in the economic context of the wider town and beyond. Business Policy 5 references the loss of industrial uses and

==== PAGE 13 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  13  of  21

replacement with retail; however it explicitly states that 'On land zoned for industrial use, permission will be given only for industrial development or for storage and distribution'.

6.4 An employment land review, jointly commissioned by the Departments of Infrastructure and Economic Development, was prepared in 2015 and subsequently updated in 2017 with a separate addendum. The ELR examined allocated employment land and employment floorspace to properly assess the supply of employment land and its take up, this included zoned/allocated land for employment use (industrial, light industrial, storage & distribution, offices) as identified in Area and Local Plans and reported in hectares. Some of this zoned land has been developed and some is still available.

6.5 The study found that a total of 276 hectares is allocated, 244.47ha for industry, distribution and other uses and 31.51ha for office use. The East is dominant with 131ha of allocated employment land. Of the 276ha of allocated land, a third is available for existing, new or expanding businesses. Land availability has increased in the South, North and West since 2012, while remaining relatively constant in the East.

6.7 The significant concentration of all types of employment activity is identified as being in the east and it is noted that the allocated/zoned areas in the north, west and south should sufficient to meet demand, although some additional uptake is expected in the Ronaldsway area.

6.8 The application site is a mostly vacant builder's yard with some dilapidated buildings and is considered not to be of particularly high quality employment land. The Ramsey Local Plan discusses the supportive release of surplus employment land to residential use and notes this area generally along with the site of the former gasworks that was previously developed under planning permission 13/91461/B. All the land immediately surrounding the site is in active residential use. Its loss therefore would not be of significant harm to economic land supply within the area.

6.9 Transport Policy 13 requires that development in or around harbours should not compromise the ability of the harbour to accommodate other commercial or recreational users in a viable manner. No feasibility work is believed to have been done on the future uses relating to Ramsey harbour, and nor are any such proposals known to exist. The 'fall-back' position of this site would be industrial use, which doesn't specifically have to benefit the harbour nor compromise its use; on balance, considering the residential uses around the site, the change of use to residential on this site wouldn't specifically benefit or compromise the use of the harbour either.

6.10 One of the refusal reasons for planning application 04/01686/A was regarding the residential development of the light industrial use of the application site being contrary to this zoning and viewed as inappropriate. There is some conflict between the proposal and Local Plan policies. However, the circumstances of the application site are such that the loss of the light industrial land is not considered so significant in either a local or Island context as to represent a fundamental objection. It is therefore considered that a refusal on the basis of the loss of light industrial land would be inappropriate. Moreover, it is also considered that the principle of residential development on the application site is acceptable given the surrounding uses and geographic relationship between the site and surrounding amenities.

6.11 On balance, it is judged that the redevelopment of this brownfield site for residential purposes is acceptable in principle, subject to the considerations below.

Flooding/drainage 6.12 Manx Utilities Drainage team have commented on this application and have recommended that 'the finished floor levels are set to a minimum of 6.24mAD02. This is the tide level for the 200-year + CC (2115) design event at 5.64mAD02 with the addition of a

==== PAGE 14 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  14  of  21

600mm freeboard...'. The comments acknowledge the flood level suggested by the applicant and that, in lieu of the freeboard, they are proposing several different floor protection measures. As the authority on flooding for the island, the comments seem to accept this approach and therefore there is no reason to consider this proposal contrary to Environment Policy 10.

Contaminated Land 6.13 No contamination report has been submitted as part of the application. The site is a former builder's yard and appears to have had a number of uses on the site; there are a number of dilapidated buildings and piles of building waste. Had approval been recommended a robust set of conditions would be required to investigate and risk assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site and provide a detailed remediation scheme and mitigation. The applicant has stated that they are willing to carry out any reasonable tests and, if contamination if found and if necessary, mitigation measures for residential use required by the planning authority. This approach has been accepted by the applicant in the email dated 21 September 2018.

Affordable housing/public open space 6.14 The site includes a small amount of landscaping, which is described as 'Public amenity space' on the submitted plans; although it is not considered to be usable space by any standards. No provision was originally made for affordable housing on the site and no reference was made in the submitted information, to a commuted sum to mitigate this although the applicant has latterly agreed to address this - see introduction.

6.15 In relation to affordable housing the applicant originally stated that 'As the development is proposed to take place primarily on land that is not currently zoned for residential development, this policy [Housing Policy 5] does not apply'. The DoI Public Estates & Housing Division has advised that the requirement be secured through a section 13 agreement. The provision that has been requested is to provide 3 affordable housing units. The applicant has tentatively stated that 'the applicant may be willing to consider an element of such provision' in the email dated 21 September 2018.

6.16 Housing Policy 5 references 'land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas' as noted above, although the site has residential properties to the north and south of the site, the site and the North Shore Area are zoned for light industrial use and not 'predominantly residential' as other areas within the area plan document. Therefore it could be argued that because this is a brownfield site, the affordable housing provision could be waivered to avoid constraining a site which would be of a public benefit to redevelop, that it has a use that is not compatible with, or indeed harmful to, the surrounding land uses and would otherwise require substantial additional costs to remediate and/or mitigate the site in preparation for redevelopment. However the applicant has not demonstrated any of the above, or indeed, made any of these arguments in favour of the public benefits of the site.

6.17 The site is currently zoned as 'light industrial' which is defined in the Strategic Plan, albeit in reference to buildings, as industrial (not being a special industrial) use, in which 'the processes carried on or the machinery installed are such as could be carried on or installed in any residential area without detriment to the amenity of that area by reason of noise, vibration, smell, fumes, smoke, soot, ash, dust or grit, or undue generation of traffic or parking of vehicles'. The 'fall-back' position would therefore be within this use class and by definition would not be permitted to have a detrimental impact on the surrounding land uses in terms of the above issues and wouldn't strictly be of a public benefit to redevelop the site. Although generally unsightly, the area is designated as light industrial and its appearance is not strictly out of keeping with this zoning.

6.18 The applicant has stated in their email dated 21 September 2018 with regards to contamination on the site 'in contrast to that of the gasworks site there is no record of a

==== PAGE 15 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  15  of  21

polluting use in the history of this site'. Although they are open to testing the site, the applicant appears confident that no contamination exists on the site itself. Therefore they have not argued that this or any other unforeseen constraint would otherwise require substantial additional costs to remediate and/or mitigate the site in preparation for redevelopment.

6.19 The 25% provision affordable housing applies to developments of 8 dwellings or more and no reasonable or adequate argument was put forward to justify the reduction or removal of the requirement to provide these properties. Had a recommendation for approval been given a section 13 agreement would be required to provide 3 affordable housing units as recommended by the DoI Public Estates & Housing Division.

6.20 The applicant has also stated in relation to Recreational Policy 3 that 'The site is relatively small and provides little opportunity for open space other than that already proposed. Furthermore, there already exists in the locality significant provision in the form of the river and estuary, the beach and promenade, and Mooragh Park, two sports pitches and public swimming pool, all as shown on drawing No.1701/002. The applicant therefore considered this requirement to be satisfied' although latterly they have agreed to provide a commuted sum in this respect - see introduction above.

6.21 In relation to Recreational Policy 4 the applicant has stated that 'All of the existing facilities identified above are within easy walking distance of the site. Also, a children's play area is being provided with the adjacent gasworks residential development. Again, the applicant considered this requirement to be satisfied and without resort to commuted payments...'.

6.22 In reference to Recreational Policy 3, the statement that this requirement would be satisfied by existing provision is an incorrect interpretation of the policy; the policy specifically requires provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified, on new sites of residential development of ten or more dwellings. The policy references the 'provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design'. The proposed site plan shows the only public amenity space as a 1m wide strip of planting to the south of plot no.12, which is enclosed between a 600mm fence and a 1m wall and a 2m x 2.5m area between the parking space for plot No.9 and the main site access to Marsden Terrace. There is private amenity space for the properties, as required by other policies; however these areas are all enclosed by 1.8m or 1.65m fences.

6.23 The applicant has referenced the adjacent gasworks site and the open space provided with that development; the application site and the gasworks site are separated by existing properties, although there is pedestrian link between them. It is therefore not accepted that this adequately offsets the necessary visually beneficial and usable open space that is a requirement for any large/major development. The applicant's email of the 21 September 2018 also states that 'Furthermore, the open space of the communal car park has been planned and located to benefit the existing housing in Gibson Street and Marsden Terrace'. Hardstanding car park is considered not to be adequate open space in accordance with Recreational Policy 3.

6.24 The impact and cause of this significant shortfall is described further in the character and appearance section of this report; however the provision required by Recreational Policy 3 is not considered to have been met in the application as originally proposed.

6.25 It is noted that there is recreational open space close to the development and accessible by foot. It can be easily understood that the size of the site restrict the realistic provision of open space in terms of formal (e.g. football pitches) or children's (e.g. play grounds) open space, as described by appendix 6 of the Strategic Plan.

Character and appearance

==== PAGE 16 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  16  of  21

6.26 The proposal is for the erection of 12 dwellings; the proposed dwellings will be a mix of 6 two storey to the western part of the site and 6 three storey dwellinghouses to the east and will include private gardens, associated car parking, and a communal refuse store. In the context of the street scene, the three storey properties on plots 7, 8, 9 and 12 directly abut the highways of Gibson Street and Marsden Terrace respectively. In both instances the properties are within 2m of the edge of the carriageway or footpath and 9.5m tall at their highest point.

6.27 The existing streetscene of both Gibson Street and Marsden Terrace is characterised by modest, two storey terrace houses with a single storey, stone building occupying a significant amount of south side of Marsden Terrace. There is also an attractive two storey, stone workshop style building at the eastern end of Marsden Terrace.

6.28 In terms of the wider views of the site, there are several three storey buildings on the former gasworks site that are partially visible form the application site; however these are read as being similar to the coast fronting properties along the promenade and are set away from the other two storey properties by over 20m. The proposed three storey buildings are set considerable further forward compared to the gasworks site and are read as part of the street scape of the two adjacent streets. The proposed dwellings will dominate those on Templar Terrace and Marsden Terrace, towering above them; the single storey nature of the existing buildings on site provide some remaining feeling of openness to the eastern end of Gibson street, which will be negatively impacted by the large scale of the proposed building and considerable bulk of the nearly flat, shallow sloping roofs.

6.29 The general scale of the neighbouring properties is cottage style terrace dwellings, which are generally small by the standards of modern dwellinghouses. The proposed 3 storey properties are significantly taller and are out of keeping with the scale of these properties. The designs and materials used are based on the somewhat tenuous link to the adjacent gasworks site; the visual link will only be distance views of the abovementioned three storey buildings on the former gasworks site, which will be blocked by the proposed dwellings when stood in the parking area or on Marsden Terrace. Otherwise the materials are not in keeping with the existing Victorian or later terraces.

6.30 The siting of the buildings and density of the area, coupled with the scale of the buildings and the lack of open space, replicates the existing property layouts in the area, which in this instance is considered not to be beneficial. The original street layouts in this area didn't previously include back to back dwellings until the introduction of the dwelling on the former gasworks site. In some instances these are within tolerable levels of separation and others there have regretfully been lower levels accepted. The proposal will appear as a cramped form of development, squeezing larger dwellings on to a constrained site with a insincere use of landscaping and lacking in any meaningful open spaces, green or otherwise.

6.31 The proposal would likely to be significantly harmful from the views along the highways of Templar Terrace, Marsden Terrace and in the immediate vicinity and would unacceptably harm the characteristics of the character of its surroundings.

Impact on neighbours 6.32 During the pre-application meeting there was discussion over the potential impact that the proposal would have on the neighbouring properties. The proposal introduces a new line of terraces onto Marsden Terrace. Plots 1-6 (Housing type A) all include 3 first floor windows each that face the rears of the 'Loch Villas' on Gibson Street; the separation distance between these properties is approx. 14.5m. It is noted that dwellings facing one another elsewhere on Shipyard Road have similar distances between their principal facades.

6.33 Plots 7-9 (Housing type B) each include a window and a Juliet balcony at first floor level, with an additional window on plot 9 and each proposed property have a window and a Juliette balcony at second floor level; the windows will face the properties on 'Templar Terrace' where

==== PAGE 17 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  17  of  21

they are set back from Gibson Street; there is a separation distance of approx. 17m between these properties. Plot 12 (Housing type C) has 1 window at ground floor level, 2 windows at first floor level and 1 windows at second floor on the side elevation; these windows face the dwellings on Marsden Terrace, which are approx. 9.6m away and although they appear to be secondary windows, 2 of which serve habitable rooms and the rest appear to be circulation spaces.

6.34 In terms of overlooking, generally the expected separation distance is 20m between the 'principal' elevations (front and rear), or between windows that serve habitable rooms, on opposing properties; it may be acceptable in certain circumstances to permit a reduced separation distance, but only where it is demonstrated that there is minimal harm to the affected properties e.g. there are differences in levels or the orientation of buildings/windows. There is currently a difference in level between the properties at 'Loch Villas' on Gibson Street and plots 1-6, but the submitted plans indicate that the finished floor level will be 5.650 which is only marginally below the level of the existing properties, which is shown as 5.75 on the topographical plans.

6.35 The levels of the properties on 'Templar Terrace' at No.17-19 Gibson Street, are not available, but the proposed plots 7-9 will tower over these at 3 storeys and will have large windows overlooking these properties and Juliet balconies and windows looking into the site; the nature of the use of these balconies encourages users to stand at the aperture for extended periods of time exposing the neighbouring properties to a further loss of privacy. Although these properties are set back from building line where the street widens and other properties are some distance away, the proposed windows and Juliet balconies will have direct facing windows and windows/balconies looking down on the existing dwellings. The separation as proposed here is approx. 17m to Templar Terrace, approx. 30m to Marsden Terrace and 15m-20m to other properties in this development.

6.36 The applicant has stated in e-mail correspondence that 20m of separation between windows is an 'ad hoc' standard not written into any Manx legislation and that this standard 'generally reflects the character of modern suburban rather than existing urban areas'. The 20m separation distance has been included in the new Operational Policy on Residential Design which is currently in its draft form; this operational policy wasn't adopted at the time of the initial consideration but has since been adopted by the Department and therefore this document carries weigh in decision making. Furthermore, the 20m separation distance has been used by this Department for a considerable time and has been referenced and applied by independent inspectors when making decisions to the Minister.

6.37 The applicant also references the nearby gasworks site, in terms of the accepted separation distances and the use of trees at the rear boundary of plots 1 to 6 (of the gasworks site) to mitigate for the proximity of windows in the rear of Loch Villas in Gibson Street. It is noted that there is a proposed line of trees/vegetation shown on the plans to the rears of plots 1-6, but they cannot be used to directly mitigate overlooking because vegetation, even non- deciduous, can become damaged or diseased, or removed by future occupants; larger trees can block light, which will add to the pressure for these to be removed by future owners/occupants and it is possible that some will fail to become established even after proper planting. At the time of visiting site, the proposed vegetation within the gasworks site proposal, as described by the applicant, was not established and did not yet serve the desired screening function.

6.38 It is considered that there will be direct overlooking and loss of privacy between these properties as a result of this proposal, impacting both the existing occupants of the neighbouring properties and the future occupants of the proposed dwellings.

6.39 In terms of overbearing and loss of outlook, a separation distance of 12m between a principal elevation of one property and the side elevation of another is generally advised. Plot

==== PAGE 18 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  18  of  21

12 will likely have an overbearing impact on the streetscene and in particular, the properties at No.9-12 Marsden Terrace, towering above them at three storeys. The outlook from the No.9-12 Marsden Terrace and from No.17-19 Templar Terrace will be severely restricted by the significant bulk and massing of the proposed dwellings on plots 7-9 and 12.

6.40 The proposed development would result in a significant adverse impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents. It is noted that the previous refusal for dwellings on this application site included the refusal reasons regarding the impact to neighbouring dwellings. Refusal reason 2 of planning application ref 04/01686/A was included, notwithstanding refusal reason 1 regarding the principle; the Planning Committee considered that the application site 'could not be satisfactorily developed for residential development without unacceptable detrimental impact on the existing properties and uses within the surrounding area. Conversely, the existing surrounding properties and use mean that any resultant residential environment created within the application site would be poor'.

6.41 Refusal reason 3 of planning application ref 04/01686/A stated that it was considered 'that residential development of the application site would be inappropriate in terms of the impact on the surrounding area and the impact of the surrounding area on the application site. With particular reference to this illustrative site plan it is considered that the form of the development as shown is inappropriate by virtue of: a) the three-storey form and density of development in relation to the surrounding area; b) the impact of the development on the existing levels of traffic within the area and the subsequent detrimental intensification of such levels; c) the inappropriate level of car parking provision; d) the potential for overlooking, loss of privacy and overshadowing; and e) the poor quality of environment and amenity created for the new residential properties'.

Parking and highway safety 6.42 Following extensive discussions, the highways team have accepted the proposal in terms of the new access and the level of on-site parking.

Ecology 6.42 The DEFA ecology officer has commented on the application and has noted applicant's responsibility to ensure that no damage or destruction to wild birds or their nests takes place during the works and recommended that demolition works be undertaken outside of bird breeding season and thorough checks for breeding birds be undertaken prior to demolition. The ecologist noted that it is likely that house martins and house sparrows nest in or near the site and therefore they have recommended provision is made in/on the new buildings for new nesting areas through the installation of nest boxes or 'bird bricks'.

6.43 The consultation response from Manx Wildlife Trust noted the lack of information with regard to the potential for wildlife and/or protected species and the demolition of the building; they have recommended at the very least a photomontage of the internal and external structure showing the current state of buildings and structures that may offer potential. They continue by stating 'the site may even require a bat survey...'.

6.44 The applicant has not provided any information with regard to ecology; the presence of nesting birds has been noted by an objector and was confirmed by the case officer at the time of visiting site. The presence of bats is not known; however the proposal is to demolish several, non-habitable and dilapidated structures. Although the site is within an urban area there are large wooded areas to the south, west and north and several bodies of water.

6.45 It has not been possible to have due regard to the potential impact to protected species due to the lack of information. Environment Policy 4 states that development will not be permitted which would adversely affect species, protected or otherwise and habitats of international importance. General Policy 2 also confirms in part (d) that development will

==== PAGE 19 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  19  of  21

normally be permitted, provided that it does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally.

Other matters 6.46 Other matters have been raised by consultees, such as impacts from noise, pollution or dust during construction phase and damage to the road surface from large construction/demolition vehicles; however the control of this would fall under legislation. Concerns have been raised regarding devaluation of the properties; however this is not material planning consideration.

6.47 Other concerns such as loss of storage for existing residents' wheelie bins and bikes and the relocation of bins, leading to increased smells to properties in summer and being exposed to heavy winds in winter. Some residents of Marsden Terrace appear to be using the public footpath on the northern side of the road, to store wheelie bins as well as introducing small storage areas, such as log stores and bike storage. The legality of the erection of storage areas on the public highway is questionable and therefore the loss of this aspect has not been considered. The existing storage of wheelie bins in these areas may be somewhat reasonable; however there is no evidence to suggest that this is a legal right and the storage of the bins in front of properties is unlikely to be significantly harmful enough to warrant refusal on this basis.

CONCLUSION 7.1 The proposal would unacceptably harm the character of the surrounding area and would result in a significant adverse impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents. The proposal therefore conflicts with the policies appropriate within the Strategic Plan.

7.2 The proposal could have satisfied the following points, had it been recommended for approval, subject to conditions/legal agreement: -

o Conditions relating to an investigation and risk assessment, as part of a desktop study into the potential for contamination on the site, a detailed remediation scheme if contamination is found and a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out; o Conditions specifying that the applicant carries out the requirements of the flood risk assessment and the mitigation measures proposed for the new dwellings; o Condition securing further details of landscaping as shown on the submitted plans and requiring that the planting is carried out at the appropriate time of the season, following the completion of the superstructure works of the development and ensuring any planting which dies, fails to establish or is removed, to be replanted; o Condition securing the use of obscured glazing on the side facing windows on the southern elevation of plot No.12; o Condition securing details of a full scheme of foul and surface water discharge; and o Condition requiring an Ecological Impact Assessment in relation to bats and breeding birds and their habitats, including mitigation is provided.

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.

==== PAGE 20 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  20  of  21

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

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: 15.04.2019

Signed : Mr O Gore Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report and reason for refusal was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 15.04.2019

Application No. :

18/00528/B Applicant : Wardsley Limited Proposal : Demolition of existing building yard and structures and erection of 6 two storey and 6 three storey residential dwellings with associated car parking, gardens and communal refuse store Site Address : Workshop Office & Yard Caines Yard Templar Terrace Ramsey Isle of Man IM8 3DP

Planning Officer : Mr Owen Gore Presenting Officer As above

Addendum to the Officer’s Report

==== PAGE 21 ====

                                      18/00528/B                                     Page  21  of  21

Committee considered the application at the 15/04/2019 meeting and concured with the officer's assessment; the members continued by stating that the impact to Marsden Terrace in terms of traffic movements would be unacceptable. The recommendation was amended to include an additional refusal reason.

Reason for Refusal

R 1. By virtue of the siting, scale, massing, bulk and design of the proposed dwellings on plots 7 to 12, the proposed housing development will have a significant harmful impact on the character of the surrounding area. The layout and overall density, coupled with the lack of open space will create a cramped form of development that would unacceptably harm the character of its surroundings. The proposal therefore conflicts with Strategic Policy 3, Strategic Policy 5, Strategic Policy 4, General Policy 2, and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

R 2. By virtue of the number, heights and locations of the windows and Juliet balconies on the north elevation of the proposed dwellings on plots 7 to 9, the proposed development would result in an unacceptable level of overlooking, which would lead to a significant adverse impact upon the living conditions of neighbouring properties at Templar Terrace on Gibson Street. Due to the height, bulk and massing of the proposed dwelling on plot 12, The proposed development would have a significant, harmful overbearing impact on the streetscene and in particular, the properties at Nos 9-12, Marsden Terrace, as well as an unacceptable loss of outlook. The proposal therefore conflicts with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

R 3. The applicant has not provided sufficient ecological information to adequately determine that the proposed development would not result in an adverse and/or significantly harmful impact to protected species or their habitats, which are either directly using the site and/or existing buildings, or in the surrounding area. The proposal therefore conflicts with General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

R 4. By virtue of the increased frequency of vehicles accessing and egressing from the site via the proposed access onto Marsden Terrace, the proposed development would result in an unacceptable increase of traffic on this narrow side road that will result in a significant adverse impact upon the living conditions of residents of the properties on this road. The proposal therefore conflicts with General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic 2016.

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.