Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00547/B Page 1 of 28
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. 21/00547/B Applicant : Haven Homes Proposal Erection of a single detached residential dwelling with integral garage Site Address Land In Front Of Bay View Hotel Between Shore Road Underway And Bay View Road Port St. Mary Isle Of Man
Case Officer :
Mr Hamish Laird Photo Taken :
05.09.2023 Site Visit :
05.09.2023 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee
Recommendation
Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 08.12.2023
Conditions and Notes for Approval
C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.
Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals. The site benefits from an extant planning permission PA10/01892/B - Erection of two dwellings with integral garages and associated visitor parking - Permitted - 26.04.2011. The car parking area on the beach side of the Underway has been verified by DEFA Planning as having been implemented and the time limit condition on this permission has been satisfied.
C 2. No work shall be carried out on in relation to the construction of any of the external surfaces of the dwelling hereby permitted unless details of the materials, colour and finish (including the provision of samples of brick, stone and slate; and, water resistant membranes) to be used for all external walls and roofs have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development hereby permitted shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the use of materials appropriate to the development in order to safeguard the visual amenities of the area, in accordance with policy GP2 in the Adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).
C 3. The vehicle parking spaces shown provided for the development, hereby permitted, both within and outside the garage as shown on Drawing No. 1512 001.01 Revision X - Site Plan - as proposed; and, Drawing No. 1512 001.02 Revision X - Proposed Floor Plans, Elevations and Sections - stamped received and dated 7 November, 2023, shall be provided prior to the first occupation of the dwelling and shall thereafter be retained and made available for vehicle parking at all times.
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00547/B Page 2 of 28
Reason: To ensure that sufficient on-site parking is provided to serve the development in order to avoid unnecessary on-street parking as per the requirements of the Manual for Manx Roads and Transport Policy 7 in the Adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016).
C 4. The windows to be inserted in the north elevation of the development, hereby permitted, serving the first floor bedroom and bathroom; second floor living room (2 windows); shall be glazed with obscure glazing at no less than Level 5 (greatest obscuration) on the Pilkington Scale of obscurity, with all windows being fixed and non-opening. Thereafter, these windows shall be retained as fixed non-opening units with obscure glazing at Level 5 for the lifetime of the development.
Reason: To protect the amenities of occupants of the adjoining dwelling at Willow Cottage, the Underway, Shore Road, in respect of any potential for overlooking and loss of privacy.
C 5. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of a landscape shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. All planting, seeding, and earth works comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and season (November - March) following the substantial completion of the development whichever is the sooner, and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. Thereafter, all soft and hard landscape works shall be permanently retained in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development, and to safeguard the appearance of the development and the surrounding area.
C 6. The development, hereby approved, shall not be commenced until details of a 'Construction Environment Management Plan' (CEMP), which details on-site management measures that would protect the Baie Ny Carrickey Marine Nature Reserve (MNR), which is located only 15m to the east of the development site, during all phases of the development, where all environmental legislation and policy is adhered to, and will need to include at least the following measures to be put in place to prevent damage and disturbance to the MNR. Such measures must include:
o The provision of spill kits, o The provision of secure storage areas away from the MNR, o The use of biodegradable oils; o The use of oil and silt interceptors; o Detailed measures outlining good waste management and litter prevention on and around the site;
All works carried out during the construction period shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the details outlined in the approved CEMP.
Reason: To provide adequate safeguards in terms of site management during all phases of the development period including any works of demolition, excavation and construction, because Baie Ny Carrickey Marine Nature Reserve (MNR) is located 15m to the east of the development site, and there is potential for damage to the MNR, should responsible construction practises not be implemented.
C 7. Prior to the commencement of the development, hereby permitted, updated elevations shall be submitted showing the positions of:
o 4 integrated universal nest bricks - which must not be located directly above windows;
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00547/B Page 3 of 28
o 2 integrated bat boxes on the south elevation which must not be located close to the ground or above opening windows; o An integrated bee brick on the south elevation;
Such details as approved, shall subsequently be installed prior to the first occupation of the dwelling; and shall thereafter be retained and maintained for the life time of the development.
Reason: In the interests of improving the biodiversity of the site and development and for the conservation and protection of legally protected species, in accordance with the requirements of the Wildlife Act 1990 and Environment Policies 4 and 5 in the Adopted Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
C 8. Prior to the commencement of development on site, including any works required for excavation, protective 'Heras' fencing shall be erected around the mature elm tree on site to be retained where it abuts the areas of development. The protective fencing should be installed to form a construction exclusion zone in accordance with BS5827:2012. Such fencing shall be retained in the positions shown throughout the construction period for the development, hereby permitted. At no time before, during or after the construction period, when the fencing has been removed, shall any construction materials, machinery, liquids or fuel be stored within any of the 'Construction Exclusion Zones' shown and annotated as such on the Tree Protection Plan.
Reason: To ensure that the mature elm tree to be retained on the site is protected throughout the construction period.
C 9. Details of foul and surface water drainage provision to serve the development, hereby approved, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by DEFA Planning. Such approved drainage scheme shall be installed prior to the development hereby permitted being first occupied and shall thereafter be retained and maintained at all times.
Reason: To ensure that the site is adequately drained and does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.
C 10. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling, including the installation or replacement of any windows or doors, hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
C 11. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected or enclosure, swimming or other pool, container for domestic heating purposes for storage of oil of liquid petroleum gas, or the erection of a gate, fence, wall or other means of enclosure, within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
C 12. Prior to the first use of the garage as part of the dwelling, hereby approved, provision for the charging of electric vehicles shall be made within the structure of the garage, and shall thereafter be maintained for the lifetime of the development.
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00547/B Page 4 of 28
Reason: The provision of an electric vehicle charging point will aid net zero objectives as outlined in the Isle of Man Climate Change Plan (2022 - 2027).
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. The proposed scheme would be an acceptable form of development that has been designed to ensure that it would not harm the use and enjoyment of neighbouring properties and would comply with General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; and, the principles of the Residential Design Guide 2021.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to the following drawings and documents date stamped and received 17 May, 2021, and amended plans and details received on 7 November, 2023, unless otherwise stated:
Drawing No. 1512-001.00 Site Location Plan and Proposed Visibility Splays - stamped received and dated 17 May, 2021; Drawing No. 1512.001.01 Rev. X - Proposed Site Plan - stamped received and dated 7 November, 2023; Drawing No. 1512.001.02 Rev. X - Proposed Floor Plans, Roof Plan and Elevations - stamped received and dated 7 November, 2023; Drawing No. 1512.001.05 Rev. X - Proposed Elevation Finishes and Provisions - stamped received and dated 7 November, 2023;
__
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should be given Interested Person Status because they comply with the requirements of The Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2021), in that they are occupants of a property sited within 20 metres of the red line boundary of the application site and 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 4(2) Proximity to the Proposed Development (Criteria B):
Willow Cottage, The Underway, Shore Road, Port St Mary, IM9 5DY
as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 4.2.2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2021), in that their property is located within 20 metres of the application site, and they have raised relevant planning points in their objection to DEFA Planning.
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties should not be given Interested Person Status because they do not comply with the requirements of The Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2021), in that they are occupants of properties sited more than 20 metres from the red line of the application site as mentioned in Article 4(2) Proximity to the Proposed Development (Criteria B):
Brier Cottage, 3 Willow Terrace, Port St Mary, The Hon Juan Watterson MHK Dr Michelle E K Haywood MHK for Rushen 'Baycrest', 3 Primrose Terrace, Port St Mary, 'Avoca', 7 Primrose Terrace, Port St Mary,
__
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00547/B Page 5 of 28
Officer’s Report
THIS APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NUMBER OF LOCAL OBJECTIONS; THE OBJECTION OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY; THE SITES PLANNING HISTORY; AND, THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The site represents a piece of undeveloped land which lies between Bay View Road, opposite the Bay View Hotel, and Shore Road between the Garden of Remembrance/War Memorial and Willow Cottage. The site has a frontage to Bay View Road of 32m and a depth of 18m. To the immediate north of the site is a set of public steps giving access from Shore Road Underway to Bay View Road. The site has vegetation on it at present including a large elm tree which is plotted on the proposed site plan. Also within the site is a piece of land on the shore- side of the road, to a depth of between 4.3m and 1.8m, along a length of 24.5m. A piece of land alongside Bay View Road is shown in blue and indicated "existing garden area to be retained".
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 This latest application proposes the development of a single detached residential dwelling with integral garage. Amended plans were received on 07.11.2023. The new building will be 9.65m high from Shore Road to the top of the ridge. The level of Bay View Road is approx. 0.75m above this.
2.2 Two trees - a prunus and a smaller tree to the north are to be removed: the elm at the northern end of the site is to be retained although care will have to be taken to protect the tree whilst works are being undertaken.
2.3 Across Shore Road parking in the form of a tarmacadam parking area to accommodate three vehicles annotated for visitors, would be provided. This area is presently covered in beach shingle. The works to create the parking bay involve the building up of the level of the parking area by at most 210mm with stainless steel rock anchors inserted into the bedrock below. The face to the beach is to be formed by a sloping stone faced slab.
2.4 Accompanying the amended plans was a covering letter which (in part) advises as follows:
"3 The general arrangement of the floor plans remains essentially the same as originally submitted:- 0) The ground floor comprises an entrance hall, a double garage and a gym. This floor's short front-to-rear length minimises encroachment into the topography behind, reduced from that of the extant approval. Habitable spaces have been arranged within larger volumes at first floor and above, with none to the smaller ground floor. The hall provides access to the upper storeys by a stair well and a lift. The garage will alternatively be capable of providing secure bicycle storage as existing car parking spaces, on the opposite side of Shore Road, are in the site's common ownership. The gym will contain a shower room and sauna.
The first floor extends further back, again following topography. The stair well ascends to a sitting room, with framed views of the Harbour's seascape. This space is flanked by a bedroom suite on each side, and a utility room behind the lift. The stair well admits roof-level natural light to the rear of the lower levels, also achieving a visual connection through the building's whole height.
The second floor is the largest, differing from that originally submitted with an additional footpath to the rear (west) elevation. This maintains, but repositions, the alternative access to the dwelling via the kitchen. The internal stairwell terminates onto a dining room, with a smaller connecting balcony than previously shown, now set back considerably and reducing the
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00547/B Page 6 of 28
dwelling's perceived massing when viewed from Shore Road. The rear space accommodates an office and an adjoining store room. The dining room is flanked on one side by a master bedroom suite, and on the other by an open-plan kitchen and living space.
r) At roof level, the rear footpath will provide access to a roof terrace, compensating for the reduced external space of the second floor balcony. This terrace will also accommodate two air- source heat pumps.
4 The more pronounced changes are in the treatment of the proposal's external envelope, particularly the more traditional roof form:-
a) The structural strategy remains articulated on the front elevation, with four walls standing perpendicular to the hillside, dividing the dwelling into three volumes. These three volumes now take the form of two gable-ended elements bridged with a central circulation space.
b) The first floor of the central space projects forwards as before (again, not to such an extent as originally submitted). This takes the form of an elevated stone clad element framing a sheltered entrance below and supporting the dining room's balcony above. The vertical orientation of the three feature windows is emphasised with external band mouldings, emulating the windows of the stone-built terrace to the north, as seen on the updated comparative photomontages provided.
c) The pitched roofs will be finished in roofing slate, with the same finish extending to the south and north elevations. This alludes to several traditional Manx buildings, past and present that also employed roofing slate as a wall cladding material. Examples include houses that once stood on Church Street in Ramsey where St. Paul's Square is now situated and, more prominently, Bridge House and adjoining properties in Castletown" - (photographs to illustrate these sites included and available to view online).
3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 The site lies within an area designated for mixed use purposes as shown on Map 7 - Port Erin/Port St Mary/Ballafesson - in the Area Plan for the South (2013). It does not lie within any formally designated Conservation Area; and, there are no Registered Buildings on or adjoining the site. The Elm tree on the site, which is a prominent feature in the landscape when viewed from the Underway and the harbour, is not a Registered Tree. The shore line and carriageway of the Underway are shown on the DoI Indicative Flood Risk Map for the area as being a High Risk Flood Zone in relation to possible tidal flooding. The Baie Ny Carrickey Marine Nature Reserve (MNR) is located 15m to the east of the development site.
3.2 Given the above, there is a presumption in favour of residential development here, subject to the general standards of development as set out in General Policy 2 as follows:
"Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/00547/B Page 7 of 28
(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. "
3.3 Other Policies contained in the Strategic Plan which are of relevance are:
Strategic Objective 3.3 Environment (b) - "To protect, maintain and enhance the built and rural environment (including biodiversity)."
Strategic Policy 4b) - 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 Interest and other designations;
EP10 - Outlines the requirements for a flood risk assessment; EP11 - Provides advice on coastal development; EP13 - advises that: "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted."; EP24 - Provides advice on pollution-sensitive development;
With regard to proposals for development on unstable land, paragraphs 7.22.1; and 7.22.2, are of relevance and precede the advice contained in EP 28.
"7.22 Unstable Land 7.22.1 The policy set out below aims to safeguard life and property from ground instability such as landslips and subsidence. Therefore, unless mitigating measures can be taken, development will not be permitted where it would be at risk from unstable land or increase the risk of ground instability elsewhere.
7.22.2 It may be necessary for a developer to undertake a specialist investigation and assessment to identify any remedial measures required to deal with ground instability. It may also be appropriate to carry out monitoring after the development has taken place. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the developer to ensure that land is safe and suitable for development. Whilst the Department will try to ensure that a development will not be put at unacceptable risk, the subsequent liability for safe development and secure occupancy of a site rests with the developer and / or landowner."
EP28 - Provides advice on development which would be at risk from ground instability, and reads:
"Development which would be at risk from ground instability or which would increase the risk from ground instability elsewhere will not be permitted unless appropriate precautions have been taken."
EP42 - Provides advice on the impact of new development on the character and identity of a site and its surroundings;
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/00547/B Page 8 of 28
3.4 The advice contained in the following sections in the Isle of Man Residential Design Guide
Section 2.0 - Sustainable Construction 2.2 Construction Materials 2.3 Building Design 2.4 Climate Change Resilience 2.5 Contributing to the Local Environment 2.6 Pleasant, Healthy, Safe, and Inclusive Spaces
Section 3.0 New Homes 3.1 Local Distinctiveness 3.2 Dwelling Types, Tenures and Uses 3.3 Transport Issues 3.4 Private and Public Space
Elements in other Sections of relevance are: 6.2 Trees 7.3 Loss of Light/Overshadowing 7.4 Overbearing Impact upon Outlook 7.5 Overlooking Resulting in a Loss of Privacy
4.0 PLANNING HISTORY (OLDEST FIRST) 4.1 Planning permission was sought and refused for the principle of the erection of a two bedroomed dwelling on the site under PA 87/0277. The reasons for refusal are unknown as the microfiche of the file is missing from the system. Planning permission was more recently submitted, PA 08/2321 for the erection of three dwellings on the site with access from Bay View Road and was refused for the following reasons:
"R 1. Whilst the site lies within an area designated as Predominantly Residential on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 and therefore there should be a presumption in favour of residential development in accordance with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan, in this case, the proposal would not respect the scale, form or landscaping of the buildings around the site as the building stretches from Bay View Road to Shore Road with an incongruous access and parking area alongside Bay View Road and a very tall frontage immediately alongside Shore Road, neither of which is sympathetic to the form of development in the vicinity. As such the proposal would not accord with General Policy 2b or 2c.
R 2. The proposed building by virtue of its height in relation to Bay View Road would obscure and adversely affect public views of the sea contrary to General Policy 2e and obscure public views of the harbour contrary to the interests of public amenity and the charm and character of Port St. Mary.
R 3. The provisions for car parking are inadequate in terms of numbers of spaces and it has not been demonstrated that the lack of sufficient parking would not result in an adverse impact on car parking within the vicinity, as required by Appendix Seven sub paragraph d of the Strategic Plan. In any case, the parking spaces are not sufficiently spaced to enable a full sized vehicle to be able to manoeuvre in and out within the site, exacerbating the deficiency in the number of spaces referred to above. Furthermore, insofar as it may be determined from the drawings, the provisions for access do not include satisfactory visibility for drivers of vehicles emerging from the site as the parking area and access are below the level of the road and the inclusion of the boundary wall will obscure drivers' visibility. The proposal therefore fails to comply with General Policy 2h and 2i.
==== PAGE 9 ====
21/00547/B Page 9 of 28
R 4. The proposal contains no information about either the stability of the site or measures to be taken to ensure that the site can withstand the proposed works without compromising the stability of the cliff face onto which the building is to be constructed. As such the proposal fails to accord with General Policy 2l and Environment Policy 28.
R 5. There is insufficient information included within the application for the Committee to be able to be satisfied that surface water from the site may be disposed of in an acceptable manner.
O 1. It should be noted that there are inconsistencies in the plans submitted in respect of windows which are shown on the front elevation but not on the plans. In addition, the plans indicate that the existing wall at the front of the site is to be retained. It is most unlikely that in the construction of the buildings and the engineering of the site to accommodate the development, this wall could possibly be retained and as such it is extremely doubtful that the development could be undertaken as shown, if approved."
An application was then submitted for the erection of two dwellings under PA 09/01295/B. This was permitted by the Planning Committee and recommended for approval by the Inspector at appeal but refused by the acting Minister for the reason that:
"The proposed parking lay-by on the seaward side of the road would constitute an essential element of the overall development, without which the development would be inadequately provided with parking space; there are not in the submitted application any details of the retaining structure, the underlying foundation, or the precise dimensions of the lay-by; in the absence of such details, it is not possible to assess this element of the proposal; it is thus not possible to grant approval for either the lay-by or the complete development.
NOTE: This decision is without prejudice to the submission of a further application which includes full details of the proposed lay-by."
4.2 10/01892/B - Erection of two dwellings with integral garages and associated visitor parking - Permitted - 26.04.2011. Appeal Lodged 09.05.2011. Appeal Dismissed and PLANNING APPLICATION APPROVED 18.10.2011.
4.3 PA 09/00364/B - involved the development of a nearby site at nearby site at Rock Cottage Shore Road Underway Port St. Mary via the erection of two dwellings (comprising amendments to PA's 06/00868B and 07/00938B) including provision of a roadside terrace, alterations to bay and balconies, external staircase, drainage plan, revised rear access, and boundary walls and gates. The application was approved on 24/07/2009, and the dwellings have since been built.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS 5.1 The 2008 application generated objections from 28 private individuals, Port St. Mary Commissioners, Department of Transport Highways and Traffic Division. Manx National Heritage raised no objections but made comments regarding the height of the roof and the amenities of those using the memorial garden. They suggested that the area of archaeological interest, commented on by others, is further north than this site.
5.2 In respect of this application the 2010 application there were objections from 9 private individuals.
5.3 These objectors raised a number of concerns including the instability of the site and risk of collapse of the bank, the scale and design of the buildings, additional traffic along Shore
==== PAGE 10 ====
21/00547/B Page 10 of 28
Road which cannot satisfactorily accommodate additional vehicles, inadequate car parking provided, the suitability of the shore-side parking, the loss of valuable green space and wildlife habitat, and the loss of the trees and potentially the elm which will be very close to the proposed building and excavation works. Some local residents had also experienced considerable periods of disturbance whilst other works have been undertaken along Shore Road.
5.4 The Hon Juan Watterson MHK wrote in to object to the application on the basis that it represents a green space which should not be developed and that the appearance of the development is inappropriate for its context
5.5 Comments on the 21/00547/B current application as originally submitted are outlined below. Subsequent to the receipt of the amended plans on 7/11/23, all previous consultees and third parties (neighbours) previously notified were re-notified with a 21 day period in which to comment. These are also added below the (where appropriate) original comments received:
5.6 Port St Mary Commissioners - (03.06.2021) - commented: "The Board objected on the grounds that the proposed development is not in keeping with the neighbouring cottages which adversely affect the streetscape. The building is the wrong design in a conservation zone. It would sit poorly in the landscape, with the winged roof being out of keeping with the pitched roofs of surrounding properties. So are the overly large windows. The development would be vulnerable to flooding thus contravening Environmental Policy 13"
Port St Mary Commissioners - (30.09.2021) - commented: 'Noted' in respect of amended plans received.
No comments have been received from Port St Mary Commissioners in respect of the 7/11/23 amended plans.
5.7 DOI Highways - (09.06.2021) - commented: "The application is acceptable in terms of highways, on taking account of the two parking spaces off Shore Road Underway as being available to serve this property and meeting the Strategic Plan minimum car parking requirements of two-spaces. Arguably these should be included in the red line due to the submission indicating that these are to be available for the proposed dwelling. Should this not be the case please re-consult us. The proposed double garage measures approximately 5.6m x 5.2 m, below the Manual for Manx Roads minimum requirements of 6m x 6m. Notwithstanding, it would be suitable for one vehicle and the storage of bicycles and other items. The layby would facilitate turning to and from the garage. The garage should be retained for its stated purpose and an electric vehicle charging point should be considered. On provision of the garage a new access would be created and a Section 109(A) Highway Agreement would be necessary to form the connection. The visibility splays have been drawn to 17m in each direction form the garage. Whilst this is meeting the minimum requirement for the speed limit on Shore Road, visibility splays should be drawn to their full extent.
There should not be undue conflict with pedestrians. Whilst there would be an increase in traffic, this is not considered to have an excessive, adverse impact on walkers using the long distance footpath. Accordingly, the proposal raises no significant highway safety issues to allow Highway Services to raise no opposition subject to use of the layby and conditions for the formation of a new access to serve the garage to accord with drawings No. 1522 001.01 and 1512 001.02 and garage retention. An advisory for a S109(A) Highway Agreement to apply too. Recommendation: DNOC - Do not oppose subject to conditions"
DOI Highways - (24.09.2021) - commented: "Highway Services note the amendments uploaded on 21st September 2021 and advise that we have no further comment to add to that those made on 9th June 2021."
==== PAGE 11 ====
21/00547/B Page 11 of 28
DOI Highways - (23.11.2023) - commented: "Previous Highways response dated 09/06/2021 had no objection to the submitted proposals. The revised plans primarily address planning concerns with minimal changes to access arrangements. Vehicular access to the ground floor garage is to remain in the same position, which achieves an acceptable visibility splay for 'the underway' road. The size of the garage means that bicycle storage can still be accommodated internally. The planning application originally submitted outlined that permission for the parking bays opposite the site is still extant and approval is not required within this application, despite being integral to the parking provision of the application. Provided the parking bays are constructed, these along with the garage parking will provide sufficient off-street parking to meet the Strategic Plan minimum requirement.
Highways Development Control continue to raise no objection to the proposal subject to the construction and use of the layby opposite. The Applicant is advised that a S109(A) Highway Agreement is needed after the grant of planning consent.
Recommendation: DNOC - Do not oppose subject to conditions"
5.8 No comments have been received from DOI Highways in respect of the 7/11/23 amended plans.
5.9 DOI - Flood Risk Management Division - commented on 4 separate occasions -
(08.06.2021) - "Do not oppose"
(12.10.2021) - "DEFER - Please provide a detailed Flood Risk Assessment"
(09.12.2021) - "OPPOSE - The results of the submitted Flood Risk Assessment are not acceptable. FRM require a 1in 200 + 30% risk assessment and that it will (exceed) an estimated freeboard of 600mm. The FRA does not address emergency exit during a major weather event nor the effects of overtopping. Flood maps are currently being commissioned by the Flood Management Division to model the effects of costal overtopping."
(17.02.2022). "Do not oppose subject to condition(s)
FMD recommend that the finished ground floor level be set at 600mm above the 1 in 200 plus climate change flood level of 4.79mAD02. In line with industry guidance."
5.10 No comments have been received from DOI Flood Risk Management Division in respect of the 7/11/23 amended plans.
5.11 DEFA- Forestry - (15/06/2021) commented: "I would like to make the following comments in relation to application 21/00547/B (Land in front of Bay View Hotel) on behalf of the Agriculture and Lands Directorate of DEFA.
The large elm tree on the northern side of the plot, adjacent to the neighbouring property, Willow Cottage, is a prominent feature in the landscape when viewed from the Underway and the harbour. It contributes to the character of the area and has a high amenity value. Due to its size, however, it is likely to be viewed as overbearing by the current (or future) residents of Willow Cottage; the tree shades the property and is likely to cause apprehension due to a perceived risk of failure, which would cause damage to the property. Long term retention could be viable, but to manage the aforementioned conflicts, a phased crown reduction would be required with an on-going cycle of maintenance to control the size of the tree and reduce its impact on the neighbouring property.
==== PAGE 12 ====
21/00547/B Page 12 of 28
It is worth noting that the rooting area to the north is restricted by the retaining wall and steps so the root protection area (BS5837:2012) for this elm tree should be off set in to the site.
The elm tree is shown as being retained on the proposed site plan (drawing 001.01) but I think that given the scale of the proposed construction project and the excavation required, successfully retaining this tree is not a realistic prospect, to the extent that I wouldn't even request an impact assessment, protection plan or method statement, as it would be a waste of time and unnecessary expense. It is my view that there are 2 options available to you as the planning authority:
Accept that removal of the tree is highly likely and base your assessment of the impact of the proposed development on this basis.
Recommend to the applicant/agent that the footprint of the building is reduced to increase the distance between the building and tree and improve the chances of successfully retaining it in the long term; request amended plans, an arboricultural impact assessment and a tree protection plan to support the application.
I do not object to the removal of other small scrubby trees on the site."
5.12 DEFA - Biodiversity Policy Officer - has commented on 4 separate occasions:
(15/06/2021) Aerial photographs and photographs provided with the application show that this plot is currently an area of shrubs, grass and trees in a relatively built up area in Port St Mary. The land will be supporting a variety of biodiversity such as feeding, sheltering and breeding birds and invertebrates, and providing a refuge for wildlife in an otherwise urban area. Urban vegetation has the additional benefits of absorbing noise, reducing temperatures through shading, reducing atmospheric pollution and absorbing and storing carbon; and in this location, providing a filter for pollutant runoff to the neighbouring Baie Ny Carrickey Marine Nature Reserve, benefits for people, wildlife and the environment. Though a nesting bird survey has not been undertaken (and is not requested), the area is also likely to currently support nesting house sparrows, which are protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife Act 1990, and are a species listed on the UK Red List of Conservation Concern that require urgent conservation action. The new dwelling will take up almost the entirety of the plot and leave virtually no green space on site and therefore, as presented, the development will result in the loss of nature conservation value, contrary to Strategic Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and Action 21 of the Biodiversity Strategy.
Strategic Objective 3.3 Environment (b) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 is 'to protect, maintain, and enhance the built and natural environment (including biodiversity)' and Strategic Policy 4 (b) is 'protect or enhance the nature conservation and landscape quality of urban as well as rural areas'.
In 2013 the Isle of Man Government signed up to the International Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) and in 2015 published a Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025 that set out the aims, objectives ad actions to meet the obligations of the CBD. Habitat loss action 21 under the Biodiversity Strategy is 'DEFA will continue to promote a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for'.
Therefore the Ecosystem Policy Team request that prior to determination of the application, the applicant provides details and drawings (including location and specifications) of proportionate ecological mitigation/compensation which will be integrated onto site to make up for the loss of green space. Alternatively, a condition should be secured for this applicant to provide this information to Planning for written approval prior to works commencing on site.
==== PAGE 13 ====
21/00547/B Page 13 of 28
We recommend that the following measures are incorporated on site:
Swift nest bricks be installed high up underneath the eaves of the eastern northern/northern. Swift bricks can be substituted for normal building bricks and therefore the visual impact will be minimal. If installed on the northern elevation the boxes should be located as far east as possible to allow a suitable height between the nest bricks and the ground (see approximate locations for the swift bricks marked in red in the following image). Swifts are communal nesters and therefore we recommend more than 1 nest brick be installed on the property;
Bat bricks be installed high up on the southern elevation of the new property, away from artificial light from windows. Bat bricks can be substituted for normal building bricks and therefore the visual impact will be minimal (see approximate locations for the bat bricks marked in blue in the following image);
Bee bricks be installed on the southern elevation of the new property at least 1.5m above ground level.
The installation of integrated bird and box bricks is much more preferable to the use of boxes as they are a lot more durable and therefore provide long-term mitigation. Due to the size of the proposed property it does not look possible to include any replacement native planting as mitigation unless a green roof were considered. The above recommended measures do not provide direct mitigation, which would only be possible with suitable replanting, but the integration of bat and bird bricks would provide alternative but acceptable wildlife opportunities on site. The Ecosystem Policy team do not object to the development of this area. However, green space is vitally important and therefore where it will be lost it is entirely appropriate and in line with current government policy, to provide mitigation or compensation.
DEFA - Biodiversity Policy Officer - (23/09/2021) "The Ecosystem Policy Team can confirm that we are happy with the details contained within the ADD Bird Bat and Bee Housing Sections and Views 21 Sep 21 and request that these plans are made a condition of approval.
We advise that applicant that all boxes should be made from untreated wood. The inside surfaces of the bat box (any surface likely to be in contact with bats, including the opening) should be 'roughened' in random directions or grooves be cut into the wood horizontally to create surfaces that bats can readily cling too. We also recommend that wood partitions are installed inside the bat box which are attached to the top and sides of the box, to create narrow chambers for bats (many species are crevice dwelling and like front and back contact)."
DEFA - Biodiversity Policy Officer - (08/11/2023) "Prior to this latest revision, the proposals for ecological mitigation included the installation of 3 bat boxes, 4 bird boxes and 1 bee brick. However, the updated Elevations Finishes an Provisions drawings now show only 6 integrated bird bricks and no bat or bee bricks, we are also no longer entirely content with the locations of these, as they are either fairly low to the ground on the west elevation or above windows on the east elevation. We would be content with a total of 4 integrated universal nest bricks as long as they are moved so they are not directly above the windows - to deal with this issue the boxes could be slightly repositioned on the east elevation or moved under the fascia on the north elevation, again not above windows. However, we recommend that the 2 integrated bird bricks shown on
==== PAGE 14 ====
21/00547/B Page 14 of 28
the west elevations are changed to integrated bat boxes and moved so that they are not as low to the ground. Repositioning to the south elevation would be appropriate. As per the previous plans, we would also request that an integrated bee brick is also installed somewhere on site, ideally on a southerly elevation.
We would be content for these details to be provided prior to determination of this application or for a condition on approval be secured for no works to commence unless a bat, bird and bee brick plan has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing."
DEFA - Biodiversity Policy Officer - (16/11/2023) "In addition to the Ecosystem Policy Team's previous response to this application, we also request that a condition is secured for no works to commence unless a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing. We are requesting this because Baie Ny Carrickey Marine Nature Reserve (MNR) is located only 15m to the east of the development site, and so there is potential for damage to the MNR, should responsible construction practises not be implemented. The CEMP should include measures to be put in place to prevent damage and disturbance to the MNR, such as the use of spill kits, secure storage areas away from the MNR, biodegradable oils, use of oil and silt interceptors, good waste management and litter prevention measures etc. The CEMP should also include measures for the protection of nesting birds, such as the timing of vegetation removal and pre-clearance checks."
THIRD PARTY REPRESENTATIONS 5.13 The following Third Party Representations to both the originally submitted application and the 07/11/2023 amendments have been received. All raise objection to the proposed development on the following grounds:
Willow Cottage, Shore Way. PSM - (14/06/2021) - (Précised comments) -
The scale of the development is so big it will be overbearing in relation to Willow Cottage. Exterior design is a deliberate attempt to 'be different' to the nearby terrace but would ruin the aspect of Willow Terrace which appears on many photographs of PSM as a peaceful fishing port.
The ownership of the beach parking area is disputed. Since development is presaged on resolving this issue the granting of planning permission should be delayed until then.
The garage would abut directly onto the road and vehicles would reverse into the road "blind". This is an obvious danger to pedestrians especially during fine weather when this part of the Underway is a busy recreational area. If residents choose to park outside the garage this would also exacerbate present parking problems.
The Elm tree shown a short distance from the north wall could easily be disturbed resulting in the destruction of the tree, one of the last significant plant growths in the port.
The door and window shown on plan (view C) northern gable end, would look directly into my bedroom.
The planning application should provide evidence of flood mitigation due to the close proximity of the development to the sea especially given the photographic evidence available showing the extent of flood during winter storms.
Willow Cottage, Shore Way. PSM - (12/11/2023) - comments: "My comments on the earlier planning application on this plot are further exasperated by some of the amendments shown on the latest planning application.
==== PAGE 15 ====
21/00547/B Page 15 of 28
The size of the proposed building is totally out of scale with my cottage next door and the rest of Willow Terrace, The Underway.
The proposed colour is in no way sympathetic to the surrounding properties, in short, it would be a massive eyesore on the Raad Ny Foillan. The ground works in preparation for the building may have damaging effects on my cottage and surrounding area because of the unstable geology involved. The history of landslips in the Port should make this obvious. The large tree, one of the last in the Port landscape, would be unlikely to survive the extensive ground works that would be necessary on the fragile slope up the main road artery through the Port. Any modification to the tree canopy or its stability could threaten my cottage.
I'm assuming that the parking area on the beach, the ownership of which I am told is in dispute, is not included in the new PA.
The number of windows on the north elevation has increased to nine and most of them will overlook the bedroom on the south elevation of my cottage.
The proposed garage and possibly front door will be flooded several times during each winter resulting from the high tides. Photographs and YouTube videos are available to support this.
I hope that consideration of this planning application will include thought about the duty of care to neighbouring properties of such building developments."
Brier Cottage, 3 Willow Terrace, PSM - (23/06/2021)
"Major concerns on development:
Concerns to danger of collapse of main access road immediately above the proposed development. There is a real risk to this as demonstrated by the historic collapse and major Public Expenditure to repair the cliff collapse and subsequent impassable road. This road is the ONLY access to the lower village, and harbour, including access to the PSM Lifeboat. I can show photographs of the collapse that occurred in the 1990's because of attempted construction on adjacent property when the cliff face was excavated.
Major disruption to all those living on the underway and especially Willow terrace and neighbouring properties which are beyond the proposed development.
Concern for safety of pedestrians on what is part of the Raad Ny Foillan due to construction traffic and plant.
Obstruction to Emergency Services, especially Fire and Ambulance to the three properties that make up Willow Terrace and the three additional properties beyond. This represents a significant threat to life."
The Hon Juan Watterson MHK - (10/11/2023) I have just examined the plans for the above application, and should point out that I have no objection in principle to some form of development on this site.
I find the proposed dwelling abhorrent in the context of the Shore Road Underway. It is completely out of keeping with other dwellings on the road. Its scale and mass are overbearing in the context of the neighbouring cottages. The colours and building materials are unsympathetic to the surrounding area, which are surrounded by rendered and un-rendered stone built houses in what I believe is a conservation zone. For the reasons above, I have taken the rare step of writing to you in objection to this application.
==== PAGE 16 ====
21/00547/B Page 16 of 28
Dr Michelle E K Haywood MHK for Rushen - (24/11/2023) "I am writing in regards to the application to construct a single dwelling on Shore Road Underway in Port St Mary.
I consider that the proposed building is too large in scale. The developer claims that the height of the new building is within the extant permission, and equivalent to that at Rock Cottage, and the new house next to Rock Cottage. However, the width of the gable fronted wings of this proposal is much greater. This means that the roof pitches are shallower. They do not have the same elegance of the surrounding buildings of similar height. The result is a much larger mass of building that is out of character with surrounding buildings. Each 'wing' of the proposal is significantly wider that the individual cottages that make up Willow Terrace. The consequence is that this proposal is overbearing and intrusive.
As noted in the Conservation Area Appraisal (2009), the buildings around the harbour related to fishing activity, and are mostly built of Manx stone, possibly with rendering. The proposed structure has a mix of finishes including grey aluminium windows, vertical cladding and on the sides of the building the dark grey finish. The white render, whilst matching the buildings of Primrose Terrace (above) cause this development to become much more prominent. This is clearly jarring in comparison to the warm stone finishes on surrounding buildings. White window frames are common along Willow Terrace. The Conservation Area Appraisal advises that the 'use of inappropriate building materials should be discouraged', and I believe this is such a case.
As the building is so large in mass, the sides of the building would project forward enough to become intrusive into the streetscape. The view into the conservation area will be overwhelmed by this proposal. I am concerned that the windows on the North elevation will look directly onto Willow Terrace and cause loss of privacy. The windows generally are too tall in comparison to the nearby buildings.
The proposed building sits well forward of the building line that extends from Willow Terrace. In Willow Terrace the houses all have a small garden or yard in front of them, whereas the proposed building would run adjacent to the road. This increases the dominance that this building would have over the streetscape at this location. The position of the proposal south of Willow Terrace will cause overshadowing of those buildings due to the height and forward position of the development.
This proposal is in the heart of the Conservation Area and would affect the views across the Conservation Area from both Chapel Beach and the Harbour areas, plus for vessels arriving at the port.
The boundary of this site is the old sea wall (which was damaged in a landslip that occurred during a previous attempt at excavating this site. It is not clear from the plans that have been submitted whether this proposal extends beyond the site boundary, although it would appear that it runs to the outer edge of the sea wall, and possibly a little beyond on the South front edge. I note that Highways have required a S109 agreement. This road is narrow and it is imperative that access is maintained throughout the construction but also afterwards. I would expect very robust planning enforcement to ensure that this development didn't 'creep' onto the roadway which would have the effect of forever restricting access for emergency services, delivery vehicles and residents.
Although the proposal notes that the previous attempts at excavating the site caused minor landslips, I have serious concerns about the stability of this site. There have been previous landslides at Happy Valley (Chapel Bay) and Perwick Bay. There are a number of underground water courses around Port St Mary that undermine and destabilise the Broughs. After the disastrous landslide at Laxey, which was caused by excavation of the base of the cliff, I have
==== PAGE 17 ====
21/00547/B Page 17 of 28
huge concerns that if this development was permitted, a similar landslide would effectively cut off the southern end of Port St Mary, the working harbour and the residents.
There is already evidence that the existing pathway that runs to the North of the site is shifting, tipping and cracking. It is important that Public Rights of Way are not compromised during or subsequent to any development of this site.
I realise that the construction methods are not a material planning consideration but I wish it to be on record that local knowledge of this site and the surrounding area is that the overburden is likely to slip during construction. The thin strip of land to the west of the site (former pub beer garden) is likely to be lost if a landslide occurs. This would undermine the carriageway above the site which is used for buses, refrigerated lorries serving the seafood processing factories, residents and emergency vehicles. Permitting development in coastal locations such as this one is a very risky thing to do. The wider economic impact if this construction goes wrong would be catastrophic for Port St Mary.
In summary I wish to object to this proposal on the grounds that the new building would be detrimental to the Conservation Area, with inappropriate materials, a size that is out of keeping with the existing buildings and a siting that is too far forward from the building line. It would have a detrimental visual impact on the Underway and overshadow Willow Terrace."
'Baycrest', 3 Primrose Terrace, PSM - (29/11/23) - Précised comments -
Whilst the development may appeal to some, the sea actually lapping against the building is less desirable. There is the question of the practicality of excavating the existing 50 degrees slope to accommodate the building footprint. Concerns remain as expressed to the PSM Commissioners about the possible collapse of the cliff face and road above and the adequacy of the design and methodology for mitigating the risk of the cliff collapsing.
Some years ago some excavation in the cliff face to the rear of the Willow Terrace properties resulted in the partial collapse of Bay View Road. A similar collapse behind the PA 21/00547/B site would also result in the closure of vehicular and foot traffic to a significant area of the village, over a prolonged period.
We are sure that Building Control will be fully seized of the import of the decision and the development will need to emphasise the measures put forward to mitigate against landslip, to secure the compliance of their contractors, and provide insurance against all possible losses. A failure of any element in the process would impact severely on the village and would inevitably heavily involve Government.
'Avoca', 7 Primrose Terrace, Port St Mary, (30/11/2023) précised comments as follows:
Visual Impact - the property would be a vast and overbearing structure overshadowing Willow Terrace and other Manx cottage properties to the north, all of vernacular architecture on the Underway and Bay View Road, above.
The property would be a carbuncle when viewed from the inner harbour.
The proposals demonstrate the inappropriate use of cladding (no Manx stone) and the over-use of glass, resulting in something akin to a greenhouse!
Highway safety/Wider economic issues:
The development sits so far forward of Willow Terrace building line that garage access would be directly onto a Heritage Trail (Raad Ny Foillan). The trail is much used by pedestrians and animals and such access could present safety problems. There are natural springs in the area
==== PAGE 18 ====
21/00547/B Page 18 of 28
and there are purported to be 32 landslips on Bay View Road during the 1990's; and, Happy Valley in 2010. There is a fault line running across this area of land. Preparatory ground works for this development become ever more critical.
Concerns to danger of collapse of main access road immediately above the proposed development and severance of the main arterial route to all points south of the Bay View Hotel Beer Garden would be put in jeopardy.
. There is a real risk to this as demonstrated by the historic collapse and major Public Expenditure to repair the cliff collapse and subsequent impassable road. This road is the ONLY access to the lower village, and harbour, including access to the PSM Lifeboat. I can show photographs of the collapse that occurred in the 1990's because of attempted construction on adjacent property when the cliff face was excavated.
This would impact on those residing south of the site and could prevent Emergency Services, especially Fire and Ambulance, plus lifeboat services and fishermen from accessing the area impacting on all commerce in the area.
Potential loss of the remembrance Garden along with the linking steps from Bay View Road down to The Underway.
The steps are extremely uneven.
There are defects in the retaining wall for Bay View Road at the top of the steps and the land slipping can be seen when descending the steps opposite the Old Police Station from Bay View Road down to The Underway.
to the three properties that make up Willow Terrace and the three additional properties beyond. This represents a significant threat to life. No Structural Engineer can give a 100% assurance that excavation of h cliff as proposed would not result in a landslip/destabilisation of the roadway of Bay View Road above the site.
There is one remaining tree on this plot, unique in the bay. It should be preserved at all costs. Its close proximity to the proposed pathways and gable end construction, puts this into question.
REPRESENTATIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
5.15 The applicants have responded to the concerns raised by local residents in letters dated 30/06/2021; and, 06/12/2023. The contents of the 30/6/2021 letter can be viewed on line. The Case Officer considers that the comments outlined in the letter dated 06/12/2023 are more up to date, and reflect comments received following consultation on the amended plans, and are, therefore, consider to be up to date. These comments are rehearsed in précised form as follows:
1 Regarding the above application, we have now had an opportunity to review those further representations received by your Department:-
Environment Directorate 8th & 16th Nov 2023 Hon. Members for Rushen 10th & 24th Nov 2023 Highway Services 23rd Nov 2023 Owner of Willow Cottage 13th Nov 2023 Owner of 3 Primrose Terrace 29th Nov 2023
2 Our previous responses to representations is dated 30th June 2021.
==== PAGE 19 ====
21/00547/B Page 19 of 28
3 We have since discussed our application with assigned officers, to resolve any outstanding concerns, and to incorporate any recommended improvements to the proposal (over that originally submitted).
4 Changes were subsequently detailed in our letter of 6th November 2023.
PROCEDURAL MATTERS 5 The Operational Policy on Interested Person Status 2021 establishes the qualifying criteria for those parties who may be afforded interested person status. Criterion 2.0(B) sets a distance of 20m, within which parties must own or occupy land to qualify. This would appear not to extend to Brier Cottage, or No. 3 Primrose Terrace. We note the contents of representations by the Honourable Members for Rushen, however it is not clear on whose behalf these are written - if not their own, then which of their constituents.
SCALE 6 It has been confirmed by your Department (see appendix K of the Planning Statement submitted in support of PA21/00547/B) that lawful commencement under PA 10/01892/B is established. The site therefore benefits from extant approval for two semi-detached dwellings. The respective approval notice (see appendix H of the Planning Statement submitted in support of PA21/00547/B) lists drawing P10 (Streetscape), demonstrating the scale of development already deemed acceptable for the site by your Department (and which may still be implemented in any event). The Area Plan for the South introduced Landscape Proposal 7, which states:-
"The site in front of the Bay View Hotel on Bay View Road creates an important space between the buildings allowing for views across the bay and beyond. To ensure the continuation of this view no building on the Shore Road will be permitted to exceed the existing road level."
7 Such matter was also the subject of two Independent Inspectors' reports (refer to appendices F and I of the Planning Statement submitted in support of PA21/00547/B). The latter states (at 76):-
"I find no basis for disagreeing with the previous Inspector's assessment that the design of the proposed houses would not be out of keeping with other buildings or visually incongruous in the street scene, even though the houses would be slightly higher than the adjacent cottages. The context which led the last Inspector to make that assessment - that there is a mixture of buildings along Shore Road in terms of ages, styles and heights, including both old buildings and modern dwellings with integral garages - remains the same."
8 We note that Independent Inspectors' reports are established to constitute a material consideration under S10 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999. We cannot therefore agree with those representations that call the proposal's scale into question, given expert opinions available to the contrary. The Proposal also remains in accordance with Landscape Policy 7.
VISUAL IMPACT
9 The scheme as originally submitted consisted of predominantly white rendered walls (as the extant approval does). We have subsequently amended the scheme to incorporate a slated, pitched roof form, with areas of stone and timber cladding boards to the front elevation. Render is now shown only to limited parts of the front elevation, a far smaller extent than that permitted in the extant approval. We now propose slate cladding to the north and south elevations to further soften the proposal's appearance, in reference to a Manx vernacular.
==== PAGE 20 ====
21/00547/B Page 20 of 28
10 Representations refer to the area within which the site is situated as a Conservation Area (CA). It was previously concluded by an Independent Inspector (at S74 of their report):-
"With the background of the existing and proposed zoning, there is no new evidence in this appeal which would justify reaching a different view to that of the previous Inspector that the current nature of the site cannot be regarded as giving this part of Port St. Mary a sense of place. I concur with his view that there is no real conflict between the proposed development and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan. I also note that, while the site would be part of a Conservation Area proposed in the MD Southern Area Plan, it is still the case that this designation has yet to be confirmed. Consequently, little weight can be attached to that matter."
11 As was foreseen, the area was not subsequently designated a CA in the Arear Plan for the South (or otherwise). Even if designated in future (which it was previously noted cannot be assumed) - We refer to S25 of appendix F of the Planning Statement submitted in support of PA 21/00547/B., the current proposal clearly enhances the area's character to a greater degree than the extant approval.
12 Representations also question the proposal's colour. The natural materials proposed are the same as those found in buildings in the immediate vicinity. They will therefore be very similar in colour (if not identical). We are therefore unsure if those making representation are fully acquainted with the proposal as currently drawn but, for the avoidance of doubt, drawing 1512- 001.05 (revision X) schedules the proposed materials, including natural timber, slate, and stone.
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING 13 Representations correctly note that structural design is not a material consideration under the Act; it is controlled under separate legislation. We nevertheless take the matter very seriously. Our submissions note that the current proposal's structural strategy minimises the excavations required (to a far greater degree than the extant approval, which had itself already been deemed feasible). Those preparing the proposal's structural design will possess the appropriate professional qualifications and necessary experience.
PRIVACY 14 Willow Cottage questions the extent of glazing to the north elevation. Whereas a simpler elevation was previously put before officers, your Department advocated for a vertical emphasis to be introduced, a recommendation we complied with. The site has been designated for residential use since 1982, establishing a reasonable expectation (before the south-facing windows to Willow Cottage were installed) that the site would be developed. It remains within Willow Cottage's control to remedy any privacy concerns they may have by pragmatic means, such as the installation of obscured glazing or curtains. It is also open to your Department to approve our application subject to a condition that certain north-facing windows be obscured.
BIODIVERSITY 15 We note the biodiversity officer's representation concerning the precise positioning of the bird boxes, bat boxes and bee bricks. We also note that a CEMP is now requested, given the proximity of the Marine Nature Reserve. We are confident that the officer's requirements can be incorporated to their satisfaction, and we are not averse to an appropriately worded condition to approval.
CONCLUSION 16 We trust the above to be self-explanatory, however should any further matter arise, or any clarification be required, we would invite the Department in the first instance to contact the undersigned at this office without hesitation.
==== PAGE 21 ====
21/00547/B Page 21 of 28
7.0 ASSESSMENT
7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are: i. The principle of the development (GP 2); ii. The visual impact of the proposed development (GP2 b & c, & EP 42); iii. The impact upon the amenities (overlooking, loss of light; over bearing impact, privacy and visual amenity) of the neighbouring properties (GP2 g); and iv. Whether there would be any adverse impact on highway safety (GP2 (h & i).
7.2 The issues in this case are whether the proposed new dwelling in terms of its the size, scale, massing, plot coverage and overall architecture is suitable for this site in terms of the impact it would have on the character of the streetscene and the site's surroundings. In addition, consideration should be given to whether it would have an acceptable impact on the living conditions of those in neighbouring and nearby dwellings; the impact it would have on the retained elm tree on the site; and, finally whether the proposed vehicular access, garaging and parking arrangements involving the 3 No. proposed parking spaces on the shore side of the Underway/shore road opposite the site would be satisfactory in terms of highway safety.
7.3 In the consideration of these proposals the concerns raised regarding the stability and security of the cliff face forming part of the site area below Bay View Road, and the engineering operations that would need to be undertaken to accommodate the new dwelling on the site are a matter for consideration by the DEFA Building Control Team in conjunction with the applicants on-site construction team and engineers. The consideration of the planning application is concerned with matters of land-use as opposed to the feasibility of constructing the development. The applicants have provided details of their proposed structural strategy at Section 6 of the Planning Statement submitted in support of the application.
7.4 Within such areas as this which are designated as mixed-use land use areas, there is usually a presumption in favour of development. The sites planning history indicates that there have been a number of previous applications affecting the site, culminating in the approval of PA 10/01892/B for the erection of two dwellings with integral garages and associated visitor parking. This was initially permitted by the Planning Committee, although a subsequent Appeal was lodged, considered, dismissed, and then approved by the Minister on 18 October, 2011. Therefore, the principle for the erection of two dwellings on the site has previously been established. This permission remains extant as the car parking area on the sea shore side of Underway was installed, this was carried out before the 4-year time limit to implement the planning permission expired on 17/10/2014, and was confirmed as installed by the DEFA Planning Officers. This means that there is now no time limit for the completion of the works and so the fall-back position is that the previously approved development could be fully built out.
7.5 It is further noted that another planning application Ref: 09/00364/B sought permission for the erection of a pair of dwellings on the site of Rock Cottage, Shore Road Underway PSM. The style, scale, bulk and design of these approved dwellings is not dissimilar to the previously approved pair of dwellings on the PA 10/01892/B application site, and the single dwelling and garage now proposed by PA 21/00547/B.
7.6 The requirements of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan are outlined in the Planning policies at Section 3.0 of this report. General Policy 2 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:
a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
==== PAGE 22 ====
21/00547/B Page 22 of 28
b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them; c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) does not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j)can be provided with all necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
7.7 In this case there is no design brief for the site (2a).
7.8 The environment surrounding the site comprises a variety of dwellings in terms of age, height, bulk, scale, style, and finish. The proposed dwelling take its lead from new properties to the north (See PA09/00364/B) and it is considered that they would not be out of keeping with the surroundings. Whilst a small number of trees and some vegetation are to be removed as part of the proposed development, this is not protected and the site could be cleared without the need for permission from any authority. In the previous application it was considered that the loss of the site was not objectionable on the basis of the loss of habitat despite objections from local residents to this effect. (2b, 2c, 2d, 2f). Indeed, there is no evidence from Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture that the site is worthy of protection for ecological reasons.
7.9 The DEFA Biodiversity Policy Officer has requested that the Biodiversity Team would be content with a total of 4 integrated universal nest bricks as long as they are moved so they are not directly above the windows which could be resolved by the boxes being slightly repositioned on the east elevation or moved under the fascia on the north elevation, again not above windows. The recommendation that the 2 integrated bird bricks shown on the west elevations be changed to integrated bat boxes and moved so that they are not as low to the ground, is also noted, as is their repositioning to the south elevation. The request that an integrated bee brick is also installed somewhere on site, ideally on a southerly elevation, is also noted. These aspects of the development can be secured by condition. In addition, a condition requiring that no works commence unless a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing, is also considered appropriate for the site as this would cover construction and delivery hours, materials storage areas, dust and noise suppression measures, as well as traffic controls.
7.10 The reason for the CEMP put forward by the Biodiversity Team is because Baie Ny Carrickey Marine Nature Reserve (MNR) is located only 15m to the east of the development site, and so there is potential for damage to the MNR, should responsible construction practises not be implemented. The requirement for a CEMP is relevant to the development proposed and is acceptable in planning terms. The measures that the CEMP would put in place to prevent damage and disturbance to the MNR, such as the use of spill kits, secure storage areas away from the MNR, use of biodegradable oils, use of oil and silt interceptors, good waste management and litter prevention measures etc. and measures for the protection of nesting
==== PAGE 23 ====
21/00547/B Page 23 of 28
birds, such as the timing of vegetation removal and pre-clearance checks, should assist in enabling a successful construction phase and post development assimilation phase to occur. CEMP conditions are often assumed to be able to protect neighbours amenities, such as on site construction hours and delivery times etc. However, such measures are difficult to enforce, because unless the site is continually monitored during the construction phase, compliance cannot be ensured. Therefore, it would not be reasonable to add such requirements as part of a CEMP condition.
7.11 Whilst it is also noted that Permitted Development rights permitting works compounds adjacent to any sites with planning approval as outlined in the provisions of Schedule 1, Class A, of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) (Temporary Use or Development) Order 2015, in the case the MNR, this has its own protection as Article 5, Part 6 (2) of the same Order specifies that: "No part of the development may be undertaken - (a) in, on, under or within an Area of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI), an Area of Special Protection or any other sites as designated under the Wildlife Act 1990". The MNR benefits from such a designation.
7.12 The development would be sited close to the cliff side and would be set below the level of Bay View Road. Whilst it would be seen from the War Memorial and its associated Remembrance Garden Area which is designated as Public Open Space, it would not otherwise obscure public views of the sea from Bay View Road. (2e)
7.13 The development will not directly adversely affect the amenities of local residents in that it follows the line of built development along Shore Road. Whilst the view of the site will change, there is no over-riding importance of the site for ecological or other value which would justify refusing the principle of developing this land for residential purposes, bearing in mind that the area is designated as 'Mixed Use' on the extant plan. See Map 7 - Port Erin/Port St Mary/Ballafesson - in the Area Plan for the South (2013). Similarly, it is considered that the development will not adversely affect public amenities (2g)
7.14 The development will provide sufficient car parking and amenity space and has a good outlook (2h).
7.15 There is no indication from the highway authority that the proposal is deficient (2i) nor is there any indication that the development cannot be satisfactorily serviced. The question of land ownership of the part of the foreshore on the opposite side of the Underway has been mentioned, however, no evidence to counter the applicant's assertion that this area of the site is within their control has been adduced. (2j)
7.16 The proposal would not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan (2k);
7.17 The site lies within an area where there may be a risk of flooding as shown on the Isle of Man indicative Flood Risk map (2017), and the applicant has consulted the DoI Flood Risk Management Team (FMD) who previously recommended that the building is raised in level to accommodate this. FMD recommended that the finished ground floor level be set at 600mm above the 1 in 200 plus climate change flood level of 4.79mAD02. In line with industry guidance. The applicants have taken this advice on board in producing the revised design as submitted on 7/11/23. However, the 600mm height above 4.79m AD02 would compromise the inclusion of the proposed vehicular access, and the internal floor height above AD02 proposed is 300mm. A 600mm height difference would very likely result in the building being higher than proposed and would thus fit less well in the streetscene. The risk of flooding is not to other properties but contained within the building and the applicant has indicated that he is prepared to accept this risk of flooding which would be to the ground floor garage, hall and a sitting room and laundry (GP2l and Environment Policy 10).
==== PAGE 24 ====
21/00547/B Page 24 of 28
7.18 The Inspector reporting on the PA 09/01295/B appeal application did not accept that the risk of flooding or the absence of a flood risk report, was a reason to refuse the application. He stated "On balance, bearing in mind that other new dwellings have been approved along Shore Road and that the proposal would not cause any additional flood risk to other properties, I find that the possible risk of flooding would fall within an acceptable limit. On that basis the proposal would comply with Environmental Policies 10-13 of the Strategic Plan" (see paragraph 37 of the Inspectors Report).
7.19 There is no indication that the proposal does not take account of community and personal safety and security in the design of building and the spaces around it or that regard has not been had to best practice in reducing energy consumption which would also be taken into account in the application for approval under the Building Regulations.
7.20 Appendix Seven of the Strategic Plan sets out parking standards in respect of new residential development and states:
"New built residential development should be provided with two parking spaces per dwelling, at least one of which should be within the curtilage of the dwelling and behind the front of the dwelling, although the amount and location of parking will vary in respect of development such as terracing, apartments, and sheltered housing. In the case of town centre and previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing this requirement having regard to:
a) the location of the housing relative to public transport, employment and public amenities, b) the size of the dwelling, c) any restriction on the nature of the occupancy (such as sheltered housing) and d) the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area (See paragraph A.7.1).
This goes onto recommend that one space is provided for a one bedroomed apartment, 2 spaces for two or more bedrooms but that: "These standards may be relaxed where development:
a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape, or c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality" (See paragraph A.7.6).
7.21 In this case the proposal makes provision for an integral garage providing two car spaces for the dwelling and an additional three spaces on the other side of the road, thus complying with the requirements of Appendix Seven.
7.22 Other policies within the Strategic Plan which have been referred to include Environment Policies 10 (as covered in paras 7.16 and 7.17), 11 and 13 which relate to flooding, Environment Policy 24 regarding Environmental Impact Assessments, Environment Policy 28 regarding unstable land and Environment Policy 42 which deals with areas of green space within built up areas.
7.23 Environment Policy 11 states "Coastal development will only be permitted where it would not: i) increase or transfer the risk of flooding or coastal erosion through its impact on natural coastal processes; ii) prejudice the capacity of the coast to form a natural sea defence; and iii) increase the need for additional coast protection works except where necessary to protect existing investment or development".
==== PAGE 25 ====
21/00547/B Page 25 of 28
7.24 There is no indication that the development will prejudice any of the above.
7.25 Environment Policy 13 states: "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted." See earlier comments.
7.26 Environment Policy 24 states: "Development which is likely to have a significant effect on the environment will be required: i) to be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIS) in certain cases; and ii) to be accompanied by suitable supporting environmental information in all other cases".
7.27 It is not accepted that the development will have a significant effect on the environment particularly bearing in mind the designation of the site on the extant plan. It is adequately supported by environmental information and no EIS is required.
7.28 Environment Policy 28 states: "Development which would be at risk from ground instability or which would increase the risk from ground instability elsewhere will not be permitted unless appropriate precautions have been taken". The plans have been drawn in consultation with a Structural Engineer and the structural stability of the site is taking into account during the consideration of the application for approval under the Building Regulations. The Inspector reporting on the previous application, states "The need to comply with building regulations would provide the "appropriate precautions" referred to in Environment Policy 28 of the Strategic Plan. Therefore the proposal would comply with that policy (his paragraph 34).
7.29 Environment Policy 42 states "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."
7.30 The Area Plan does not identify the site as Public Open Space, which it clearly is not and there is no corresponding proposal for the site to become publicly accessible, nor would the site be particularly useful other than as an amenity area to look at rather than to actively use.
7.31 Whilst the site is presently natural in appearance and character, it would not appear to support species which warrant sufficient protection as advised by the Biodiversity Team to warrant refusal of the application.
8.00 CONCLUSION
8.1 In summary, whilst there are objections to the application, the site lies within an area designated for Mixed Use which includes Residential Use on the extant development plan. In addition, there has been a previous panning approval for the development of the site via a pair of dwellings, which has not lapsed (car parking provision installed on the shore side of the road within the 4-year time limit) and could be implemented. Therefore, the precedent for development of the site has been has been established. There is no evidence that the site is of sufficient ecological, archaeological or other importance as to warrant refusal of development and the proposal has responded to the criticisms of the previous application by halving the number of dwellings proposed, lowering the building (it would be no higher than the previously approved pair of dwellings) and reducing its scale and omitting access from Bay View Road. As such, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable and that permission should be granted. Whilst it is very unfortunate that a number of local residents, particularly along Shore Road have previously had to endure prolonged periods of disruption, inconvenience and nuisance
==== PAGE 26 ====
21/00547/B Page 26 of 28
through construction projects along Shore Road, this is not sufficient reason to refuse permission for another project in this area.
8.2 The proposed parking area was not considered to be objectionable in the previous application, indeed the Inspector recommended that the application should be permitted; and the subsequent approval by the Minister of PA 10/01892/B for two dwellings with integral garages and associated visitor parking, bore this out. As advised above, the parking area has been installed in accordance with this previous approval.
8.3 There is a suggestion that the parking area will detract from the character of the area, part of which is provided through the "blurred" boundary between the beach and the road. To some this may provide character, to others this may be seen simply as unkempt land without a proper boundary and indeed there is no contiguous form of boundary along the shoreline and there is an area further to the south where there is a similar parking area, finished roughly and where vegetation has naturalised around it, reducing its impact. There is nothing to suggest that the vegetation will not also naturalise around the installed parking area in a similar fashion. The proposal is for a tarmacadam surfaced area with a sloped stone faced edge onto the beach. It is not accepted that this will create a detrimental visual impact on the area.
8.4 The application is considered to be acceptable and is recommended for approval.
9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 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.
9.2 The decision-maker must determine:
9.3 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 can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.
Decision Made : Permitted
Committee Meeting Date: 12.02.2024
Signed : H LAIRD Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).
==== PAGE 27 ====
21/00547/B Page 27 of 28
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
==== PAGE 28 ====
21/00547/B Page 28 of 28
PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 12.02.2024
Application No 21/00547/B Applicant Haven Homes Proposal Erection of a single detached residential dwelling with integral garage Site Address Land In Front Of Bay View Hotel Between Shore Road Underway And Bay View Road Port St. Mary Isle Of Man
Planning Officer Mr Hamish Laird Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer Report
Minute extract from PC 12/2/24 -
"o Reviewed the proposed conditions of approval and broadly agree with each. Regarding Condition 4, while it's accepted that some windows may require privacy glazing, there remains a requirement under Building Regulations Approved Document F to provide purge ventilation. We would therefore respectfully request that this regulatory requirement be accommodated, so that the windows may be openable, even if with a restrictor.
...
In response to the point made by the applicant regarding C4, the case officer agreed to amend his recommendation in order to include such opening method. "
Amended wording for C4 -
" The windows to be inserted in the north elevation of the development, hereby permitted, serving the first floor bedroom and bathroom; second floor living room (2 windows); shall be glazed with obscure glazing at no less than Level 5 (greatest obscuration) on the Pilkington Scale of obscurity. All windows inserted in this elevation shall be openable, and fitted with a restrictor that meets the requirements of Building Regulations Approved Document F to provide purge ventilation. Thereafter, these windows shall be retained in this manner with obscure glazing at Level 5 for the lifetime of the development.
Reason: To protect the amenities of occupants of the adjoining dwelling at Willow Cottage, the Underway, Shore Road, in respect of any potential for overlooking and loss of privacy, whilst meeting the requirements of the Building Regulations (2019) Approved Document F."
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal