Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
24/91152/GB Page 1 of 17
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 24/91152/GB Applicant : Anna Kawalek Proposal : Demolition of single storey flat roof elements at western side of building, and erection of a new dwelling on land to west of existing building (in association with registered building consent application 24/01173/CON) Site Address : Groudle Glen House King Edward Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 2JY
Planning Officer: Paul Visigah Photo Taken : 13.11.2024 Site Visit : 13.11.2024 Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.12.2024 __
Reasons for Refusal
R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons
R 1. The application is considered to be contrary to Strategic Policy 1, Spatial Policy 4, Paragraph 4.3.11, Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3 and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan (2016) and the site designations of the Sulby Local Plan (1998) and no 'other material considerations' have been identified that would outweigh these formally adopted policies which should be afforded significant weight having been informed by public consultation, public inquiry and adoption by Tynwald.
R 2. Whilst the design of the new dwelling would fit with the style of the buildings along the road to the east of the former hotel, the proposed siting, layout, scale, and arrangement of the new building on the site, would fail to relate positively and appropriately to the site character as it does not take into account a proper analysis of site context in terms of siting, layout, scale, and spaces between buildings, and would have a deleterious impact on the application site, by resulting in a particularly intrusive infill development within the site when viewed from the surrounding area. In fact, the new dwelling would be at jar with the Arts and Craft Design of the building on site, and would dominate views when approaching the site from the west along the MER and King Edward Road, thus diminishing the role of the existing building on the site. The proposal, therefore, conflicts with General Policy 2(b), and Strategic Policies 4 and 5 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 3. The parking and access arrangements as proposed would create an adverse impact on the existing highway, as the visibility in both directions would be below the acceptable standards, having obstructions impacting on the visibility, which would make it difficult for vehicles to exit the site in a safe and appropriate manner, contrary to the principles of General Policy 2(h and I) and Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan (2016). The proposed parking
==== PAGE 2 ====
24/91152/GB Page 2 of 17
would also fall short of the standards stipulated in Transport Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan and set out in the Manual for Manx Roads.
R 4. The scheme as proposed would result in vehicles projecting onto the adjoining public footway, and the visibility is such that would increase the potential for increased conflict and risk to pedestrians. This would be contrary to Transport policies 6 and General Policy 2 (h) of the Strategic Plan 2016.
R 5. Insufficient information has been provided to support that the proposed development would not impact on the ecology of the site or the adjacent site of conservation value, or result in adverse impacts on trees within the adjacent woodland, and as such the development is considered to be contrary to Environment Policies 3 and 4, and Strategic Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan. __
Right to Appeal
It is recommended that the following organisations should be given the Right to Appeal on the basis that they have submitted relevant objections: DOI Highway Services - Objection Onchan Commissioners - Objection
It is recommended that the following organisations should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: o Manx Utilities Drainage - as they have no objections o DEFA Ecosystems - as they are part of DEFA
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should NOT be given the Right to Appeal: Groudle Glen Railway Company Ltd - Objection does not set out in relation to material planning considerations, an impact of the proposal on the lawful use of their land (A10(2)(c)) __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of the former Groudle Glen Hotel, which is located on the north side of King Edward Road in Onchan. The site supports a Registered Building (RB 287), although the part of the building which directly abuts the site of the proposed development is not included in the registration.
1.2 The site is a narrow stretch of land which is bounded by the site for biodisk units to the west and a flat roofed garage attached to the former hotel to the east. The Groudle Glen sits along the entire northern boundary of the site. There is a steep drop in the land profile along the whole northern boundary which is defined by mature trees which form part of the Groudle Glen. The Groudle Tram station sits opposite the site separated by King Edward Road and tram lines.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought for Demolition of single storey flat roof elements at western side of building, and erection of a new dwelling on land to west of existing building (in association with registered building consent application 24/01173/CON).
2.2 The new dwelling would be a flat roofed contemporary dwelling with parapet wall with coping, measuring about 11.25m on its longest elevation, 7.7m wide, and about 8.7m tall to
==== PAGE 3 ====
24/91152/GB Page 3 of 17
the top if its tallest section. The new dwelling which would be partly on the footprint of the flat roofed garage attached to the former hotel building would face the main road.
2.3 The dwelling would be set over three floors, with the ground floor accommodating an open plan kitchen, dining and family room, a vestibule, hall, WC, and car port. The first floor would house three bedrooms (one with ensuite), and a bathroom, while the second floor would house a lounge and a roof terrace. There would be large bi-folding doors leading to the roof terrace which would be bounded by a min 1100mm glass balustrade. A new 1.1m tall boundary wall would run along the rear boundary of the site which abuts the Glen.
2.4 The external elevation of the new dwelling would be finished in plain white render. The windows are to be Flush fit Anthracite Grey UPVC units with render band surrounds. Two Juliet balconies would be installed on the dwelling, one on the front elevation, and the other to the rear.
2.5 The new dwelling will also have a 2.6m x 5m parking apron situated just west of the building. The building will connect to the existing biodisk serving the former hotel building. There would be no change to the site level which is largely flat in its current context.
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 Site Specific: 3.1.1 The site sits within an area not zoned for development or within a settlement boundary on the Area Plan for the East (Map 6 - Onchan). The site is not within a Conservation Area, although the site is the curtilage of a Registered Building RB 287 (which was registered in 2019). Whilst the site is not within a Registered tree Area, large parts of the site boundary abuts the Groudle Glen Designated Wildlife Site (4178/001). The site is not prone to flood risks.
3.2 Area: TAPE (2020) 3.2.1 The Character Appraisal within the Area Plan for the East states thus concerning the area - Conrhenny & Groudle (D3):
3.2.2 Landscape Strategy: "Conserve and enhance: a) the character, quality and distinctiveness of this area of relatively sparse settlement; b) its valley bottom woodland; c) its National Glens; d) the various archaeological features within the area.
Key Views: o Dramatic views to an Upland backdrop to the North and West. o Dramatic, panoramic views eastwards across the ever-changing colour and nature of the sea and sky, contribute to strongly recognisable sense of place. o Close and distant views to the northern edge of Onchan/ Douglas settlement, which is visually harsh in places. o Channelled views along the corridor of the Groudle River, which is enclosed in places."
3.2.3 Other relevant parts of the APE: 1. Paragraph 2.3.3: Table 4: Settlement Hierarchy and Policy Approach "Service Centre - Onchan: The Area Plan will define the development boundaries of such Centres so as to provide a range of housing and employment opportunities at a scale appropriate to the settlement." 2. Section 6.5: "Ensuring the efficient use of land and buildings 6.5.1 The density of development should be in keeping with the character of the local area. Higher densities will be more appropriate in the central areas of Douglas, Onchan, Laxey and Union Mills. Much of Douglas' celebrated seafront contains four and five storey hotels and
==== PAGE 4 ====
24/91152/GB Page 4 of 17
apartment blocks which provide a distinctive visual image of the Capital and a highly practical form of space conscious living for a modern town. 6.5.2 Lower densities may be considered more acceptable in instances where there are site specific constraints, a need to provide additional levels of infrastructure or where the current character or appearance of the area necessitates a development of a lower density. 6.5.3 The subdivision of buildings for residential use can provide an appropriate source of housing and can lead to the more efficient use of existing buildings. Subject to other Strategic Policies, as well as the Proposals in this Plan, particularly in relation to amenity and the design of any alterations to allow the subdivision, such proposals will be supported."
Urban Environment Proposal 3: "Development proposals must make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Traditional or contemporary approaches may be appropriate, depending upon the nature of the proposal and the context of the surrounding area."
Landscape Proposal 1 - Requires applications to demonstrate that consideration has been given to the broad landscape strategies and key views described throughout Section 4.7 of the Plan.
Urban Environment Proposal 3 - Requires development proposals to make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
Utilities Proposal 1 - Requires all development to be connected to the appropriate service and utility, which must be capable of receiving a new connection and sustaining it.
Section 6.8: The historic built environment "6.8.1 Local character and key features within the built environment, such as Registered Buildings and other heritage assets play a significant role in promoting economic and social prosperity by providing attractive living and working conditions. In addition, they provide economic opportunities through tourism, leisure and recreational uses. It is therefore essential that local character is safeguarded, particularly those features which fundamentally define the historic built environment in the East. Particularly: o the buildings and structures associated with the roles of Douglas and Laxey as historic seaside resorts; o the harbours of Douglas and Laxey; o the historic infrastructure of the Steam Railway, Electric Tramway and Horse Trams; and o the historic grain of Douglas and Laxey old towns, including their street layouts, town yards, plot sizes and landscape settings."
Paragraph 4.7.21
"Features, vistas and landscapes which are not included here (Chapter 4) are still important. Where applications for planning approval come forward for consideration outside settlements, it is required that each design response demonstrates how the landscape is understood, how the design responds to that landscape and how colours, materials and finishes are selected that are suitable and within the contextual setting. This Chapter does not elaborate on the character of urban landscapes of the East; protection and enhancement of these features can be found in Chapter 6 - Urban Environment."
3.3 National: STRATEGIC PLAN 3.3.1 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application: 1. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations 2. General Policy 3 - Exceptions to development in the countryside. 3. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources 4. Strategic Policy 2 - Development focussed in existing towns and villages 5. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to safeguard character of existing towns and villages.
==== PAGE 5 ====
24/91152/GB Page 5 of 17
6. Strategic Policy 4 - Development to protect or enhance setting of Registered Buildings, landscape quality and biodiversity, and not result in unacceptable environmental pollution 7. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact 8. Strategic Policy 10 - Sustainable transport 9. Strategic Policy 11 - Housing needs 10. Spatial Policy 2 - Identified Onchan as a Service centre and notes that the Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such centres so as to provide a range of housing and employment opportunities at a scale appropriate to the settlement. 11. Spatial Policy 5 - Building in defined settlements or GP3. 12. Environment Policy 1 - Protection of the countryside and inherent ecology. 13. Environment Policy 3 - Development to safeguard woodland of high amenity value 14. Environment Policy 4 - Protection of species and habitats 15. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats. 16. Environment Policy 32 - Extensions or alterations to a Registered Building which would affect detrimentally its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest will not be permitted. 17. Housing Policy 1 - Housing needs 18. Housing Policy 2 - Adequate supply of housing through Area Plans 19. Housing Policy 4 directs new housing to settlements other than in exceptional circumstances and cross references the policies which set those circumstances: o essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10; o conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and o the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14. 20. Transport Policy 3 - Seek to protect the historic rail routes around the Island. 21. Transport Policy 4 - Highway Safety 22. Transport Policy 7 - Parking Provisions 23. Infrastructure Policy 2 - Full details of all interim drainage arrangements for development in areas awaiting connection to IRIS shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Local Government and the Environment before development is commenced. 24. Other policies within the Strategic Plan which are considered relevant in the assessment of the proposal are; Infrastructure Policy 5 (water conservation and management), Community Policy 7 (designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour), Community Policy 10 (proper access for firefighting appliances) and Community Policy 11 (prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire). 25. Paragraph 11.2.5 of the IOMSP states: "The Island is fortunate to have an historic vintage rail network, which includes the Isle of Man Steam Railway, the Manx Electric Railway, the Snaefell Mountain Railway, the Groudle Glen Railway and the horse trams which run along Douglas Promenade. Development on or around the rail network should not compromise its attraction as a tourism and leisure facility or the potential for increased use as a public transport system, for example as a means of travelling to work."
3.4 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 3.4.1 S16 Registered buildings: supplementary provisions (3) In considering - (a) whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting, or (b) whether to grant registered building consent for any works, the relevant Department shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
3.5 PLANNING POLICY STATEMENTS 1/01: Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man
==== PAGE 6 ====
24/91152/GB Page 6 of 17
3.5.1 POLICY RB/3 "General criteria applied in considering registered building applications The issues that are generally relevant to the consideration of all registered building applications are:- o The importance of the building, its intrinsic architectural and historic interest and rarity, relative to the Island as a whole and within the local context;
o The particular physical features of the building (which may include its design, plan, materials or location) which justify its inclusion in the register; descriptions annexed to the entry in the register may draw attention to features of particular interest or value, but they are not exhaustive and other features of importance, (e.g. Interiors, murals, hidden fireplaces) may come to light after the building's entry in the register;
o The building's setting and its contribution to the local scene, which may be very important, e.g. Where it forms an element in a group, park, garden or other townscape or landscape, or where it shares particular architectural forms or details with other buildings nearby (including other registered buildings)."
3.5.2 POLICY RB/5 ALTERATIONS AND EXTENSIONS "In considering whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting and in considering whether to grant registered building consent for any works, the Department shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
Registered building consent is required for the building's alteration in any way which would affect its special architectural or historic character. There will be a general presumption against alteration or extension of registered buildings, except where a convincing case can be made, against the criteria set out in this section, for such proposals.
Applicants for registered building consent for alteration or extension to a registered building must be able to justify their proposals. They will be required to show why the works which would affect the character of the registered building are desirable or necessary and they should provide full information to enable the Department to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special architectural or historic interest of the building and on its setting. Where registered buildings are the subject of successive applications for alteration or extension, consideration will also be given to the cumulative effect upon the building's special interest as a result of several minor works which may individually seem of little consequence."
4.0 OTHER MATTERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 Residential Design Guide (2021) 4.1.1 This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.
4.2 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025) 4.2.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.
4.3 Manual for Manx Roads: Movement and Place Practitioner's Guide 4.3.1 The Manual for Manx Roads sets out the minimum requirements for vehicular visibility splays from driveways. The guide for achieving the required visibility splays are clearly illustrated in Section B.3 of the Manual. Paragraphs 5.2.37 and 5.2.38 of the manual relates specifically to visibility along the street edge from driveways, while paragraphs 5.2.39 and 5.2.40 refer to obstacles to Visibility.
==== PAGE 7 ====
24/91152/GB Page 7 of 17
4.3.2 Additionally, Paragraph C.7.30 (Table C.2) provides guidance on driveway parking space, while Paragraphs C.7.34 and C.7.35 (Table C.3) provides guidance on garages.
5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The following previous planning applications for the site are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application: 1. PA 13/00531/A for Approval in principle for conversion of existing building into permanent and or tourist apartments and provision of associated off road parking facilities - Approved.
PA 16/00523/B for Installation of a bio disc unit - Withdrawn. No further applications have been submitted for the biodisk, and there is no evidence of approval being granted for the biodisks on site.
PA 18/01300/A for Approval in principle to replace existing Hotel with five detached dwellings with off street parking - Refused. This application was refused for the following reasons:
"R1. The erection of five dwellings on this site would represent an unwarranted development in the Island's countryside and would be contrary to both the land use provisions of the Area Plan for the East 2020 and General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4 of the Island Strategic Plan 2016.
R2. The demolition of Groudle Glen Hotel which is a Registered Building given its established historical importance/interest and age and rarity to facilitate the development is considered wholly unacceptable and contrary to Environment Policy 10 and Strategic Policy 4 of the Island Strategic Plan 2016.
R3. The demolition of Groudle Glen Hotel would result in the loss of the building having substantial connections with the MER and The Groudle Glen Railway as well being a tourist attraction on its own contrary to Transport Policy 3.
R4. From the information submitted the Department considered the creation of five dwellings on this site would represent an overdevelopment of the site which would adversely affect the countryside/area setting and visual amenities of the area as a whole and Groudle Glen and therefore contrary to Environment Policy 1.
R5. There is insufficient information to demonstrate that ten off road parking spaces can be provided within the curtilage of each dwelling or that each parking space has or can have the required visibility splay and therefore the proposal would be likely to undermine highway safety contrary to Transport Policy 4 & 7 of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan 2016."
PA 19/00510/CON for Application for the de-registration of the former Groudle Glen Hotel (19/00287/REGBLD) in accordance with 7(1)(a) of the (Registered Buildings) Regulations 2013 - REFUSED at Appeal. (a) The application was refused on the following grounds:
"R 1. Following assessment of the application, taking into account the reasons put forward and considering these against the statutory requirements and the Operational Policy it is concluded that the information provided in the application is not sufficient to warrant deregistration of the building which is of architectural and historic interest."
(b) The Planning Inspector concluded that: "Conclusion 65. I conclude, on balance, that the Hotel possesses sufficient special architectural and historic interest, in terms of the relevant legislation and guidance, to justify its continued inclusion in
==== PAGE 8 ====
24/91152/GB Page 8 of 17
the Protected Buildings Register and that this appeal for its removal from the Register should therefore not succeed. 66. Finally, with respect to the proviso of the Operational Policy that for buildings dated after 1860, as in this case, progressive selection is necessary due to the larger numbers of buildings erected and surviving, I have seen no reasoned comparison with specific examples elsewhere on the Island to divert me from my conclusion that the appeal should fail."
6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
6.1 DOI Highways have made the following comments on the application (4 November 2024): 1. "The proposal would create a new dwelling adjacent to the existing Groudle Glen House. The new dwelling would be of more than two bedrooms, requiring the Strategic Plan parking standard of two vehicle spaces. Off-street parking has been provided to the dwelling in the form of an integral garage space and driveway/hardstanding spaces to the west of the proposed building. Additional consideration of highway aspects is required for the proposal.
The extent of the redline boundary of the proposal is taken to the kerb line of King Edward Road. The parking spaces created adjacent to the dwelling would require the whole length up to this red line boundary in order to meet the parking space requirements. The highway adoption map indicates that the extent of highway reaches the foot of the Groudle Glen House walls, with a footway provided between the house and the kerb line. This footway is continued past the parking apron. Therefore, the parking spaces indicated are overhanging the footway. This is not acceptable to Highways and alterations to the proposal are necessary.
On-street parking is present along Kind Edward Road as informal kerbside parking along the northern edge with no restriction. The proposed garage, placed between the new dwelling and Groudle Glen House, would see a minimum of two on-street spaces removed and potentially additional depending on the visibility achievable. Reconfiguration of the proposal to place the garage on the western side adjacent to the off-street spaces would reduce the impact on on-street parking. Manual for Manx Roads guidance requires minimum dimensions for a garage at 6m x 3m. The proposed plans fall sort of the length requirement by 10mm. If plans are retained and accepted as proposed, this shortfall in length requirement will be accepted by Highways. However, if the agent is to consider reconfiguration of the garage location, then the additional length to meet the 6m requirement should be provided.
Revised visibility splays will need to be provided for the reconfigured parking layout and in addition visibility splays should be provided from the garage access onto the highway. The on-street parking along King Edward Road is available on both sides of the proposed dwelling and off-street parking apron. When occupied this will lie within the visibility splays of the parking apron and garage. Manual for Manx Roads has provision for accepting parked cars within splays, and in this case where on-street parking is generally occupied infrequently and over a shorter period by visitors to the glen.
It should be noted that the visibility currently provided has been drawn incorrectly. The extent of the splay to the right on exit has been shown to the offside edge of carriageway. As shown, the visibility provided is not a true reflection as approaching vehicles in the nearside carriageway would be obscured from view. The revised visibility splay for the new layout should show visibility to the nearside edge of carriageway. Similarly, to the left on exit the splay should be measured to the nearside edge of carriageway to give the true indication of splay distance. However, in addition to the edge of carriageway line, an additional splay to the centre of the carriageway can be provided. Due to the presence of on-street parking along the northern edge of the road, and absence of on-street parking on the southern side, overtaking may be an unlikely occurrence at this section of Kind Edward Road.
==== PAGE 9 ====
24/91152/GB Page 9 of 17
6. The proposal has not provided any detail of bicycle parking. With the garage dimensions falling short of the standards for a single vehicle, additional space cannot be afforded for the storage of bicycles also. Manual for Manx Roads requirements for bicycle parking is one space per bedroom. This provision should be in a secure and covered area. Bicycle storage within the garage is acceptable provided there is sufficient space to house all transport options, this may require more than the MfMR standard of 6m x 3m.
The Applicant / Developer shall provide run off / surface water drainage where necessary to prevent water from flowing out onto or damaging the public road, such as where a driveway slopes down towards the road. Similarly, on construction of the vehicular access, the existing road drainage must either be retained or an effective alternative scheme provided at the Applicant's / Developer's expense on a satisfactory arrangement being drawn up and agreed with the Highway Services' Drainage team.
Alterations to the proposal are required to ensure compliance with Manual for Manx Roads standards and minimise the impact on the highway. The parking standard for the proposed dwelling is two spaces. With a garage provided, only one additional hardstanding space is required, and on-street availability can support visitor parking. This can be taken into account in the redesign of the proposal.
The following points should be addressed in revisions: o Alteration to the parking apron to ensure no overhanging of the public footway; o Consideration of reconfiguration of the garage to minimise impact to on-street parking and increase in length to 6m; o Revisions to the visibility splays for the new layout, with splay extent to the nearside edge of carriageway; o Provision of visibility splays from the garage; o Details of bicycle parking.
6.2 Onchan Commissioners have made the following comments on the application (25 November 2024): 1. The Commissioners recommend that the application be REFUSED on the grounds that:" The application does not evidence:- 2. Compliance with the Department of Infrastructure Manual for Manx Roads; 3. Compliance with the recommendation of the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture regarding bat habitat mitigation; and 4. Sufficient information relating to a suitable foul water discharge location.
6.3 The DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team have made the following comments on the application (14 November 2024): 1. They object on the basis that they feel that a bat survey is necessary in this circumstance and no information on the status of the property with regard to bats, has been provided. They state that they would remove this objection if a bat survey, from a qualified surveyor, were to show that there is a low risk to bats. 2. They request a bat survey covering the buildings that will be demolished, noting that these are extensions to an old building, and have themselves been there for quite a few years, and they also lie adjacent to woodland and close to a river. They therefore have potential attraction to bats and fall within the trigger criteria for bat surveys. 3. They state that bearing in mind the time of year, this could initially be a survey of risk to bats being present, by a qualified surveyor. Then, if there were low risk, this matter could be ticked off, but if significant risk, then a follow up activity survey may be required, in an appropriate season, which would form the basis, should a roost be found, of mitigation considerations (replacement roost). 4. They suggest possible conditions regarding a survey of the site.
==== PAGE 10 ====
24/91152/GB Page 10 of 17
6.4 The Groudle Glen Railway has made the following comments on the application (23 October 2024): 1. They object to the proposed development.
They note that they are a volunteer staffed charity that manage, maintain and operate the Groudle Glen Railway within the glen with their main access through the public entrance which adjoins the hotel, and believe the Groudle Glen Hotel is an intrinsic part of the unique history of the glen.
They note that as part of the original tourist development of the Glen, Richard Maltby Broadbent commissioned the building of the Hotel to house guests visiting the Groudle Glen attraction he had developed. It was granted registered status in reflection of its historical importance, not just architecturally but also its place in the significant tourist history of the establishment of the local area as a man-made glen and attraction.
They state that it is their opinion that the current plans proposed under the application represent the first step towards a full demolition and redevelopment of the site as per the application 18/01300/A which was refused in 2020, whilst noting that the proposed development is identical to the largest proposed dwelling in the original application and feel this application would not only permit a development that is out of character with the architecturally significant hotel, but also set a precedent for the site's full redevelopment with the existing hotel being permitted to fall into a further state of dereliction justifying future registering of the entire structure.
They note that such fundamental alteration of the Hotel site could have a significant adverse effect on the visitor appeal of both the Manx Electric Railway, our railway and the glen itself.
They note that the Hotel is believed to be one of the earliest examples of Baillie Scott architecture and they believe the demolition of any aspect of the Hotel and inappropriate development would be a significant loss to not just the local area but the island's heritage. It is an iconic building featuring in many of the earliest records of the Manx Electric Railway and Groudle Glen Railway and the proposed development would irrevocably damage the heritage of the area.
They state that notwithstanding their views about the history and character of the Hotel, they believe that the obvious modernity of the proposed dwelling is wholly out of character for this unique and historic setting. They also have considerable concerns about the lack of a driveway, especially as the approach to these properties on either side is of relatively limited visibility and traffic along the route is fairly heavy.
They state that Aside from the obvious detriment if the Hotel were demolished, they also have concerns that the proposed rear elevation for the properties will be extremely visible from the Glen itself and not at all in keeping with other properties in the area.
6.5 Manx Utilities Drainage have indicated that they have no comments to issue for the above mentioned planning application (29 November 2024).
6.6 DEFA Registered Building Officer has made the following comments on the application (6 December 2024): 1. These comments relate solely to the impact of these works on the special interest of the registered building and its setting, and do not make any judgement on any other material planning matters.
The single storey flat roof elements that are proposed to be removed as part of this application are not contemporary with the historic parts of the building. I judge these elements
==== PAGE 11 ====
24/91152/GB Page 11 of 17
to make no contribution to the arts and crafts style of the building, and as such I consider that their removal would cause no harm to the special interest. Indeed, the removal of these elements may allow the historic form of the building to be better appreciated, and as such their removal may represent a potential enhancement.
The details of the interactions with the historic building (the infill of existing openings and junctions with historic walls) do have the potential to impact the special interest, and as such the details of these elements will be conditioned as part of the concurrent registered building consent application in the event that this application is approved.
The proposed construction of a dwelling on the land to the west of the registered building has the potential to harm the setting of the building. Historically there have been detached buildings along the road to the east of the registered building of various forms and sizes. To the west, in the location for the proposed dwelling, there have been various outbuildings and outriggers associated with the hotel. These buildings on the eastern side have generally been single storey and clearly subordinate to the hotel itself, and the trees in the glen behind have formed much of the backdrop and setting of the hotel from this direction. The proposed dwelling within this application would introduce a building significantly larger than any other building that has previously been present on this part of the site. Given the style of the buildings along the road to the east of the former hotel, I consider that the design approach proposed for the new dwelling would be acceptable in terms of the character of the surrounding landscape/townscape. I do have concerns that the three storey element over 8.7m high sitting a little less than 2.7m away from the nearest point of the registered building would result in harm to the setting. However, I would consider this harm to be less than substantial as I judge the adverse impact would not seriously affect a key element of the special architectural interest.
On balance, I judge that the potential enhancement from the removal of the single storey flat-roof element would offset the potential harm to the setting that may result from the proposed dwelling. As such, overall I judge that the application would preserve the special architectural and historic interest of registered building 287 (the former Groudle Glen Hotel).
6.7 No comments have been received from neighbours.
7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this application are: 1. The Principle: Need for New Housing/Site Designation and Policies Providing for New Houses on un-allocated land (StP1, StP2, StP10, SP4, SP5, GP3); 2. Impact on the character and appearance of the Countryside (EP1, Para 4.3.11); 3. Impact on the Setting of the Adjacent Registered Building (GP2, SP 4, TP3, RB3 and RB 5, and Urban Environment Proposal 3 of the Area Plan for the East); 4. Impact on Residential Amenity of other properties (GP2 & RDG 2021); 5. Highway Issues (TP4, TP 5, TP 6 & TP 7); 6. Tree and Biodiversity Impacts (GP2, EP 4, STP 4); and 7. Drainage Matters (GP2j, IfP2, &Section 11.8)
7.2 THE PRINCIPLE (STP1, STP2, STP10, SP4, SP5) 7.2.1 The proposal should be judged against Environment Policy 1 which does protect the countryside for its own sake but with the knowledge that the site has permission for use as a hotel (as evident in the site history), although this use has not been active for a considerable amount of time. It is also considered that the site falls within the definition of previously developed land as articulated in the Strategic Plan. However, the site lies outside the boundary of any settlement and within the countryside, where Environment Policy 1 protects the rural landscape for its own sake, with Strategic Policy 2 and General Policy 3 resisting new development other than in specified exceptional circumstances. It is, however, worth noting
==== PAGE 12 ====
24/91152/GB Page 12 of 17
that while the Strategic Plan provides for exception for developments allowable in the countryside (under GP 3), the proposal does not fall within any of those categories.
7.2.2 The Strategic Plan indicates further presumption against new housing on land not zoned for development and within the countryside by stating that "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans"(HP 4), and these positions are reinforced by the Area Plan for the East. As has already been noted, the site sits outside the defined settlement boundary of Onchan and Douglas where priority for new housing is to be within the urban core or in sustainable extensions supported by the right infrastructure such as schools, health care provisions, open space, recreational facilities and utility services (See Paragraph 3.4.5 of the Area Plan for the East Written Statement, and Paragraphs 8.3.1 and 8.3.2 of the Strategic Plan ), and it is not considered that the current site meets any of these criteria, given its location in relation to the boundaries of Douglas and Onchan, and existing infrastructure within these settlements.
7.2.3 It should be noted that the current Area Plan (See Map 6 - Onchan) makes provision for new residential development in Onchan and does not include the current site. Furthermore, the Area Plan assesses housing need, by assessing the opportunities in the countryside in terms of the potential to add to any groups of houses and sustainability issues of such, and this does not in any way include the site or its immediate locality as a suitable site within group of houses in the countryside (see Paragraphs 12.5.1 and 12.5.2 of the Area Plan Written Statement). It is, therefore, considered that there is no local need for additional housing on the application site (which is a non-allocated sites, and any opportunities for such need should have be assessed through the Area Plan process, which in this case did not include the immediate locality.
7.2.4 Whilst the applicants may seek to rely on the arguments for the scheme as being within a previously developed land as sufficient justifications to allow the development, the exceptions contemplated by GP3 include the redevelopment of previously developed land containing significant existing buildings, where the continued use is redundant and the redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation and lead to improvement to the landscape and wider environment. In this case, it would be difficult to argue that the current scheme would meet these conditions as there is nothing within the submission to indicate that the site is redundant for its approved use; that the scheme would reduce the impact of the current situation, given that there would be an increase in the quantum of built development on site above the current situation; and there is nothing within the submission to suggest improvements to the landscape or wider environment. Besides, the allowance provided within Strategic Policy 1 for optimising the use of previously developed land does not bring any presumption in favour of further dwellings within an existing curtilage in the countryside, as the definition for 'Previously Developed Land' within the Strategic Plan expressly states that there is no presumption that the land which is previously-developed is necessarily suitable for housing or that the whole of the curtilage should be developed.
Retention/Alteration of existing property (HP15) 7.2.5 The removal of the newer extension to the existing property is considered acceptable in principle. Further, there is nothing to say that the existing property on site could not be adapted/extended to meet the need of future occupants on site (should that be required) without the need for an additional permanent residential unit on the site. Therefore, it is considered that there is no justification for the erection of the additional dwelling within the current setting on site, which would overcome the presumption against new housing in the countryside, and outwit the exemptions allowable under GP3, STP 2 and HP4, or serve as a reason to set aside the policy objections.
7.3 IMPACT UPON THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE AREA
==== PAGE 13 ====
24/91152/GB Page 13 of 17
7.3.1 In assessing the visual impacts of the proposal, it is considered that the proposed dwelling will be a prominent addition to the street scene. It is also noted that the current backdrop to the site area around the registered building is defined by the green backdrop created by the trees within the glen, which sits on both sides of the existing building on site. This green backdrop would be altered considerably by the new dwelling which would only sit about 2.6m away, about 11m wide and 8.7m tall, and would create a degree of impact on the rural landscape, such that the visual effect on the wider environment would be clearly noticeable, given the densification that would be introduced to the application site.
7.3.2 Crucially though, this additional built development would intensify the quantum of built development on the site, and at a part of the site that is clearly open. The effect is that the site is now more domestic and urban in both appearance and character than would be the case without the new dwelling. The impact is further exacerbated by the fact that the new dwelling does not relate effectively with the style of property on site. Whilst the appearance of the street scene in terms of buildings is varied, and there is another two storey flat roofed building on the opposite side of the registered building, the new building does not reflect the design and character of the existing building on site in terms of general appearance, roof design, window types, proportions and material finish (with the painted render finish also not reflective of the spar dash rendered finish of the Registered Building). Given its contemporary appearance and the use of materials which do not in any way relate to the main hotel building on site, it follows that the development fails to align with GP2(b) and (c), and STP 5.
7.3.3 Additionally, due to its mass, height, and considerably small separating distance between the new dwelling and the hotel building (2.6m), the new building would stand out and be particularly noticeable when viewed from the existing streetscape, mainly as there is no landscaping on site. It should be noted that the new dwelling would sit about 300mm taller than the property on site, and the design of the hotel building is such that its height decreases towards its sides, such that the stack tower style walls on the sides of the new building would be particular prominent. This would create a significantly dominant infill development set up within a small site area; resulting in a conspicuous feature in the local scene which would diminish the importance of the existing attractive Arts and Crafts style building which currently dominates the narrow site area, contrary to the requirements of General Policy 2 (b) which stipulates that new development should respect the site and surrounding in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them.
7.3.4 Further to the above, even if an exemption was made to allow the development on the grounds of the site being considered as a previously developed land the scheme would still fail the guidance offered within GP 3 (c) with regard to proposed development in the countryside on land that is considered a previously developed land, given the requirement that such redevelopment should reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment, whilst also resulting in improvements to the landscape or wider environment. It is not considered that spreading the built development on site as proposed would achieve the goals of General Policy 3 (c).
7.3.5 For these reasons, it is considered that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the site and this part of the countryside, and would be contrary to general Policy 3 (c), General Policy 2 (b and c), Strategic Policies 4(b).
7.4 IMPACT ON SETTING OF THE REGISTERED BUILDING 7.2.1 The Groudle Hotel is of clear architectural and historic interest being an important surviving building of the Groudle Glen, a 19th century pleasure glen developed by Richard Maltlby Broadbent for the developing tourist industry. This building is a part of the Glenside development created as part of the island's 19th century tourist industry. The building also reflects the historic development of the Manx Electric Railway and Groudle Glen as a tourist attraction. The limited size of the curtilage, although not referenced in the registration
==== PAGE 14 ====
24/91152/GB Page 14 of 17
document forms part of the historic setting of the hotel which reflects the islands tourist heritage. This small and narrow curtilage serves to reinforce the prominence of the building within its setting.
7.4.2 As this application proposes to alter the existing site layout which is the setting of the Registered building by erecting a new contemporary flat roofed building on site, which is taller than the former hotel building, and introduces materials that are not sympathetic to the existing character of the registered building, it is considered that the proposals clearly fail to protect or enhance the setting of the Registered Building (RB No. 287) and would fail the test within section 16 of the Act. As well, the proposal would be averse to the requirements of Strategic Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan, and Paragraphs 6.8.1 and 4.7.21 of the Area Plan for the East, as it does not respect the local character and distinctiveness of the site which would be more suited to traditional approaches and material, given the context of the sites setting.
7.4.3 The considerations above are hinged on the fact that the new contemporary styled dwelling would significantly alter the layout and profile of the site, as its mass would be visible and very dominant in close up and distant views, particularly when approaching the site from the west along the MER or adjoining highway. This new building would have its front elevation positioned in the same building line as the hotel, with its flat roof and the mature vegetation at the rear of the broader site area, making the proposed dwelling the only building noticeable when approaching from the west, and this will largely obscure the Registered building.
7.4.4 This design approach is not a sensitive design, as it does not replicate the style and form of the registered building, nor any of its key features, and the proposed positioning of the new dwelling will result in the new dwelling dominating the registered building from the western approach. It is therefore considered that the proposed dwelling will result in a negative visual impact to the setting of the registered building. This concern would be exacerbated by the fact that the limited and narrow grounds will result in this impact being particularly noticeable.
7.4.5 It is also important to consider that Policy RB/5 within Planning Policy Statement 1/01 states that applicants must be able to justify their proposals, by stating that applicants should provide full information to enable the Department to assess the likely impact of their proposals on the special architectural or historic interest of the building. In this case, the information within this application has not put forward any justification as to why a traditional approach which respects the setting of the registered building cannot be used to achieve the purpose of increasing the amount of living accommodation on site in a more subservient approach.
7.5 IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL AMENITY OF OTHER PROPERTIES 7.5.1 With regard to potential impacts on neighbouring amenity, the property most likely to be impacted by the new development would be the existing hotel building on site, given that it shares the site area with the proposed dwelling.
7.5.2 In assessing the potential concerns for this building, a key concern here is the potential for overbearing impacts and loss of light to occur due to the 2.6m proximity of the blank elevation of the new dwelling that would rise to about 8.7m where it abuts the former hotel building. However, there are no windows on the west elevation of the property to be impacted by the new dwelling. As such, overbearing and overshadowing (loss of light) would not result from the current proposal. The scheme would also not result in overlooking impacts due to there being no window on the east elevation of the new dwelling, and there are no windows on the west elevation of the existing hotel building.
7.5.3 No other properties sit within close proximity such that the new dwelling should impact on their amenity. Therefore, it is considered that any impacts on the amenity of neighbours would be minimal, and not sufficient to result in refusal of the development.
==== PAGE 15 ====
24/91152/GB Page 15 of 17
7.6 HIGHWAY ISSUES (GP2, TP7) 7.6.1 In terms of parking provisions for the scheme, it is noted that the scheme seeks to provide a 2.6m x 5m parking space within the site and a garage parking provisions measuring 5.9m x 3m, both of which would be below the required standard. It should be noted that the Manual for Manx Roads stipulates an onsite parking of at least 2.6m x 5.5m, while the minimum single garage standard is 6m x 3m. This would mean that vehicles parked in the garage and on-site parking space would more likely project onto sections of the adjoining highway, thus, it is not considered that the scheme as proposed aligns with Transport Policy 7. The proposal would also not take into cognisance the needs of pedestrians who would use the footways, and this would be contrary to the provisions of Transport Policy 6 which requires that similar weight be given to pedestrians as with vehicle users. This impact is further exacerbated by the fact that the extent of the redline boundary of the proposal is taken to the kerb line of King Edward Road, such that the parking spaces created adjacent to the dwelling would require the whole length up to this red line boundary in order to meet the parking space requirements. As the highway adoption map indicates that the extent of highway reaches the foot of the Groudle Glen House walls, with a footway provided between the house and the kerb line, the parking spaces provided would overhang the footway, and this would create a degree of conflict between vehicles entering or leaving the property and passing pedestrians, a condition that could be exacerbated by the presence of cars parked in front of the hotel or close to the entrance, as was noticed during the site visit.
7.6.2 The applicants have referred to the presence of the informal kerbside parking along King Edward Road as serving to offset the demand for parking in the area (as they state that there are plenty of road side parking to which can be utilised). However, the scheme currently proposed would see a minimum of two on-street spaces removed and potentially additional parking removed, depending on the visibility achievable (due to the placement of the building and garage). As such, it is considered that the current proposal would further diminish the available on-street parking provision in the area, which is not ideal. As the proposal would result in reduction in overall car-parking capacity for the area (and not net benefit in car parking provision), thus failing to align with the principles advocated by the Residential Design Guide (See Paragraph 6.3.8) and General Policy 2 (h).
7.6.3 Likewise, the site layout is such that there are no turning spaces within the site so vehicles would have to back out onto the highway or reverse before backing into the parking spaces; a condition that is likely to be detrimental to highway safety, given that the site is situated along a busy highway, and very close to a sharp bend where views are considerable restricted until vehicles reach the site boundary. With regard to the visibility when exiting the site onto King Edward Road, it is considered that this is also below the required stipulated in the Manual for Manx Roads, given that the walls of the building and the garage walls would limit views for drivers exiting the site and make it difficult for drivers to see approaching pedestrians and vehicles when existing in a forward direction, and this is further exacerbated by the fact that the highway is a major artery liking Douglas with Onchan. DOI Highways have expressed concerns with the site layout, which does not make adequate provisions for the required visibility form the site. Therefore, it is considered that the scheme as proposed would fail to comply with policy GP2 (h & i), and Transport Policies 4, 6, and 7 of the Strategic Plan, and the relevant sections of the RDG 2021.
7.7 TREES AND BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS 7.7.1 In terms of potential impacts of the development, it is noted that the new dwelling would sit particularly close to the existing trees within the Glen which spread over the site area, given the narrow nature of the site and the extent of the development which would reach the boundary of the glen. Notwithstanding, no tree information has been provided with the proposal. Therefore, it is considered that insufficient information has been provided to enable the assessment on tree impacts resulting from the proposal, and this conflicts with the provisions of Environment Policy 3, as there is no basis to ensure that the proposal would not result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas.
==== PAGE 16 ====
24/91152/GB Page 16 of 17
7.7.2 The potential impacts upon biodiversity of the site as a direct result of the proposed development are two-fold. Firstly, the scheme seeks to remove an old extension on a property which has been minimally occupied in recent years, and lies adjacent to woodland and close to a river, with potential to serve as attraction to bats, and as such falls within the trigger criteria for bat surveys, yet no survey has been submitted with the application. Secondly, the new dwelling would sit very close to existing trees within the glen, with potential to result in some impact on the adjoin trees, yet no assessment have been made to ascertain the potential of these mature trees and the surrounding vegetation to house protected biota, particularly as the site adjoins protected sites where it is required that new developments demonstrate that they would protect or enhance the nature conservation value of these sites. These concerns have been identified by the Ecosystem Policy Team who note that there is inadequate information provided with the application to assess these potential concerns. Therefore, it is considered that the scheme as currently proposed fails to align with the IoM Strategic Plans Strategic Policy 4 (b), and Strategic Objective 3.3 Environment (b).
7.8 DRAINAGE ISSUES 7.8.1 With regard to drainage for the site, it is considered that the proposal includes a drainage scheme that would be discharged into the existing drainage facility on site which includes the biodisc which serves the former hotel building. Following review of the submitted plans, the drainage scheme has been assessed by MUA Drainage who have stated that they have no comments to issue for the above mentioned planning application. As such, it is not considered that there are any concerns form MUA with regard to the drainage proposal.
7.8.2 Whilst the comments from the Onchan Commissioners that sufficient information relating to a suitable foul water discharge location is noted, the proposed plans clearly show that the proposed dwelling is to connect into the existing bio-disc which serves the Groudle Glen Hotel, and this has been assessed by the relevant authority, and is acceptable to the Department. As such, no further assessments would be made on the proposed drainage.
7.8.3 It is important to note that DOI Highways have referred to the need for drainage to be provided to ensure that surface water does not drain from the new hardstanding areas for parking onto the adjacent public highway, and no details have been provided within the current scheme to show how this would be achieved. A condition could, however, be attached to address this concern.
7.9 OTHER MATTERS 7.9.1 No further concerns are identified.
8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 The application is considered to be contrary to Strategic Policy 2, Housing Policy 4, General Policy 3, and Environment Policy 1 of the Strategic Plan (2016) which guide new housing (development) in the countryside, and no 'other material considerations' have been identified that would outweigh these formally adopted policies which should be afforded significant weight having been informed by public consultation public inquiry and adoption by Tynwald.
8.2 The proposal is also considered to result in adverse impacts on the setting of the registered building, and the surrounding countryside, parking and highway safety, and it is not clear what the impacts on the adjacent trees and biodiversity would be, due to the lack of supporting information to ascertain these impacts.
8.3 Therefore, on balance, given the weight assigned to the zoning of the site, ecological considerations, the need for developments to respect the character of the site and locality to which they are to be established, and the need for developments to provide appropriate parking and safe access onto public highways, the application is recommended for refusal, as it
==== PAGE 17 ====
24/91152/GB Page 17 of 17
would fail the requirements of General Policy 2 (b, c, d, h & i), Strategic Policies 2, 4(b), and 5, Housing Policy 4, Environment Policies 3; section 16 of the Town and Country Act 1999; Policies RB/3 and RB/5 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01; and the relevant sections of the Residential Design Guide 2021.
9.0 RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE 9.1 The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 sets out the process for determining planning applications (including appeals). It sets out a Right to Appeal (i.e. to submit an appeal against a planning decision) and a Right to Give Evidence at Appeals (i.e. to participate in an appeal if one is submitted).
9.2 Article A10 sets out that the right to appeal is available to: o applicant (in all cases); o a Local Authority; Government Department; Manx Utilities; and Manx National Heritage that submit a relevant objection; and o any other person who has made an objection that meets specified criteria.
9.3 Article 8(2)(a) requires that in determining an application, the Department must decide who has a right to appeal, in accordance with the criteria set out in article A10.
9.4 The Order automatically affords the Right to Give Evidence to the following (no determination is required): o any appellant or potential appellant (which includes the applicant); o the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture, the Department of Infrastructure and the local authority for the area; o any other person who has submitted written representations (this can include other Government Departments and Local Authorities); and o in the case of a petition, a single representative.
9.5 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 the Right to Appeal.
__
I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded interested person status and/or rights to appeal.
Decision Made : Refused Date: 17.12.2024
Determining Officer Signed : J SINGLETON
Jason Singleton
Principal Planner
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the office copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online service/customers and archive record.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal