Officer Report

Applicant: Ocean Castle Limited Proposal Erection of a building accommodating 38no Apartments and associated Landscaping, Drainage and Car Parking Site Address The Former Ocean Castle Hotel Site And Hill House, Rowany Villas Promenade Port Erin Isle Of Man Case Officer : Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 29.02.2024 Site Visit: 29.02.2024 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement Date of Recommendation 02.12.2024

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.

C 2. Prior to commencement of above ground works and notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, all glass balustrades/balconies shall be installed with measures to prevent bird strikes to be either etchings on the glass or use of ultraviolet decals.

Reason: To prevent bird strikes, due to proximity of nearby nesting birds and compliance with Environment Policy 4.

C 3. Prior to the commencement of development a detailed plan showing the number and location of at least 3 integrated swifts nest bricks to be built high up on the north east elevation of the new building shall be submitted in writing to the Department for approval and this approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the occupation of any apartment and retained thereafter. Reason: In the interest of protected wildlife.
C 4. At least one parking space as shown on drawings 008 REV A and 100 REV A shall be allocated to each apartment within the apartment building hereby approved and retained thereafter for the parking of vehicles. Reason: To ensure adequate parking provision is made to each apartment.

C 5. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the cycle parking areas (75 spaces) have been provided in accordance with the approved drawing 100 REV A.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient cycle provision is made for the development which has under provision of car parking.

C 6. No above basement development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. The development shall not be carried out unless strictly in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
C 7. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the bin storage area has been provided in accordance with the approved drawing 100 REV A. Such area shall not be used for any purpose other than bin storage associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times. Reason: To ensure that sufficient bin storage is made for the development.
C 8. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the visibility splays as shown on Drawing 006 (onto the Promenade) shall be provided/retained and maintained at all times free from any obstruction at height not exceeding 1.05m above the level of the adjacent highway carriageway. Reason: In the interest of highway safety
C 9. Prior to the commencement of above basement works full details of soft landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the soft landscaping works include details of new planting showing, type, size, maximum height growth and position of each. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping must be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the completion of the development or the occupation of any apartment, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which die or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development and for biodiversity net gain.

C 10. Prior to the commencement of above basement works full details of hard landscaping works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the hard landscaping surfaces shall include colours, textures and manufacturers' details of the proposed materials. The development shall be undertaken in full accordance with these approved details prior to first occupation of the development hereby approved. Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development.
C 11. All vehicular accesses, pedestrian accesses, parking layout, cycle parking, bin storage and access visibilities shown on the approved plans to be implemented before first occupation and retained thereafter. REASON: To ensure the development complies with Highway safety requirements

N 1. Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads.
N 2. The Applicant is advised that a S109(A) Highway Agreement is needed after the granting of planning approval.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Overall, it is considered the proposal would be developing a site which is designated for residential development currently and one which is a designated brownfield site which currently has a detrimental visual impact to the area and street scene. The proposed development in terms of scale, scale, proportion, finish and overall design would sit comfortably within the site and would be a positive visual impact upon the visual amenities of the street scene/area and with neighbouring buildings which all form part of the Promenade.

The proposal would provide an additional supply of housing within a sustainable location, given its closeness and good pedestrian to Port Erin centre and would meeting the overarching aims of the IOM Strategic Plan i.e. "Towards a Sustainable Island" and identified near the top of the settlement hierarchy.

In relation to highway safety there are no concerns raised and it is considered the level of parking provision is appropriate for the level of development and its location within Port Erin to shops, services and public transport links.

The proposal would have no significant adverse impacts upon private or public amenities.

Finally, there are no adverse impacts to protect species on this site and appropriate conditions in place to ensure biodiversity on the site is provided and would result in an energy efficient development.

In conclusion, the proposal would comply with; Strategic Policy 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 10 & 11, Spatial Policy 2 & 5, General Policy 2, Environment Policy 4, 7, 42 & 43, Housing Policy 1, 4, & 5, Recreation Policy 3 & 4, Transport Policy 1, 4, 6, 7 & 8 and Energy Policy 5 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016, Area Plan for the South and the Residential Design Guide 2021. It is recommended that the planning application be approved for the reasons given and subject to the Section 13 Legal Agreement been signed and the conditions listed.

Plans/Drawings/Information; This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers all received; 23.11.2023

- 001 - LOCATION PLAN

- 003 - TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY

102 - LEVEL 1 FLOOR PLAN
103 - LEVEL 2 FLOOR PLAN
104 - LEVEL 3 FLOOR PLAN
105 - LEVEL 4 FLOOR PLAN
106 - LEVEL 5 FLOOR PLAN
107 - ROOF PLAN 315 - CGI VISUALS - SHEET 1

DESIGN & ACCESS STATEMENT APPLICATION FORM COMBINED STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT - AUGUST 2023 TRANSPORT STATEMENT - AUGUST 2023 TRAVEL PLAN - AUGUST 2023

PLANNING STATEMENT DRAINAGE STATEMENT - GK/OC/23/REV A PLANNING ENERGY STATTMENT - MAR 1255 - OCTOBER 2023 - REV A

11.11.2024

005 REV A - BASEMENT SITE PLAN
006 REV A - LEVEL 0 SITE PLAN 008 REV A - LANDSCAPING PLAN

- 100 REV A - BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN - 101 REV A - LEVEL 0 FLOOR PLAN

300 REV A - ELEVATIONS SHEET 1
301 REV A - ELEVATIONS SHEET 2 310 REV A - STREET ELEVATIONS TECHNICAL NOTE - 23-106-004.03 - OCTOBER 2024

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations: Isle of Man Constabulary Flood Risk Management (DOI) Highway Services Drainage Public Estates & Housing Division Manx Utilities

It is recommended that the following persons should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

o Flat 9 Imperial Heights, Promenade, Port Erin
o Eastfield House, Rowany Villas Port, Erin
o Flat 5 Imperial Heights, Promenade, Port Erin
o 33 Royal Shore Apartments, Promenade Port Erin
o Flat 8 Imperial Heights, Promenade, Port Erin
o 31 Royal Shore Apartments, Promenade, Port Erin
o 20 Royal Shore Apartments, Promenade, Port Erin
o 34 Royal Shore Apartments, Promenade, Port Erin (owners/occupiers of Oakleigh, Glencrutchery Road, Douglas)

As they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (2019).

It is recommended that the following persons should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 4(2):

o 20 Fairway Close, Port Erin
o Flat 7, Sea Front, Promenade, Port Erin
o Water Edge 16 Lime Street Port St Mary

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

of the Policy; as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and/or as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of

land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph

2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. ________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THE PLANNING APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AS A SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENT IS PROPOSED AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PRIVATE OBJECTIONS CONTRARY TO THE RECOMMENDATION

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site comprises of a parcel of land which was the former Ocean Castle Hotel Site and Hill House, Rowany Villas, Promenade, Port Erin. The former Ocean Castle Hotel has been demolished in recent times (2010) and the site is currently cleared where it once sat. Hill House which is a two storey detached dwelling to the eastern boundary of the site (sate to the rear of the hotel) is currently in place, but proposed to be demolished. The site is approximately 2120sqm (hectares 0.21) in area. - 1.2 To the north of the site (uphill) across Ocean Castle Drive, are two buildings which replace the Imperial Hotel (one fronting onto the promenade and one to the rear off Ocean Castle Drive) and accommodate 20 apartments between them (PA 07/0158). The highway serves these two apartment blocks, but also three detached properties. To the south across (downhill) Rowany Villas, is the Royal Shore Apartments which have recently been constructed (PA 14/00893/B). The Rowany Villas also serves five properties which are to the east and south east of the application site. Along the northern side of Rowany Villas are parking bays angled to the highway. - 1.3 To the west of the site is the Upper Promenade and beyond is an area of Brooghs (Public Open Space).

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks full planning approval for the erection of a building accommodating 38no apartments and associated landscaping, drainage and car parking. The proposed building is detached and would be set over five to seven floors. The "basement" level which is partially underground and partial at street level would accommodate a total of 34 parking space, bin storage, 7 stores and 75no cycle store. Vehicular access to the basement parking is direct from Rowany Villas. There are a further 23 car parking spaces to the side/rear of the building which have access onto Rowany Villas and Ocean Castle Drive. An external landscaped garden (224sqm) can also be found to the rear of the building. - 2.2 The ground, first, second and third floors are proposed to accommodate a total of 8 apartments each, while the fourth floor would accommodate a total of five apartments. The top floor (fifth floor) of the apartment building has a penthouse apartment which is setback from the front and side elevations. A roof top balcony servicing this apartment is also proposed which has glazed balustrading set back from the side elevations. The proposal would accommodate a mix of one, two and three bedroom apartments. - 2.3 Solar Panels and individual Air Source Heat Pumps to each apartment is proposed for heating. The applicant's submission states the apartments will achieve a SAP rating of 93 which exceeds current Building Regulations. The building would be finished in a mixture of render, cedral weatherboarding (grey brown), Manx stone effect cladding, Vieo or similar Cladding (grey) to top floor and standing seam effect to roof (grey). Windows/patio doors would be aluminium in a (grey brown colour).

2.4 For information Rowany Villas is a public highway up to Eastfield House. Currently, there are 10 angled lay-by parking spaces along Rowany Villas. 6 of these spaces would be removed to enable the access to the basement parking. Ocean Castle Drive is not a public highway. A new 2m wide path will be constructed along Rowany Villas, serving the basement access, on street parking and linking with the existing footpath on the promenade. - 2.5 The applicants design brief states;

"The client is looking to provide a modern prestigious building on a brownfield site situated between two existing apartment buildings.

Consideration will be given to the below points in looking to produce a suitable design for the site -

- The desired number of high end apartments to be provided on the site is 38, of which the majority would be looking to take advantage of the location of the site and outstanding panoramic views of Port Erin Bay.
- Sustainable building practices will be utilised where possible and this will be reflected in the design and materials selected. The Developer and Architect will focus on a fabric first approach to ensure the building is as efficient as possible. Additional energy efficient measures including solar panels will be incorporated into the design.
- A contemporary design approach is to be adopted, but will be sympathetic to the adjacent 'Imperial Heights & Imperial Lodge' and 'Royal Shore' developments, whilst acknowledging more traditional buildings in the area. - Consideration to be given to the previously approved scheme - PA 09/00982/B when looking at the design."

2.6 Commuted sums in lieu of Affordable Housing provision and Public Open Space are proposed as part of the submission.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The application site has been the subject of the following previous planning applications; - 3.2 Erection of an apartment block to provide seven apartments with associated car parking and landscaping - 09/00982/B - APPROVED - 3.3 Approval in Principle for change of use to retirement Hotel - 91/00791/A - APPROVED - 3.4 Approval in principle to conversion to offices - 89/04102/A - APPROVED - 3.5 Approval in principle to conversion of all but first floor to offices - 88/00829/A REFUSED

- 4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 LOCAL PLAN

4.1.1 The application site is designated as "Predominately Residential" use under the Area Plan for the South 2013. The site is not within a Conservation Area but the Public Open Space directly opposite the site is within a Proposed Conservation Area. The site is not within a high flood risk zone.
4.1.2 The Written Statement of the Area Plan for the South in relation to Port St Mary states;

"…The built environment of the Village centre and the top Promenade has been undergoing a steady process of renewal in recent years, including new apartments on the Promenade, and renovation of the Station Hotel. However, there remain some sites which would benefit from different uses or improvements to the built environment…"

And

4.1.3 "3.8 Summary of Area Plan Proposals i. Housing will be provided; a. by the continued conversion or redevelopment of redundant or under-used land and buildings within the settlement boundary (which may include former hotels)…"

4.2 STRATEGIC PLAN

4.2.1 The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 contains the following policies that are considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application. Strategic Policy

1 Efficient use of land and resources
2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages
3 To respect the character of our towns and villages
4 Protection of built heritage and landscape conservation
5 Design and visual impact

10 Sustainable transport
11 Housing Needs

Spatial Policy 2 Identified Port Erin as a Service Centre 5 Building in defined settlements or GP3

General Policy

2 General Development Considerations

Environment Policy 4 Wildlife and Nature Conservation 7 Where development is proposed outside but close to the boundary of a Conservation Area

42 New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity
43 The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban areas Housing Policy

1 General need for additional housing from 2011 -2026
2 Supply of designated housing land available
3 Defined housing provision per area
4 Location of new housing and exceptions
5 Provisions for 25% affordable Housing
6 Development Briefs

Recreational Policy

3 Requirement for Landscaped amenity areas
4 Requirement for Public open space Transport Policy

1 Be located close to existing public transport facilities
2 Provision for new links

4 Highway Safety
5 Design of Highway Network Improvements
6 Equal weight for vehicles and pedestrians
7 Parking Provisions
8 Requirements for Transport Assessments

Energy Policy

5 Energy Efficiency

- 4.3 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDE 2021

4.3.1 This document provides advice on the design of new houses and extensions to existing property as well as how to assess the impact of such development on the living conditions of those in adjacent residential properties and sustainable methods of construction.

4.4 Climate Change Act 2021;

4.4.1 "Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 amended After paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, insert «2A All applications except those for approval for change of use, reserved matters, replacement windows and doors in conservation areas and minor changes

(1) This paragraph applies to applications for planning approval except those referred to in subparagraph (2).
(2) This paragraph does not apply to —

(a) an application for change of use only;
(b) an application for approval of reserved matters;
(c) an application to replace a window or a door of a building in a conservation area; and
(d) a minor changes application.

(3) Every application to which this paragraph applies must —

(a) demonstrate that the application has been made having regard to the following climate change policies —

(i) the maximisation of carbon sequestration;
(ii) the minimising of greenhouse gas emissions;
(iii) the maintenance and restoration of ecosystems;
(iv) biodiversity net gain;
(v) the need for sustainable drainage systems; and
(vi) the provision of active travel infrastructure; or

(b) explain why consideration of one or more of those polices is not practicable in relation to the proposed development."

4.5 Unoccupied Urban Sites: South - Port Erin (December 2022)

4.5.1 The site is one of seven sites within Port Erin designated as an "Unoccupied Urban Sites" which aims to identify and promote the development of brownfield sites ahead of Greenfield development. The site has also received approval in principle for the Government's Island Infrastructure Scheme (see below) for up to 10% of eligible costs (https://www.iomdfenterprise.im/news-events/bold-regeneration-plans-announced-throughthe-island-infrastructure-scheme/).

4.6 Government's Island Infrastructure Scheme (runs from January 2023 to 31st December 2025) The purpose of the Scheme is to support the development of brownfield sites that are included on the Unoccupied Urban Sites Register published by the Cabinet Office. The purpose of funding under this Scheme is to bridge the funding gap where sites are currently unviable for development. Funding can be sought for residential, retail or leisure, commercial or mixed use developments. The offer of funding will be based on a variety of factors including (but not limited to) location, financial viability, social benefits, economic benefits and exchequer benefit. The Scheme offers a financial support, by way of a grant and/or loan, towards development projects of up to 25% of eligible expenditure as defined below. Categories:

o Residential (over 8 dwellings); The Department may assist on the following costs on the development:

o Materials and manual labour; Professional fees (e.g. architect fees, mechanical, electrical etc.); Hire of specialist equipment (from third parties only);Installation of specialist services; Demolition; Government fees (planning, building control etc.); Removal of contaminated land or waste; and Other site work to the satisfaction of the Department.

4.7 Net Zero Emissions by 2050 - In July 2020, the Isle of Man Government published their Action Plan for Achieving Net Zero Emissions by 2050. - 4.8 IoM Government's Active Travel Strategy (2018 - 2021) -The Isle of Man Government's Active Travel Strategy was published in May 2018 and sets out the strategy to increase the number of people using more active modes of travel on a regular basis, i.e. walking and cycling. The aim of the strategy is to put in place a series of mechanisms which will help facilitate more active travel, achieving a modal shift away from motorised transport. Although the document focusses on the Douglas area, the principles of the document are considered to be applicable to the rest of the Island.

5.0 REPRESENTATIONS It should be noted that full comments made by all representations are available on the Online Services. Below are the final comments received from the various parties; - 5.1 Port Erin Commissioners comment (11.01.2024); "The Board of Port Erin Commissioners considered the above application at its meeting held on 10 January 2024 and resolved the support the application with conditions.

The Board is disappointed that the development does not meet the 25% provision of affordable housing and expects that this will be addressed via a commuted sum for the Section 13 agreement.

The Board's support for the application is conditional that the Section 13 commuted sum must be provided to Port Erin Commissioners to be used to improve public sector housing within the village…"

5.2 Highway Services (DOI) following additional information and plans do not object to the application subject to conditions and make the final comments (28.11.2024):

"Previous Highways comments dated 18/12/2023 requested a number of alterations, additions and clarification to the proposal. These were summarised as:

- Revisions to the visibility splays drawing to show the full extent of the splays from Rowany Villas and Ocean Castle Drive in both directions;
- Pedestrian visibility splays of 2m x 2m from the under croft access;
- Submission of an Accessibility Audit;
- Consideration of the increase in access width for the under croft parking;
- Provision of double yellow line parking restrictions adjacent and in front of the access onto Rowany Villas;
- Consideration of the provision of motorcycle parking bays;
- Revisions to the bin store door to show opening inwards rather than onto the highway;
- Clarification of the pedestrian access arrangements on the Promenade side of the development;
- Consideration/revisions to provide pedestrian access through the dividing wall between the rear parking areas, to further increase pedestrian mobility/permeability; and
- Revisions to plans showing all footways meeting or exceeding the minimum 2m width requirement. The revisions provided in the additional information submission have addressed these points. Visibility splays

Visibility splays have now been provided from the two junctions onto The Promenade, from Ocean Castle Drive and Rowany Villas. In both instances the splays achieved are 2.4m x 43m meeting the minimum requirement for a 30mph speed limit in a built-up area. The revisions have displayed that the visibility from the junctions is adequate to accommodate the increase in use they will experience from the development. Pedestrian splays have been provided for all accesses from the development at the required 2m x 2m. This gives the required sight of a passing pedestrian across the opening of the access when a vehicle is emerging.

Accessibility Audit The accessibility audit provided in Manual for Manx Roads has been completed for this development. The development proposal fulfils the requirements for accessibility by the different road user types and its completion has ensured that mobility and accessibility throughout and around the site has been considered in its design. In addition, the redesign of the layout has resulted in a reduction of doors/ adjacent doorways that users will have to navigate. This makes access to the apartments and lifts easier of mobility impaired users.

Undercroft Access and Parking The Undercroft parking access has been increased in width from 5.3m to 5.7m. This was amended upon request from Highways as vehicle tracking undertaken on the previous width was tight, left no room for driver error and made it difficult for users exiting spaces close to the access. The increased width now makes passing movements easier, and along with internal rearrangement of the spaces, will ensure exit from the spaces close to the access can be made in one continuous movement. With the removal of some echelon spaces along Rowany Villas already proposed, the increased width has no additional impact on parking. The provision of a gate is included in the proposals. This gate is not set back a sufficient distance from the highway to provide space for a vehicle to pull in off the carriageway or footway, and therefore may impede pedestrian or vehicular movement. However given the expected low volume of traffic using Rowany Villas, the distance from the junction with The Promenade ensuring flow is not disrupted, and redesign of the Undercroft to provide the setback could result in substantial parking loss, the gates in the location shown are accepted. Internal redesign of the basement Undercroft parking has now allowed for an additional two parking spaces to be provided. This is achieved through the relocation of some mobility impaired spaces and increase in the number of tandem parking spaces. As noted in the response dated 18/12/23, the tandem arrangement cannot provide individual vehicle access and egress and will require management with the adjacent vehicle. However, this arrangement is acceptable for apartments of multiple bedrooms where two spaces are allocated. The increase in parking now totals 59 spaces across the site. The development proposes 38 apartments with 13 one-bed and 25 multi-bed. Allocated parking would give 13 spaces to the one-bed and leave 46 spaces to be split between the multi-bed apartments. There would be a shortfall of 4 parking spaces from the Strategic Plan standards and leave four of the multi-bed apartments with only one space rather than two. Management and allocation of the development spaces will be required and the tandem spaces within the basement parking should be allocated to the same apartment. Vehicle tracking has been provided for a number of spaces. Space 29, which has added mobility impaired protection zones, can be accessed through multiple turning movements. This makes access/egress from the space difficult. A larger turning head to the end of the parking bays would normally be provided, however in this instance, the redesign of the layout has allowed for an increase in parking which will reduce impact on on-street capacity and vehicle tracking has shown that the movement can be made, albeit through increased number of moves.

Traffic Regulation Order The applicant/agent has confirmed acceptance of providing double yellow line parking restrictions adjacent to the access onto Rowany Villas. This will be arranged through separate post planning processes and confirmed at the Section 109(A) Highway Agreement stage.

Motorcycle Parking The rearrangement of the Undercroft parking has allowed for the provision of one motorcycle parking space. Manual for Manx Roads has no dedicated motorcycle parking requirement for residential and asks for provision to be given where possible and appropriate. Given this, and that the spaces are likely to be allocated and therefore used by residents for any vehicle type, the amount provided is accepted. Highways welcomes the effort to provide space for alterative vehicle types.

Bin Store External doors to the bin store have been switched to now open inwards, away from the highway and has resulted in no loss to bin storage capacity.

Pedestrian Access, Promenade Frontage Clarification was requested on the pedestrian access to the development from the Promenade frontage. Elevations showed a redline that appeared to indicate a stepped access. The applicant/agent has now clarified and shown through drawing that the pedestrian access on this side is also ramped and can provide mobility impaired access.

Pedestrian Permeability to Rear of Site The applicant/agent has clarified that there is a substantial elevation difference between the two parking areas to the rear of the development. Highways originally requested that pedestrian access is provided between the two areas in order to make access to different parts of the development easier and more convenient, however, in order to achieve this with an acceptable design, significant space would be required which could result in loss of parking and/or amenity.

Footways Surrounding the Development Site Highways requested revised plans showing footway dimensions on the routes surrounding the development site. The stated alterations in the transport assessment did not match those measured in the first iteration of plans. Revised site plans have now indicated that surrounding footways are, or will be through improvement, at or above the minimum 2m requirement. The applicant is reminded that the alteration to the highway will require a Section 109(a) Highway Agreement post planning consent, and the adjustment to the building line and footway widening will require a Section 4 Highway Adoption.

Issues Raised in Representations A number of representations have been submitted in regard to this application. Some issues over the wear to Ocean Castle Drive were raised, however as this is not adopted highway, the maintenance and increased wear to the surface is a private matter. A frequent issue raised by the representations was the loss of on-street parking along Rowany Villas, and its knock-on effect to the amenity or residents and parking on The Promenade. The proposals would see the loss of up to six echelon spaces along Rowany Villas. On first assessment of the proposal, Highways considered that this loss to on-street parking was acceptable in order to benefit the safety and movement from the proposed access, and that this loss can be supported by on-street provision along the western side of The Promenade. Parking along The Promenade in this location is intermittent, providing adequate number of spaces and can be located in close proximity to the removed spaces, which will not significantly increase the walking distance to residential dwellings. Highways assessment acknowledged the shortfall in parking provision for the development below the stated standards. This was originally a shortfall of 6, but now reduced to 4. The transport assessment and travel plan provided sufficient justification for this shortfall, given the central and sustainable location. Provision of at least one parking space per apartment is given, with only four of the apartments of multiple rooms requiring on-street parking if necessary. Given the length of unrestricted parking along the Promenade, there is sufficient provision to

accommodate this. Visitor parking will have to utilise on-street provision also, however, longer distances of walking to gain these spaces may be expected from visitors. Comments raised the issue of congested parking along The Promenade during peak tourist season/days. On these days parking along The Promenade does become significantly busier. However, these days are seasonal and will be dependent on weather and events. The development will result in increased demand and the loss of some on-street spaces to Rowany Villas, however the spaces lost were on-street also and could not be guaranteed for use by residents. Living at this location it may be expected that on peak tourist days a longer walk to on-street parking is expected.

Summary The revised plans and additional technical note have addressed the highways concerns raised in the previous consultation. As a result, the proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services Development Control raises no objection to the proposal subject all access arrangements to accord to Drawing No. 005 Rev A and 101 Rev A, and proposed conditions:

- All vehicular accesses, pedestrian accesses, parking layout, cycle parking, bin storage and access visibilities shown on the approved plans to be implemented before first occupation and retained thereafter,
- Off-site highway works such as TRO parking restrictions and highway alterations to be implemented before first occupation, and
- Ramps for vehicular access shall be no more than 1:10 gradient and ramps for mobility impaired users shall be nor more than 1:12.5 gradient. The Applicant is advised that a S109(A) Highway Agreement is needed after the grant of planning consent. Recommendation: DNOC"

5.3 Public Estates & Housing Division do not object to the application making the following comments (21.03.2024); "We refer to the aforementioned planning application, and we can confirm that we have looked at the detail of the application and have considered the provision of a 25% Affordable Housing requirement. We have also held preliminary discussions with the applicant.

Current data drawn from Housing Division records for the South of the Island indicates that there are 108 persons on the general public sector waiting list for affordable housing to rent in the South. There are also 29 persons on the First-time Buyers Register seeking to purchase a first home in the South of the Island. This figure is not indicative of likely final purchases as the ability to progress to completion would depend upon personal circumstances and mortgage ability at point of allocation.

The Department does from time to time support the sale of new affordable apartments to first time buyers where there is evidence of clear demand. With regard to this specific application it is the Department's view that a Commuted Sum is the preferred option as the funds obtained will be used to support more suitable affordable housing elsewhere. The Department is acutely aware that burdening first time buyers with substantial additional costs resulting from Service Charges and Ground Lease charges can cause financial stress for those who can least afford any costs over and above mortgage capital and interest payments.

Accordingly, the department would request that consideration be given by the Planning Committee to include a requirement, in respect of any approval granted for this site, for the applicant to enter into a Section 13 Agreement with the Department to provide a Commuted Sum in lieu of affordable housing."

5.4 Highway Services Drainage make the following comments (19.01.2024);

"Allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads.

Recommendation: The applicant should be aware off and demonstrate compliance with the clauses above."

5.5 Ecosystem Policy Officer (DEFA) do not object to the application subject to conditions and make the following comments (21.07.2023): "The Ecosystem Policy Team are pleased to see that the applicants intend to build swift nest bricks into the north-east elevation of the new building. The building's height makes it very suitable for swifts and the location is also less than 100m away from other swift nests sites, so we believe this will be extremely beneficial for the conservation and enhancement of the local swift population. We note that the drawings say that a minimum of 3 are to be installed, which again we are pleased to see because swift like to nest communally, but we would encourage the applicant to install more if possible. However, we worry about the inclusion of so many clear glass balustrades around the building. Transparent glass windows/balustrades pose a collision risk to birds, including swift, when they are in flight and could result in their injury or death. In 2004 the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) estimated that up to 100 million birds strike glass each year in the UK and this is based on the number of ringed birds found dead near a window.

As referenced in the Design Access Statement, Wildlife Act 1990 Schedule 8 non-native invasive montbretia (Crocosmia × crocosmiiflora) is present on site and so responsible measures will be required during construction to ensure this plant is not spread into the wild, which would be an offence.

Additionally, Port Erin Bay Marine Nature Reserve (MNR) is located approx. 70m to the southwest of the site and so there is potential for damage to this legally protected site, for example from pollution incidents or sediment runoff, should responsible construction practises not be implemented. A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is therefore requested below.

When the Ecosystem Policy Team were originally consulted on the site proposals, prior to the planning application being submitting, we recommended that planting, including tree planting, took place on site, to mitigate for the loss of an urban green space used by insects and foraging birds. Wild cherry and crab apple were a couple of native suggestions. However, looking at the proposed location of the new landscaping, which is all to the north of the 5 storey building, we do not believe that these species are appropriate because they are both are not overly shade tolerant and are likely to grow poorly and not provide much in the way of ecological benefit. The same issue should also be considered in regards to the proposed shrub species. Therefore, an updated landscaping plan will need to be provided containing species appropriate to the site and to the shaded position. We are not advocating strictly native in this location, but no invasive species should be used and as stated in the Design and Access Statement, species should also be chosen for their known wildlife benefits. There is a tree species selection guide available from the TDAG website, containing a list of species that are shade tolerant and which may be helpful to the applicant in their selection.

The Ecosystem Policy Team therefore request that the following conditions are secured on approval:

No works to commence unless a plan detailing the measures that are to be put in place to prevent bird strikes on the clear glass balustrades, is submitted to Planning and approved in writing. Measures could include use of etching, ultraviolet coatings or decals.

No works to commence unless a plan showing the number and location of at least 3 integrated swifts nest bricks to be built high up on the north east elevation of the new building, has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing.

No works to commence unless a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing. The CEMP should include measures to be put in place to prevent the spread of invasive plants, and to prevent damage to Port Erin MNR, including use of spill kits, runoff prevention measures, biodegradable oils, good waste management and litter prevention measures etc.

No works to commence unless an updated soft landscaping plan has been submitted to Planning and approved in writing."

5.6 Assistant Registered Building Officer (DEFA) comment (11.03.2024); "Assessment of the Proposals The site was previously occupied by the Ocean Castle Hotel, a four storey building with a castellated parapet. The hotel building was demolished in the first decade of the 21st century. In 2009, application 09/00982/B permitted a five storey building containing seven apartments, with a basement level car park below.

The current proposal follows the 2009 approval in proposing a symmetrical west elevation. However, rather than following the general design principles of the Imperial Heights building further up the Promenade as per the previous approval, this proposal is similar in style to the recently constructed Royal Shore building lower down the Promenade. This design features a flat roof, rectangular form, and glass balustrades to the proposed balconies.

Clearly the principle of a multiple storey building on this site has historic precedence, as well as a more recent approval in 2009. Although the general style of the proposed building is similar to the adjacent Royal Shore building, the symmetrical nature of this proposal is at odds with all of the other buildings on the former hotel sites along the Upper Promenade (although the 2009 approval was also symmetrical). It is possible that an asymmetrical design may have added a greater level of interest, and would perhaps have reacted more sympathetically to the rising nature of the site. In my view, the Royal Shore building does not respect its site and surroundings in terms of its form and design, and it is unfortunate that a similar design approach has been adopted with this application. In my view, this proposal fails to respect its site and surroundings in terms of its form, design, and the landscaping of the space around the building.

I have concerns that the building as proposed presents a rather brutal image, particularly when viewed from further down the promenade. The lower ground floor western wall sited directly on the back of the pavement (and the site boundary) will provide no active frontage at pavement level, something that has to a certain degree been reduced on the developments either side. The Manx stone effect finish and louvered ventilation openings do nothing to offset this brutal appearance. In addition to this, the CGI images appear to suggest that the only elements that provide any depth or shadow lines on the principal elevation would be the balconies. 16 separate balcony decks are visible in view 3 on page 20 of the application Design and Access Statement, and the most visible part of these balconies from street level is their soffit (or underside). No finish or detail has been proposed for the soffit of these elements. The final specific element of concern is the standard of the proposed finishes. This site is in an extremely exposed location, with frequent strong westerly winds and a significant amount of salt in the air that will degrade building finishes. The term 'Manx stone effect cladding' stated within the application suggests a proprietary product. Similarly, the term 'Standing seam effect' proposed for the roof suggests that the roof finish will not in fact be a standing seam roof. The glass, cladding and roofing materials on this site will need to be extremely hard-wearing and durable if they are to stand the test of time. Using less durable finishes runs the risk of burdening the future residents and building management company with costly regular maintenance, as well as the risk of a building whose external appearance looks tired after a very short period of time.

As the proposed Port Erin Conservation Area has not been adopted, the usual Conservation Area policies do not apply. These include those relating to views into and out of the

Conservation Area. The proposed Conservation Area boundary runs along the pavement immediately to the west of the application site. The area on the western side of the Upper Promenade is known as the Brooghs, and contains publicly used grassed areas and the seaside paths overlooking the bay. Although I have concerns regarding the form and finishes of the proposed building as outlined in the preceding paragraphs, given the nature of the part of the Conservation Area overlooked by this site, I do not believe that approving this application would jeopardise the future designation of the Port Erin Conservation Area."

5.7 Flood Risk Management (DOI) copied the Department into an email correspondents with a third party where they stated (01.07.2024); "Thank you for your email the surface water discharge from this site is to connect into the existing surface water sewer in the Promenade which discharges into the stream running adjacent to Strand Road and discharges opposite Bridge Bookshop onto the beach ( please see rough sketch below). I have copied in Ian Wade from Manx Utilities who are dealing with the surface water discharge for this site."

5.7.1 Further comment was sought from the Department to the Flood Risk Managment regarding flooding and they commented (27.11.2024): "We have no comment on this application there are no concerns regarding flood risk ."

5.8 Manx Utilities comment ()27.11.2024): "It is expected and stated within the planning application that the foul and surface water will discharge into the relevant public sewers. This being the case I do not foresee any issues with flood risk from the development site. Any issue with landslips in the immediate area is not within MU remit to review or comment." - 5.9 The Design Out Crime Officer of the Isle of Man Constabulary comments (18.11.2024); "Bradda Head is a low crime area, which makes this an attractive place to live and socialise"; but also raised a number of questions, including to lighting to all external areas, access control relating to the car park areas and main entrance, CCTV locations; tree blocking nature surveillance.

5.9.1 Following these questions the applicants commented responded, and from these comments the Design Out Crime Officer commented (25.11.2024): "Thank you for the documents and responses from the developer, Rob Collister. I'm satisfied that my questions have been answered."

5.10 The following Government Departments have also been consulted on the application but no comments have been received;

o Public Health
o Manx National Heritage
o Manx Care
o Planning Policy - Cabinet Office

5.11 A number of private representations have been received from the following addresses who have objected to the application:

o Flat 9 Imperial Heights, Promenade, Port Erin (18.01.2024);
o Eastfield House, Rowany Villas Port, Erin (11.12.2023 & 18.12.2023);
o Flat 5 Imperial Heights, Promenade, Port Erin (17.01.2024);
o 33 Royal Shore Apartments, Promenade Port Erin (21.12.2023);
o 20 Fairway Close, Port Erin (04.12.2023);
o Flat 8 Imperial Heights, Promenade, Port Erin (20.12.2023);
o 31 Royal Shore Apartments, Promenade, Port Erin (21.12.2023);

o 20 Royal Shore Apartments, Promenade, Port Erin (03.12.2023);
o 34 Royal Shore Apartments, Promenade, Port Erin (20.12.2023 - Ellis Brown 12 Strathallan Crescent on behalf of owners and then direct emails on 27.11.2024 and
owners/occupiers of Oakleigh, Glencrutchery Road, Douglas);
o Flat 7, Sea Front, Promenade, Port Erin (21.05.2024);
o Water Edge 16 Lime Street Port St Mary (25.11.2024);
o 34 Royal Shore Apartments, Port Erin (26.11.2024); - Ellis Brown 12 Strathallan Crescent on behalf of owner and other residents.

5.12 Full details of the comments can be viewed on the Planning Departments Website. In the summary the objections are summarised as;

o The proposed entrance will reduce or perhaps cancel the parking places in the road leading up to Romany Villas;
o Too high at the front at 6 storeys. With basement above ground at front left Rowany Villas corner, effectively 7 storeys high, overpowering the 4/5 storeys of Royal Shore;
o Original hotel was 1 storey at Hill House boundary. At 4 Storeys vs the 2 of Hill House and 3 storey properties in Rowany Villas it extends up too high and too far;
o The private lane increased traffic for rear carpark access, so potholes are likely unless the affected section of the private lane is tarmacked with drainage;
o We also don't see why taxpayer assistance should be provided for this prime site (excepting for net zero energy efficiency incentives) unless the taxpayer/government also gains to an extent for the joint investment in this;
o Overlooking and Loss of amenity;
o the overdevelopment of the site;
o the potential degradation rather than improvement of the current environment enjoyed by both residents and visitors to this part of Promenade;
o Insufficient notes and dimensions on the plans and elevations giving measurements to adjacent buildings from windows, balconies or terraces, not possible to fully evaluate the extent
of overlooking and loss of amenity;
o Proposed penthouse overlooks Nr 34 Royal Shore penthouse looking down towards it and the main living space;
o Side windows to the living rooms on the application site directly overlook the Royal Shore Apartments (13m away);
o Kitchen windows also overlook;
o Scale and bulk of building is oppressive especially when it is at a greater height bearing down on the Royal Shore Apartments;
o Building takes up the full extent of the site and is overdeveloped;
o Should preclude windows in these side elevations;
o Site is being overdeveloped with a lack of parking provision, a lack of public open space and no social housing provision;
o Loss of parking on Rowany Villas is to the detriment to the neighbouring property;
o Proposal will have car parking provision of 1.5 spacers per apartment with no visitor parking;
o A light study should be submitted;
o As a result of the proposed overdevelopment of the plot, the 20 metre norm for
overlooking neighbours has been ignored. There is only 13.5 m clearance to the living and bedroom windows of the flats on the north side of Royal Shore;
o Royal Shore residents will lose a substantial amount of light due to the proximity and height of the new development;
o It is always difficult to find public car parking spaces in Port Erin in the summer, and the removal of the 10 diagonal guest parking spaces at the same time as building another 38 flats with insufficient parking planned, is going to make it impossible for visitors to park nearby;
o Consider the development should be reduced by one floor for each level, matching the
other properties of 4+5th floor penthouse at the front, dropping to 4 , then 3 at rear (Still 1 storey more than the original demolished property);
o Ground floor is level with the first floor of Royal Shore Apartments;

o Reducing heights would still provide 31 apartments which still would fit with the IOMSP for making best use of sites, 38 apartments is overdevelopment;
o Even if it is deemed that an increase of 2 storeys over that of the original building is acceptable, it should be reduced towards the rear to avoid being overbearing, such as changing to be 6, then to 4 and then to 2 storeys;
o Access could be moved to the front of the building to retain parking spaces on Rowany Villas;
o Proposed new residents parking area of the to be demolished Hill House, this will increase the traffic in the first part of Rowany Villas which is a unmade/unadopted road, this should be tarmacked and perhaps adopted;
o The proposal to us more resembles a factory rather than a residential block, the impression being that the architectural specifications were based purely on maximising the number of units & not on creating a viable & attractive residential block complimenting the area;
o the tall stone wall abutting the Promenade pavement is very oppressive unlike Royal Shore with its flower garden;
o 38 units & possibly up to 60 vehicles plus visitors will potentially overwhelm the immediate area affecting Rowany Villas, Ocean Castle Drive, & the Promenade itself;
o this particular area attracts large numbers of visitors, including families with young children playing and picnicking on the grassy slopes and the steep climb up from the village means many families and those older and/or or less mobile need to bring their cars and park on the Promenade;
o Previous plan 09/00982/B had a stepped roof line and was aesthetically more acceptable than this oppressive looking block;
o Objection to provision of Government money when not assisting any community housing
or the public in general;
o A full environmental impact assessment should be submitted;
o The Drainage Strategy document included in the application is insufficient and contains very little analysis;
o Given the recent landslide just below this site, residents should have confidence the government has fully considered all possible effects this new building and loss of permeable land will have on erosion in the area;
o The developer has chosen not to address any of the concerns submitted by the neighbours last year, nor do the revised plans contain the information requested by our architects regarding minimum distances to the adjacent residences to determine the extent of loss of privacy;
o the distance to the adjacent properties would need to be increased by more than 50% in order to meet the minimum 20m distance stipulated in the residential design guide;
o Most importantly the Isle of Man Government SHOULD NOT be involved in a development that so blatantly disregards applicable design rules. The rules will cease to have any meaning if the government does not obey them for projects where the government itself is a partner;
o since the original planning application was submitted is the landslide within 50 yards from our property last winter - leading to the permanent closure of the coastal path in that location;
o Clearly the additional runoff during heavy rains is a concern;

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

- 6.1 APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT

6.1.1 Given the land-use designation and the type of development the following elements are relevant to consideration in the determination of this application:

(a) Principle of development;
(b) The potential impact upon the visual amenities of the area/street scenes;
(c) Potential impact upon neighbouring amenities;
(d) Potential impact upon highway safety / Parking provision;
(e) Potential impacts upon ecology;

(f) Affordable housing provision;
(g) Open space provision; and
(h) Energy Efficiency / Climate Change.

6.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT (Strategic Policy 1 & 2, Spatial Policy 2 & 5 General Policy

2, Environment Policy 43, Housing Policy 1, 2, 3, 4 & 6 and Area Plan for the South)

6.2.1 The first issues relating to this application is the principle of residential development on this site. As outlined within the planning policy section of this report the site is proposed for residential development under the Area Plan for the South which has been adopted by Tynwald since 20th February 2013. The proposed residential use complies with this land uses designation and the area plan.
6.2.2 Furthermore, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan has been adopted firstly in June 2007 & again on 1st April 2016 (housing numbers updated only). Within this document Strategic Policies 1 & 2 require that new dwellings be located within existing sustainable settlements. Spatial Policy 2 also indicated that outside Douglas development will be concentrated on a total of five Service Centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services, one of these service centres is Port Erin.
6.2.3 In terms of housing need, more recently the update to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 has been undertaken and adopted, which identified that a total of 1,120 new dwellings is required to be provided between the years of 2011 to 2026 in the south of the Island alone. Given Port Erin is regarded as one of the two Services centres in the south (total of five Services Centres throughout IOM), it is reasonable to consider a majority of these dwellings are likely to be provided in Port Erin.
6.2.4 It is also noted that PA 09/00982/B was approved on this site for residential development, which has since expired; albeit the principle of residential use accepted by this development has some planning weight. At that time the site was designated as Tourism/Recreation under the Port Erin Local Plan (adopted by Tynwald in 1990), albeit residential use of the site was accepted. Since that time the Area Plan for the South redesignated this and the surrounding suite for residential use.
6.2.5 Accordingly; given the above reasons, it is consider the principle of developing the site for residential purposes is acceptable. This is not an automatic reason to allow development as further material planning matters as indicated previously need to be considered, to determine if 38 dwellings/apartments on the site are appropriate.

6.3 THE POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE AREA (Strategic Policy

3, General Policy 2, Environment Policy 42 & 43)

6.3.1 In terms of the potential impacts upon the visual amenities of the area, it is considered the development will be publically visible from a number of locations, although the following views are considered the main areas for consideration;

o Promenade area and to the north (leading to Spaldrick) and south (leading to Station Road);
o Shore Road;
o Bradda West Road;
o Bradda Glen and public footpath to Milner's Tower; and
o Rowany Villas.

Promenade area and to the north (leading to Bradda East) and south (leading to Station Road)

6.3.2 Certainly the greatest potential impact of the development is when viewed from the Promenade directly in front of the building, which also includes the area of public open space opposite the site. The full six storeys will be apparent, with also potential view of parts of the seventh floor (penthouse) which is set back from the front elevation by approximately 3 to 3.5m.

6.3.3 The scale and mass of the building from these views will be significant, especially given the currently nature of the site which in the main is a cleared site and has been the case for around 14 years.
6.3.4 It should be noted the site is very similar to the recently constructed apartment block Royal Apartments. Both have very similar overall site widths which front onto the Promenade, overall width of built development, heights and design approach in terms of proportion, form, finishes, amounts of glazing and balconies. For comparison (approximately measurements);

o The width of Royal Apartments is 31.8m, as is the application site;
o The total width of the apartment block of Royal Apt fronting onto the Promenade is 29.8m, while the proposed apartment block would be 28.5m;
o The maximum height of Royal Apartments is 21.6m while the proposed apartment block would have a maximum, height of 21.8m (penthouse roofs to lowest footpath level on Promenade);
o Royal apartment front façades (excluding penthouse) ranges between 14.9m and 21.6m in height (measured to footpath on Promenade), whereas the proposed apartment front façades measures between 17.7m and 20m in height.

6.3.5 The submitted street elevation (applicants confirmed that heights and position of neighbouring buildings are correctly show) shows that the proposed apartment building would sit neatly within the existing street scene, especially when viewed from the Promenade area. There has clearly been a stepped approach when the re-development of this area has occurred and this submission will continue this approach, so essentially Imperial Heights Apartment block fronting the Promenade will appear to be taller in height than the proposed new apartment building and the Royal Apartments will be lower than the proposal. This is one of the key features of the area and it is considers this proposal would continue this, as demonstrated in the submission plans/visuals.
6.3.6 There was some concerns of the overbearing nature of the south-eastern corner of the building, given the stone wall would have heights around 4m immediately adjacent to the pavement. Amended plans have been submitted which overcomes this concerns. The applicant’s comments;

"We have incorporated a recess to the south west corner of the main promenade elevation. This includes a planter at low level to soften the appearance and the recess is clad with the same composite cladding board as present within the rest of the building to reduce the amount of Tier Stone to on the corner of Rowany Villas lessening the visual impact this corner of the development has on the immediate streetscape. This recess also provides level pedestrian access from the promenade footpath to the basement parking and circulation cores. The size of the development signage has been increased to the Rowany Villas elevation to further break up the extent of stone cladding of this prominent corner when viewed from the Promenade. To further reduce the impact of the stone cladding, render panels have been added on either side of the under croft entrance to Rowany Villas elevation."

6.3.7 The proportion, forms and overall design approach is very similar to Royal Apartments, being a more contemporary approach, compared to some of the nearby sites which have been re-developed over recent times, which took a more traditional approach namely the Victoria approach more similar to what existed on the site originally. While design is subjective, it is considered that proposal in terms of its visual impact from the Promenade area would not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape and would respect the site and surrounding properties and street scenes. Shore Road

6.3.8 Public views from Shore Road and the beach area, are prominent views which also have a number of viewpoints. They extend from the Cosy Nook to the former Marina Biological site. Generally, these views are looking upwards to the site and Promenade (upper) and would be seen as part of the collection of existing substantial buildings, finished in painted render along the Promenade, rather than on an individual basis, namely given the distances of such views. From these viewpoints the important element is considered to ensure the overall form, proportion and finishes of the building fits within its context and urban setting and particularly in relation to the stepped nature of the site and Promenade. Furthermore, the undeveloped nature of the site results in a gap site between existing built development, which does have a detracting visual impact.
6.3.9 The overall form, mass, proportion & finishes of the proposed building is considered to be appropriate for reasons outlined previously. Again the continuation of the step natural of built development along the Promenade would be retained by this proposal and therefore it is considered the proposed development would be acceptable from public views from Shore Road and beach areas. Bradda West Road
6.3.10 Views of the proposed development from Bradda West Road would in the main be screened from public views given existing built development between the two, namely the properties along Traie Meanagh Drive. Views of the upper floors of the proposal would be apparent, albeit these would not be prominent or significant, given the existing built form surround the site and in the area. Bradda Glen and public footpath to Milner's Tower
6.3.11 From Bradda Glen (namely car park) again similar to Bradda West Road, prominent views of the site would not be significant. Public views are likely to be less than those observed from Bradda West Road, which is set above Bradda Glen. Again any views obtained from this location would be partial views of the proposal and any built form seen, would blend with existing development at Traie Meanagh Drive and Royal Apartments.
6.3.12 From the various viewpoints along the public footpaths which run to Milner's Towers, again the are a number of vantage points where the development would be seen. Again, similar to the Shore Road, any views are distant and the important element of the proposal again is to ensure the continuation of the stepped nature of the development, which the development does. Accordingly, the development would fit well from these public viewpoints. The development would also fill in the current gap which is observed from these areas which is of benefit. Rowany Villas (Ocean Castle Drive, albeit not a public highway)
6.3.13 Viewpoints from the two streets will clearly be significant. The current cleared site creates a sense of openness between these two roads and the proposal will result in a seven to four storey building running along these two roads, which clearly has a change to the street scenes and public views of the site and area.
6.3.14 Rowany Villas would be altered the most having the greater level of built form running along Rowany Villas for 50m from the Promenade. Historically, this is not unique, the former Ocean Castle Hotel ran a similar length down Rowany Villas, being four half to five storeys in height in the entirely. This is similar to Royal Hotel and the Imperial which also had similar heights running parallel with Rowany Villas and Ocean Castle Drive respectively. Accordingly, large built forms in this area is not new, it existed in the past and still exists today with Imperial Lodge which is four storeys, set behind the Imperial Heights, and Royal Apartments being five storeys; albeit an approximately a third of this site reduces to single storey garaging, although set behind the garage is five storey element which projects rearwards of the Royal Apartments site.

6.3.15 Overall, while the proposal increase built development over what currently exists, it is clearly both historically and neighbouring recent re-developments the proposal would not be out of keeping or inappropriate to the visual amenities of the street scene. Conclusion of visual impact
6.3.16 Overall, the fact remains the site which is currently cleared and has been since 2010 would considerably change with the proposed development; however, it is considered in terms of it mass, proportion, scale, finishes and overall design approach taking the contours of the topography of the site and the Promenade into account, the proposal would fit with the various street scenes, public viewpoints outlined previously and neighbouring buildings. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape townscape and would respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting complying with General Policy 2.

6.4 POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES - (General Policy 2 and Residential Design Guide 2021)

6.4.1 The residential properties potentially most impacted by the development would be those immediately to the north, southeast & south of the site; namely the apartments within Imperial Heights, Imperial Lodge & Royal Shore and the residential dwelling Eastfield House.
6.4.2 Generally, the main issues relating to the impacts upon residential amenities are; overbearing impacts upon outlooks, loss of light, and or loss or privacy. Royal Shore Apartments
6.4.3 In relation to the impacts to Royal Shore apartment, the main potential impacts relate to those apartments which have directly facing windows towards the site, namely those four apartments (taken from approved plans layouts - GF to Third Floor) in the northern section of Royal Shore, set over four floors. Each of these apartments have a total of six windows which directly face the southern elevation of the proposed building. The windows within the proposed building would be approximately 13.8m to the northern elevation (and windows) of Royal Shore apartments. Of the six windows mentioned above within Royal Shore, three serve the lounge/kitchen diner (open plan layout), a bathroom and two bedrooms. It should be noted that the room/window layouts of the proposed apartments which are opposite of Royal Shore apartments, are very similar.
6.4.4 There will clearly be an impact upon the neighbouring amenities of the occupant/s of Royal Shore apartments which are opposite the application site, especially compared to the existing situation which is a cleared site, albeit not especially attractive or visual beneficial to the area. Historically, the original Ocean Castle Hotel would likely to have a similar impact, if not greater compared to the current proposal, given its greater mass, height and approximately 60+ windows which directly faced towards Royal Shore; albeit that has been demolished a decade ago, so little material planning weight can be given to this.
6.4.5 It should be noted that the lounge/kitchen diner of the four apartments (three windows) within the north elevation of Royal Shore are secondary windows, with the main source of light and outlook to these rooms being from the primary habitable windows to the front of the apartments (west) which is made up of large glazed patio doors (face Promenade and sea views). The other three windows serve bedroom (secondary habitable rooms) and a bathroom (non-habitable room). Furthermore, the ground levels and the subsequent finished floor levels of the new apartments are not the same, being approximately 0.4m lower at each level compared to the finish floor level of the Royal Shore apartments, which potentially results in an offset of the windows and reduces the potentially level of overlooking.
6.4.6 While the general guide is that a 20m gap should be retained between windows within the residential design guide, this also indicates that dense urban areas where there is an already a level of mutual overlooking, a less standard may be acceptable. Clearly where the original Ocean Castle Hotel still in places this would have result in a similar or greater level of

overlooking than the proposal would, given the number of windows. However, this was demolished soon after planning approval on the site was granted for a new apartment block (PA 09/00982/B) on the current application site. This approval had a total of four windows (including bay windows) at each of the five floor levels which directly faced the former Royal Shore building (now replaced with Royal Shore apartments) which was deemed acceptable, even though the general 20m guide was considered at that time also. Furthermore, when Royal Shore apartments where approved (14/00893/B) this was considered acceptable with 24 windows within is north elevation which directly looks towards the application site, again under the 20m general guide. While an argument could be made that the application site was clear at that time, it is reasonable to consider that there was always a potential for a number of windows in a similar position as currently proposed. Where it be considered this relationship was unacceptable, then the Royal Shore apartments could have been refused on the grounds of prejudice future development of the application site as per General Policy 2 (k).
6.4.7 The penthouse apartment of Royal Shore apartments has three windows (two secondary habitable windows to lounge/kitchen diner and a bedroom window) within its northern elevation (setback from northern elevation of building) and an outside roof terrace which runs to the side and front of the penthouse apartment. All face towards the application site. Again there will be a greater level of overlooking from the development towards this penthouse apartment, namely the roof terrace area. However, this was likely the case with the approved 09/00982/B on the application site which would have similar level of overlooking to this penthouse, but this was judged acceptable when the Royal Shore apartments which the penthouse forms part of was approved. Accordingly, it would seem at odds to refuse the application now given previous decisions. Further, given the windows facing towards the penthouse apartment are secondary windows and/or windows which serve none primarily habitable rooms, it is not considered the impacts to be sufficient to warrant a refusal. The proposed top floor penthouse within the application site would have its roof terrace setback from the side elevations by 2 metres which would likely prevent overlooking from this towards the penthouse terrace of Royal Shore apartments. Eastfield House
6.4.8 In relation to potential overlooking of Eastfield House, it is noted that currently there is a two storey dwelling Hill House which directly faces towards Eastfield House, which is proposed to be demolished by this development. The area of the site which replaces this dwelling is proposed to be a car park for seven space for the new development. Accordingly, in terms of light, overlooking and overbearing impact the demolition of this dwelling would bring benefits to the amenities of the occupants of Eastfield House. It is noted that the primary habitable room to this dwelling are understood to be to its eastern elevation, which do not look towards the site. There are ground floor kitchen and a dining room windows and bedrooms at first and second floors which would all look towards the new car park area.
6.4.9 The easterly most apartments within the rear section of the development (Apartments 2, 10, 18 & 26) would have a lounge windows which directly face the integral garage of Eastfield House, these would be approximately 14m away. They would be more angled views towards the windows mention above within the northern elevation of Eastfield House so there would be some potential for overlooking. However, given the demolition of Hill House and the position and distance of the lounge windows within the new development, it is not considered there would be a significant adverse impacts upon neighbouring amenities of Eastfield House. Imperial Heights
6.4.10 Regarding the impacts to the occupants of Imperial Heights, this relates mainly to those apartments within the southern section of the Imperial Heights apartment block. The proposal would be approximately 14.6m away from the side elevation (south) of Imperial Heights. Within this elevation there are a total of four windows at each of the ground, first, second and fourth floors of the building with three windows at the fifth floor. These windows serve a single

apartment at each floor, so a total of six apartments could be affected by the development most within Imperial Heights.
6.4.11 Within the proposed northern elevation of the new apartments, the room layout and window positions of the apartments include a total of six windows, again three being secondary windows serving the lounge/kitchen diner. The fourth serves a utility room, fifth an en-suite and the sixth serves a bedroom.
6.4.12 Again, due to the ground levels of the area, the windows within the northern elevation of the application are set below the cill levels of the windows of Imperial Heights and therefore direct views from the new apartments would look towards the solid walls between the windows/cill levels of Imperial Heights.
6.4.13 These windows within the apartments of Imperial Heights. Serve as secondary windows to the primary habitable rooms (lounge/kitchen diner) and bedroom which also has a window to the rear elevation (east). Again the primary source of outlook and light is from the large bay windows which face in a westerly direction away from the site and towards the promenade and seaward.
6.4.14 Planning permission for the apartment block on the application site again included a number of windows which looked towards Imperial Heights apartments (under construction at the time of PA 09/00982/B), so again there was a acceptance of mutual level of overlooking and impacts between the two developments. Furthermore, the Imperial Heights development was approved (PA 07/00158/B) when the former Ocean Castle Hotel existed, which due to its north elevation having a greater mass, scale and with greater number of windows than the current development. The mutual impacts were considered acceptable at that stage.
6.4.15 Overall, it is acceptance there would be a potential impacts upon the occupants of the apartments within the southern section of Imperial Heights; however, for the above reasons it is not considered the impacts are so significant to warrant a refusal. Imperial Lodge
6.4.16 In relation to the potential impacts upon Imperial Lodge, this was development at the same time as Imperial Heights. This is a detached building located to the rear of Imperial Heights which is four storeys in height and directly faces towards the application site, namely the proposed side parking area/landscaped courtyard of the development and the rear section of the apartment block.
6.4.17 The closest windows of the development (en-suite) to the closest window within Imperial Lodge (southwest bay windows) would be approximately 14metres away. The distance, type of windows and angled views are such that it is not considered there would be any significant level of overlooking to warrant a refusal. Again it is noted that when Imperial Lodge was approved, the original Ocean Castle building was in place which had a number of windows which faced towards Imperial heights. This was considered appropriate in terms of amenities for both the occupants of the then Ocean Castle and the then proposed Imperial heights.
6.4.18 In relation to overbearing impacts upon outlooks and loss of light, again there will be a greater impact compared to the existing situation being a cleared site. However, compared to the original Ocean Castle building the proposal would likely have had a reduced impacts given the scale of the proposed development appears to be a reduction compared to the original Ocean Castle building. The proposal would have a similar impacts compared to the last approved scheme (PA 09/00982/B) with the northern gable elevation (closest to Imperial heights) of the previously approved apartment scheme have a depth of 18.6m, whereas the current application has a northern gable end wall depth of 22.7m (both schemes were set back into the site from the Promenade a similar distance (3m)).

6.4.19 The majority of the outlooks from Imperial Heights would be over Ocean Castle Drive, 8 parking spaces and the landscaped courtyards with the rear section of the proposed apartment being between 26m and 30m away. While this will be a change compared the existing clear site, which isn't especially beneficial for the occupants, it is considered the development would not result in significant overbearing impacts nor result in a significant loss of light to warrant a refusal. Conclusion
6.4.20 The prevailing element to all apartments of the proposal and neighbouring apartments is that the majority have their primary source of outlook and light to the front of their respective building (west elevations) and while there would be a degree overlooking from side windows, it is considered the negative impact would not be so significant to warrant a refusal. This is also a common form of development in this area historically and with more recent developments. Imperial Lodge and Eastfield House are exceptions to this, albeit for the reasons outlined it is considered the development would not significantly adverse their amenities.
6.4.21 Furthermore, from a design point of view the Department would likely have concerns of a design where the elevations of either the application site, the newly developed Royal Shore which front onto Rowany Villas or Imperial Heights/Lodge which have side/front windows facing Ocean Castle Drive; had little or no windows, as this would likely result in an inappropriate blanked elevations, which would have a detrimental impacts upon the street scene along Rowany Villas and Ocean Castle Drive.
6.4.22 Overall, whilst the proposed development will have an impacts upon existing neighbouring properties, it is considered for the reasons given the proposed development would not having an significant impacts upon the residential amenities of the neighbouring properties and therefore comply with General Policy 2 of the IOMSP and the Residential Design Guide.

6.5 POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON HIGHWAY SAFETY / PARKING PROVISION (Strategic Policy 10, General Policy 2 and Transport Policy 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8)

6.5.1 Highway Services have considered the application in details and their detailed comments can be read in full on the planning website. In summary they have considered the applicants Transport Statement and relevant plans which considered; visibility splays and tracking, Road Safety Audit Stage 1, the forward and junction visibilities and from a highway safety standpoint have raised not objections to the proposal.
6.5.2 Consideration of bin storage, pedestrian access within the site and accessibility of the site have also been considered and the proposal is considered acceptable in these respects.
6.5.3 In terms of parking provision, the parking standards as provided in the Strategic Plan require one parking space for one bedroomed apartments and two parking spaces for two or more bedroomed apartments.
6.5.4 This development proposes a total of 38 apartments which are made up of;

o 13 one bed units;
o 14 x two bed;
o 10 x three bed; and
o 1 x four bed.

6.5.5 The submission proposals a total of 57 car parking spaces within the site. Using the parking standards outlined above, this would generally require a total of 63 car parking spaces. Accordingly, there is a shortfall of 6 parking spaces.
6.5.6 On this matter the applicants Planning Statement states;

"The proposal is a little short of that but is sufficient to notionally provide at least one space per apartment. There is, in addition, provision for bicycle storage to facilitate alternative transport modes. The site is well placed in relation to public transport, to the village and the facilities and amenities it offers. This reduces the need for the use of a private motor vehicle by occupants of this building."
6.5.7 Further the Planning Statement indicates; "Royal Shore provided 45 spaces for 34 apartments (later reduced to 32 apts through the merging of apartments) and this was accepted due to its sustainable location. Reference was also made to 09/01084/B which provided 18 parking spaces for 16 apartments on land to the rear of Princess Towers and the Port Erin Royal Hotel which was also considered to be acceptable."
6.5.8 It should also be noted that Strategic Policy 10 indicates that; "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement."
6.5.9 Arguably, this proposal would meet these aims. While each apartment would have access to at least one parking space (should be conditioned), the site is within 500m of Port Erin village centre (a 5 to 10 min walk) which has a number of shops and services, including bus terminal and railway station. Further, the proposal would provide a total of 75 secure cycle parking within the basement level. Accordingly the principle of a reduction in parking standards of 6 spaces for this development is acceptable, as has been the case with the neighbouring development Royal Apartments.
6.5.10 Highway Services on the matter of relaxation the parking standards also agree, commenting; "The Transport Statement and Travel Plan have produced a robust plan and justification for the relaxation of the vehicular parking standards for this development. Relaxation can be applied according to the reasons provided in Appendix 7.6 of the Strategic Plan."
6.5.11 One of the concerns for local residents is the loss of on street parking spaces along Rowany Villas, due to the creation of the new basement parking access. There are currently 10 parking bays angled to the highway and it appears from the submission (Level 0 Site Plan Drawing 006 REV A) that a total of 6 spaces would be removed, leaving only 4 on-street parking spaces along Rowany Villas.
6.5.12 Highway Services on this matter comment; "…However, in addition to the shortfall of six spaces, the creation of under croft access will see the removal of five/six spaces along Rowany Villas. As a result, there is a shortfall of six spaces for the development and a net loss of five/six on-street spaces for surrounding developments and residents."
6.5.13 And "The required eleven/twelve on-street spaces would likely be sourced along the western side of The Promenade, as the eastern side is subject to parking restrictions. Street imagery, Department internal footage and officer observation at peak capacity hours shows that onstreet parking along The Promenade at this location is infrequent, and could support the shortfall in parking spaces which are convenient for residents of both the new development and existing echelon parking users."
6.5.14 The Department would support these comments and while the development will increase the pressure to existing on-street parking in the area (any development would), it is considered comments made by Highway Services are acceptable. Furthermore, it needs to be

noted that the original Ocean Castle Hotel had little or no parking and relied solely upon onstreet parking and likely created a greater demand than the current proposal.

Conclusion

6.5.15 Overall, for these reasons it is considered the proposal would provide safe and convenient access for all highway users (vehicle and pedestrian), together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space and does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways complying with Strategic Policy 10, General Policy 2, Transport Policy 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 of the IOM Strategic Plan.

6.7 POTENTIAL ECOLOGY IMPACTS - (Environment Policy 4)

6.7.1 The Ecosystem Policy Team have considered the application and raised no objection subject to conditions, namely;

o measures that are to be put in place to prevent bird strikes on the clear glass balustrades;
o 3 integrated swifts nest bricks to be built high up on the north east elevation of the new building;
o a Construction Environmental Management Plan be submitted to prevent the spread of invasive plants, and to prevent damage to Port Erin MNR; and
o an updated soft landscaping plan -, namely alternative tree planting than what has been initially submitted.

6.7.2 The above matters should be conditional of any approval.

6.8 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION - (Housing Policy 5)

6.8.1 Housing Policy 5 of the Strategic Plan indicates that the Planning Authority will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more. Given submission proposed 38 dwellings this equates to 9.5 affordable dwellings. A Section 13 Legal Agreement would need to be entered into by the applicant and the Department (and DOI) to ensure the affordable housing is provided. The applicants, Public Estates & Housing Division and the Department have been in discussion and it is accepted that a Commuted Sum in lieu of Affordable Housing of £442,168 be payable. This is acceptable to the Public Estates & Housing Division. The proposal therefore complies with Housing Policy 5.

6.9 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE PROVISION - (Recreation Policy 3 & 4)

6.9.1 The application provides no Public Open Space (POS), formal, amenity and children's play space within the site. This is not a unique situation for developments of this type within existing settlements (brown field sites) on the Island. The breakdown in terms of the different types of POS is as follows: 1,449 sqm of formal open space, 483 sqm of children's play space and 644 sqm of amenity space which equates to a total of 2,576 sqm or 0.25 hectares. For context the size of the application site is approximately 2120sqm (hectares 0.21) in area and therefore the POS provision is greater than the actual site. As with similar developments on brownfield sites through the Island the principle of a commuted sum in lieu of POS is considered appropriate in this case. It is noted that the site is immediately opposite an area of POS, within walking distance of children play equipment at Athol Park (behind train station) & Bradda Glen Cafe and Port Erin Beach is within a few minutes' walk of the site.

6.9.2 The applicants and the Local Authority have agreed a commuted sum payment of £15,000 In lieu of POS. It is considered this is appropriate.

6.10 Energy Efficiency/Climate Change - (Energy Policy 5 & Climate Change Act)

6.10.1 An Energy Statement accompanies this application and highlights the high performing fabric, passive design to reduce the need for heating, lighting, cooling and ventilation, the incorporation of Air Source Heat Pumps (hot water), roof mounted solar PV panels, waste water heat recovery on showers, and Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery systems throughout which

will provide an efficient and low carbon development. No fossil fuels are proposed to be utilised.

6.10.2 The new block will provide a total 38 new apartments which will comply with current IOM standards and achieve the future requirement of SAP 93. While Building Regulations application will consider these matter in more detail, the Department is comfortable that the scheme complies with Energy Policy 5 and the Climate Change Act, albeit the latter is not yet in force.

7.0 SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENTS (General Policy 4, Housing Policy 5 and Recreation Policy 4)

7.1 The applicants and Local Authority and Public Estates and Housing (DOI) have agreed that a commuted sum payment of £442,168 For Affordable Housing and a commuted sum payment of £15,000 Public Open Space is to be provided. - 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal would be developing a site which is designated for residential development currently and one which is a designated brownfield site which currently has a detrimental visual impact to the area and street scene. The proposed development in terms of scale, scale, proportion, finish and overall design would sit comfortably within the site and would be a positive visual impact upon the visual amenities of the street scene/area and with neighbouring buildings which all form part of the Promenade.

8.2 The proposal would provide an additional supply of housing within a sustainable location, given its closeness and good pedestrian to Port Erin centre and would meeting the overarching aims of the IOM Strategic Plan i.e. "Towards a Sustainable Island" and identified near the top of the settlement hierarchy.

8.3 In relation to highway safety there are no concerns raised and it is considered the level of parking provision is appropriate for the level of development and its location within Port Erin to shops, services and public transport links. - 8.4 The proposal would have no significant adverse impacts upon private or public amenities. - 8.5 Finally, there are no adverse impacts to protect species on this site and appropriate conditions in place to ensure biodiversity on the site is provided and would result in an energy efficient development. - 8.6 In conclusion, the proposal would comply with; Strategic Policy 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 10 & 11, Spatial Policy 2 & 5, General Policy 2, Environment Policy 4, 7, 42 & 43, Housing Policy 1, 4, &

5, Recreation Policy 3 & 4, Transport Policy 1, 4, 6, 7 & 8 and Energy Policy 5 of the IOM Strategic Plan 2016, Area Plan for the South and the Residential Design Guide 2021. It is recommended that the planning application be approved for the reasons given and subject to the Section 13 Legal Agreement been signed and the conditions listed.

9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

(a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
(b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
(c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
(d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;

(e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
(f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
(g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

9.2 The decision maker must determine:

o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status.

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.

The Officer recommendation to approve this application subject to the applicant entering into a legal agreement was originally considered at a meeting of the Planning Committee where the members determined to approve the application subject to a legal agreement securing provision of Affordable Housing

At that meeting the Members wished it minuted that once such agreement was in place the decision to approve the application could be made under the authority delegated to an appropriate officer of the Directorate.

In accordance with that instruction, this application has been ultimately determined in that manner.

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:…09.12.2024 Signed :………C BALMER………….. Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report). Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Customer note This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.

PLANNING COMMITTEE DECISION 09.12.2024 Application No. : 23/01348/B Applicant : Ocean Castle Limited Proposal : Erection of a building accommodating 38no Apartments and associated Landscaping, Drainage and Car Parking Site Address : The Former Ocean Castle Hotel Site And Hill House, Rowany Villas Promenade Port Erin Isle Of Man Principal Planner : Chris Balmer Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report 23/01348/B - The Former Ocean Castle Hotel Site

The Case Officer recommended a change to Condition 2 and the removal of Condition 11 as initially recommended. The Planning Committee accepted these changes and approved the application subject to a Section 13 Legal Agreement.

C 2. Prior to occupation of any apartment and notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, all glass balustrades/balconies shall be installed with measures to prevent bird strikes to be either etchings on the glass or use of ultraviolet decals, and thereafter retained.

Reason: To prevent bird strikes, due to proximity of nearby nesting birds and compliance with Environment Policy 4.

Officer Report

Officer Report

Conditions and Notes for Approval

- 001 - LOCATION PLAN

- 003 - TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY

- 100 REV A - BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN - 101 REV A - LEVEL 0 FLOOR PLAN

Officer’s Report

- 4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 LOCAL PLAN

4.2 STRATEGIC PLAN

- 4.3 RESIDENTIAL DESIGN GUIDE 2021

4.5 Unoccupied Urban Sites: South - Port Erin (December 2022)

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

- 6.1 APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT

6.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT (Strategic Policy 1 & 2, Spatial Policy 2 & 5 General Policy

Conclusion

6.7 POTENTIAL ECOLOGY IMPACTS - (Environment Policy 4)

6.8 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION - (Housing Policy 5)

6.9 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE PROVISION - (Recreation Policy 3 & 4)

6.10 Energy Efficiency/Climate Change - (Energy Policy 5 & Climate Change Act)

9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

C 11. REMOVE CB 09.12.2024

Source & Provenance