Loading document...
==== PAGE 1 ====
21/00336/B Page 1 of 11
PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Application No. : 21/00336/B Applicant : BBG Limited Proposal : Alterations and erection of a two storey extension to existing public house to provide restaurant, hotel accommodation and staff manager accommodation with associated alterations to existing car park. Site Address : Shore Hotel Old Laxey Hill Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7DA
Planning Officer: Miss Lucy Kinrade Photo Taken :
Site Visit :
Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation
Recommendation
Recommended Decision:
Permitted Date of Recommendation:
__
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 the first coming into use or occupation of the extension hereby approved the parking and turning areas shall be provided in full accordance with the approved drawings and retained as such thereafter.
Reason: in the interest of highway safety in providing off road parking for the site.
C 3. Prior to undertaking of any works at the site including any clearance works a scheme for the avoidance of harmful materials entering the watercourse shall be submitted to and approved by the Department and all works carried out in accordance with the details approved.
Reason: To avoid disturbance or injury to spawning fish, or to the spawn and fry of fish.
C 4. There shall be no external lighting installed at the site.
Reason: for the avoidance of doubt and because the application as submitted does not include any lighting and therefore this has not been considered but also in the interest of protecting the adjacent watercourse and to avoid disturbance or injury to spawning fish, or to the spawn and fry of fish.
==== PAGE 2 ====
21/00336/B Page 2 of 11
N 1. The applicant/land owner is reminded of their separate obligations in the protection of protected species such as bats and birds under the Wildlife Act 1990.
This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. By reason of the proposals acceptable visual, neighbouring, environmental and highway safety impacts and having an acceptable impact on the Conservation Area and contributing to the overall vitality and viability of the Lacey and its local economy the proposal subject to three conditions relating to the watercourse and parking layout that the application is considered to comply with Strategic Policies 1, 2, 4 and 6, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 10, 13, 35 and 39 and the principles of Community Policy 4 and paragraph 9.11 from the Area Plan for the East 2020.
Plans/Drawings/Information;
This approval relates to drawing numbers 001, 002, 003, 010, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 300, 301, 900, BB Cons FRA 20132-210316-FRACOMP, Arborist documents Client developer guidance CDG2021, Shore Hotel AIA - 150321, TR-150321, TS -150321, WGS documents Topographical Survey and Design Statement all date received 26/03/2021, and a Bat Report received by email dated 16/08/2021. __
Interested Person Status - Additional Persons
It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations: o DOI Flood Risk Management
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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 Tebekwe Mount, Old Laxey Hill as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2020).
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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 Thie ny Mara, Shore Road o St Nicholas House, Breeze Hill As they 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, they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy and they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.
It is recommended that the following organisation 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):
==== PAGE 3 ====
21/00336/B Page 3 of 11
o Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society as they do not own or occupy property that is within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy and they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2020). __
Officer’s Report
1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is the extents of The Shore Hotel, Laxey a two storey property situated at the bottom of Old Laxey Hill and central to Old Laxey. The public house and its car park sit on the south side of the river nearest the bridge crossing over to Glen Road and Minorca Hill. Running parallel to the river and through the car park is a public footpath linking to the glen running along the river.
1.2 The building comprises two main elements, the public house which fronts onto Old Laxey Hill which is a traditional two storey building with a three bay window arrangement around a central front door, it has two grand stacks on each gable end and two later addition peaked dormers across the front roof slope, at the rear are a number of cat slide extensions, a small porch all linking to a converted and extended 'L' shaped stone barn which has a number of smaller flat roof additions and intertwined small yard area. Most of the roofs are pitched or cat slide and finished in slate with a general traditional feel with exception to those smaller flat roof areas.
1.3 The central ridge of the main structure is around 10.5m tall with its eaves measuring 7.5m tall. The central ridge of the rear barn is 6.5m with eaves 4.7m tall.
1.4 There is an existing boundary wall between the site and immediate neighbours 2 and 3 Glen Roy Cottages this boundary wall ranges between 2.7m - 4.4m tall.
1.5 Car parking runs between the building and the river and wrapping around the rear side of the site. There is a small strip of grass nearest the river with a post and wire style fence defining the river edge, there are benches here providing outdoor seating for the business.
2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Proposed is the demolition of all the existing rear structures and catslide extensions and their replacement with one consolidated two storey linked extension.
2.2 The proposal is to measure approx. 24m long and 8.6m wide for the two storey part and which is to be set towards the back of the site and away from the northern gable of the main building, along the elevation edge nearest the river there is to be a further 6.3m wide timber framed flat roof extension providing additional ground floor space for both internal restaurant area and an outside covered seating area.
2.3 To the central ridge the extension is to be 9m tall and 6m tall to eaves, the elevation facing the river is to include three peaked dormers above the timber framed flat roof extension and large floor to ceiling glazing is to be installed to the proposed restaurant area.
2.4 Across the rear are a number of small first floor windows and service doors at ground floor, nearest the rear boundary are two flat roof extensions matching the height of the existing boundary walls separating the site from its nearest two neighbours 2 and 3 Glen Roy Cottages.
==== PAGE 4 ====
21/00336/B Page 4 of 11
2.5 The proposal includes a new link extension at the rear which will replace the existing cat slide with a taller pitched roof link accommodating the central circulation core stairwell and lift.
2.6 Within the site, it is proposed that the parking is laid out and extended wrapping around the side and rear providing in total 32 spaces.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY 3.1 There have been a number of previous applications at the site throughout the late 80's, 90's and early 2000's for alterations and modifications to the existing building including internal works, erection of fencing and installation of gas tanks, installation of dormers and roof over rear stairwell and bedroom and porch extensions and the conversion of the existing rear restaurant into a micro-brewery which is still in place today.
3.2 Two historic refusals at the site have been noted, one for a small extension to the rear of the existing pub between the main building and rear outbuildings 89/00239/B which was refused for being out of keeping with the existing building, changes to the scheme were later approved under a resubmission 89/01534/B. Later in 2002 an application was submitted for an extension to the existing rear outbuilding under 02/00401/B. This was issued a split decision at appeal, a porch and bin store were approved, however the extension to the outbuilding which projected towards the south rear boundary and behind the full width of the rear 1 and 2 Glen Roy Cottages was refused on grounds that its appearance would be inappropriate due to its length and absence of features, its proximity to Glen Roy Cottages would introduce overlooking and diminution of privacy from upper windows and due to lack of detail for existing trees there was concern they could be adversely affected from the extension.
4.0 PLANNING POLICIES 4.1 The application site is within an area zoned as "Mixed Use" on The Area Plan for the East (TAPE), within the Laxey Conservation Area and recognised on recent flood maps as being at high risk of both tidal and river flooding. Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to first consider the principle of the works against Strategic Policies 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6, Community Policy 4 as well as Section 9.11 from TAPE written statement, following which General Policy 2, Environment Policies 34, 35 and 39 of the Strategic Plan and PPS 101 on Heritage shall determine the amenity and visual impacts of the proposal on the immediate neighbours and particularly on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and Environment Policies 10 and 13 will cover matters in respect of flood risk.
4.2 Strategic Policy 1: Development should make the best use of resources by: (a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under- used land and buildings, and reusing scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services.
4.3 Strategic Policy 2: New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.
4.4 Strategic Policy 4: Proposals for development must: (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings(1), Conservation Areas(2) , buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest; (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and
==== PAGE 5 ====
21/00336/B Page 5 of 11
(c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance
4.5 Strategic Policy 5: New development, including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies.
4.6 Strategic Policy 6: Major employment-generating development should be located in existing centres on land zoned for such purposes and identified as such in existing Local or new Area Plans.
4.7 Community Policy 4: Development (including the change of use of existing premises) which involves the loss of local shops and local public houses, will only be permitted if it can be demonstrated that the use is no longer commercially viable, or cannot be made commercially viable.
4.8 TAPE section 9.11: Development in areas of 'mixed use' "There are a number of areas of 'mixed use' outside of Douglas town centre. Some are identified by a site number on the Maps and others are not, for instance Village Walk in Onchan does not have a site number. Development types within areas of mixed use generally comprise a variety of different but compatible uses. Appropriate new uses may include a mix of shops and some services (financial and professional), food and drink, office and light industry, research and development, tourist and residential uses, and other uses such as clinics or health centres, childcare or education, community facilities, and places of assembly and leisure. Uses which are not compatible with residential development will generally not be supported within the areas of mixed use."
4.9 General Policy 2: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief; b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them; c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape; d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including watercourses; e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea; f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks; g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality; h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space; i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways; j) can be provided with all necessary services; k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan; l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding; m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."
4.10 Environment Policy 34: In the maintenance, alteration or extension of pre-1920 buildings, the use of traditional materials will be preferred.
==== PAGE 6 ====
21/00336/B Page 6 of 11
4.11 Environment Policy 35: Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development.
4.12 Paragraph 7.32.2 "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. When considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to: o the condition of the building; o the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions); o the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; o the merits of alternative proposals for the site."
4.13 Environment Policy 39: The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
4.14 Environment Policy 10: Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4.
4.15 Environment Policy 13: Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.
5.1 Garff Commissioners - no objections (24/05/2021) - size and scope of replacement rear extension considered to be acceptable, car parking was raised as issue given limited public car parking in the area but it was noted the proposal includes additional parking at the site and considered adequate for the proposal. Overall consensus was that the proposal was likely to have a positive benefit to the Old Laxey area.
5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services - Do not oppose subject to conditions (20/04/2021) - Car parking spaces are to increase by 11 spaces to a total of 32 for site but this is still under the calculated 36 spaces as indicated in the car parking assessment in the submitted Design Statement. The shortfall in this case however is deemed to be acceptable, given that some customers would be undertaking linked trips, that there is some limited amount of on-street nearby and off-street parking spaces in the locale which includes parking for larger vehicles, such as coaches. The proposed car parking spaces are of adequate size and there is sufficient manoeuvring space, including for deliveries and collections. Waste bin collection is to be retained with a new bin store in reasonable proximity for carry and wheeling distances. It is should be noted that existing visibility splays on exit are shorter than would be expected for a 20mph speed limit at 2.4 x25m due to features in the street scene, but that overall the proposal does not give rise to significant highway safety or network efficiency issues. Conditions for the parking and turning layout to accord with the site plan, Drawing No: 010. Details of bicycle parking to show the form and layout should also be provided along with indication of electric charging points.
==== PAGE 7 ====
21/00336/B Page 7 of 11
5.3 Department of Infrastructure Flood Risk Management - reviewed at length and concluded do not oppose (29/07/2021)
5.4 DEFA Fisheries representative - No objection subject to conditions (04/06/2021) - 9m water course form has been submitted direct to Fisheries, they request the two conditions be added ensuring any additional lighting near the watercourse is similar to the existing or not directed towards the watercourse to avoid disturbance to fish, and that precautions be taken to reduce harmful materials entering the river.
Interest Groups 5.5 Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society (IOMNHAS) - objection (11/05/2021) - The proposal includes the demolition of a pre-1833 stone building, a former brewery, which features in an iconic painting of Laxey of that period (a photo attached to their comments). This building is still a feature of the site from the riverside and Glen Road albeit obscured behind the front of the Shore Hotel. Strategic Plan Environment Policies 34, 35 and 39 and PPS 1 Conservation Area policies CA/1, CA/2 and CA/3 include a presumption in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area, they state a preference for use of traditional materials, and only enable development which would preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area and thus the Society would expect that any redevelopment on the site would seek to justify demolition of the old stone buildings, something which has previously been refused, and seek to ensure that any replacement demonstrated how it would reflect the characteristics of the Conservation Area and old buildings it seeks to replace. The proposed development does not include any use of Manx stone, a feature both of the old brewery building and the river bank walls which it faces; it includes substantial wooden uprights to support a large expanse of flat roof and wide half-dormer windows which is not a characteristic of the area. While the Society acknowledges that the plethora of alterations between the front building and the stone brewery building do not add to the character of the Conservation Area, the design of the proposed replacement appears overly dominant and heavy. If consent is given for the demolition of the old stone brewery then the Society believes at the very minimum there should be Manx stone traditionally laid on the gable wall of the extension and the low walls of the covered seating area facing the river. The Society would prefer the use of thinner metal uprights to support any flat roof.
Neighbouring Properties 5.6 The owners of Thie ny Mara - In support (02/06/2021) - applicants have been considerate to the area and will bring a much vitalised business to the area including tourist accommodation to Old Laxey which is currently lacking. The design is modern and takes into account the flooding in the area.
5.7 The owners of St Nicholas House, Breeze Hill - in support (21/04/2021) - proposal will provide much needed visitor accommodation and new restaurant which will only enhance this part of Old Laxey which is currently a dark and dingy part of the riverside by providing additional amenity and facilities brightening up the area and increasing hospitality business and culture to the area. The scheme also accounts for increased floor levels to accommodate any possible flood event a reason why existing buildings at the rear were no longer used or fit for renovation. The current owners have demonstrated huge appetite to make their new venture work and the existing pub has already been modernised sympathetically.
5.8 The owners of Tebekwe Mount, Old Laxey Hill - Objection (26/04/2021) - they raise concerns in respect of the height of the proposed structure which will obliterate the views from the rear of their property.
5.9 Two letters were sent to the owners/occupiers of nearest dwellings 2 and 3 Glen Roy Cottages however no responses were received as of 04/08/2021.
==== PAGE 8 ====
21/00336/B Page 8 of 11
5.10 On review of the concurrent application 21/00351/CON it was noted that comments had been received from DEFA Ecosystems Policy Officer in respect of bats and requesting the need for a bat survey. A bat survey was provided by the agent dated 16/08/2021 and circulated. Updated comments were received from DEFA Ecosystems Policy Officer dated 20/08/2021 in whcih they concluded that "an adequate level of survey has been undertaken and adheres to best practice guidelines. The findings were that the development could proceed without impacting on legally protected bats. The report identified the vegetated bank adjacent to the development site as a good feeding area for bats and made recommendations about the inclusion of bat roosting facilities in the development design which we fully support", they comments also reiterated the potential for nesting birds and the separate obligations required for their protection under the Wildlife Act 1990 and that suitable checks should be made.
6.0 ASSESSMENT Principle 6.1 As outlined in those comments received from IOMNHAS Strategic Plan Environment Policies 34, 35 and 39 and PPS 101 Conservation Area policies CA/1, CA/2 and CA/3 include a presumption in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of a Conservation Area, stating a preference for the use or re-use of traditional materials in any extension or modification, and only allowing development which would preserve or enhance the character of the Conservation Area in which it sits.
6.2 In the specific case it is recognised that there are remaining structures to the rear of the pub that are knowingly old and which feature across historic photographs of the developing Laxey, including the main pub building which is a prominent structure in most documents dating 1890 onwards. In its present state, it is clear that those older structures have, over considerable time, been subject to ad hoc alterations and extensions and have been subsumed amongst newer structures which cumulatively lower their standalone historic quality and present an overall staggered and somewhat dissonant appearance across the rear, and where the stone has been painted it gives a toneless and somewhat unappealing finish.
6.3 Unlike the main public house building which stands fairly majestically along the roadside and contributes to the Conservation Area both in terms of its architectural, social and historic interest, the various structures to its rear in comparison currently exist with fairly little positive contribution to the overall quality of the current streetscene and Conservation Area status, and for this reason it's likely that their loss would have an overall negligible impact on the general character and appearance of the immediate area which would ultimately be retained through the main public house building, the soft edge along the riverside and the river setting itself leading to the harbourside and the traditional dwellings lining the small winding streets in the surrounding area.
6.4 The negligible impacts on the conservation area should not be the standalone reason for the loss of these existing rear structures, consideration must also be given to Strategic Policies and Community Policies that seek to support and encourage the development of existing brownfield or underused sites particularly those within existing settlements, and which makes efficient and best use of space, encourage growth of employment opportunities and which utilise existing infrastructure as is the case here in the heart of Old Laxey. As indicated in a letter of support and also noted during a site visit efforts have already been made by the current owners in seeking to revitalise the existing public house and the design statement supporting the application outlines the intentions now to expand to provide a new restaurant and further tourist accommodation in the centre of Laxey which would contribute to its vitality.
6.5 Photographs submitted with the application show that the existing buildings are not fully redundant per se, but it could be argued that the site is underused with space towards the side and rear of the buildings currently left as un-kept scrubland. The proposed extension would be bigger, taller and wider than the existing structures and the scheme would include an
==== PAGE 9 ====
21/00336/B Page 9 of 11
increased and re-arranged parking layout which as shown on plan would make best and a more efficient use of the site as a whole.
6.6 Aforementioned the proposed extension would be notably larger both in terms of footprint, length, height and depth than the existing rear structure and by reasons of its design incorporating both a traditional feel across its upper levels (through its use of a pitched roof, slate materials, smaller solid to void ratios, painted render and stacks), and by introducing a more contemporary approach across the ground floor (with larger glazing, flat roof overhang and timber supports) seeks to present a scheme that addresses the historic qualities of the site, acknowledging its position alongside the glen while not hiding the fact that it is a more recent and modern addition to the existing building.
6.7 The corner junction on where the site sits forms an arterial route through Old Laxey, with high volumes of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic passing the site. The close knit nature of Old Laxey means that in some case views of certain properties can be fleeting or are interrupted by more prominent views of other building, features of interest or the harbour and Laxey bay. In this area there are many features of interest some older such as the older cottages on the adjacent site of the road and the main public house, other more modern structures such as the recently replaced Laxey bridge or other glazed frontages such as that across the corner of 'La Mona Lisa' restaurant. The proposed extensions will undoubtedly introduce yet another feature within this prominent junction and which may draw the eye for a fleeting moment, but this is not expected to be a negative feature or one which negatively impacts the wider character of the streetscene.
6.8 While views on design may be subjective and some may argue that the proposal negatively impacts the Conservation Area, it is accepted that the proposal will present a substantial feature within a relatively unchanged historic area, but by reason of the proposal resulting in a regeneration of an existing underused site coupled with the anticipated contribution to the vitality and viability of Laxey, its offering of some local economy benefits and making best use of an existing site which is within a service centre and already served by existing infrastructure would help towards tilting the balance in favour of support so as to outweigh any remaining concerns in respect of the Conservation Area and that its development in this case would not undermine the designation of the area or those specific policies which seek to protect it.
Neighbouring Amenity 6.9 In addition to those letters in support, there have also been some concerns raised in respect of the height of the proposed structure being overbearing. On review of the site, its surroundings and the proposal it is agreed that the proposal will present a structure fall taller than the existing and which could be considered to create a notable change to the outlook from some neighbouring properties including 'Tebekwe Mount' but not to such a degree as to warrant a refusal in this case. The most affected properties are likely to be those occupants/owners of 2 and 3 Glen Roy Cottages, following a site visit letters were sent to these properties seeking their views on the scheme, no responses were received. The nearest boundary walls and structures will remain at the same height as the existing and so the impact in this respect will be no worse than the existing arrangement, but it will be unquestionable that by reason of the height and proximity of the proposed extension that the outlook from the rear of these properties will be changed. The close knit arrangement at the rear already impedes outlook with existing detached garaging belonging to the residential properties towards the rear and the large trees climbing the steep bank creating a fairly shaded area. While the proposal could make worse this existing situation it is not felt that this would be to such a significant adverse impact on their living conditions or amenity as to warrant a refusal in this case.
Flood Risk
==== PAGE 10 ====
21/00336/B Page 10 of 11
6.10 A 13 page flood risk assessment has been provided. Physically the proposal is more elevated compared with the existing structures and while presenting an increased footprint the proposal is not likely to create any new issues to the site beyond what is already experienced in terms of potential flood risk of the existing building and site. Views from the DOI Flood Risk Management have been received and explained that they do not oppose the application.
Highway Impact 6.11 The proposal results in an alternative and increased space layout of the existing car parking providing a further 11 spaces making the total for the site 32. While this is 4 spaces below the 36 space requirement the standard has been accepted by Highway Services minded that some visitors to the site are likely to share vehicle journeys and that there are some on and off street parking facilities in the area (noting the public car parks a short walk away). The visibility splays from the access are to remain unchanged as thus no new highway safety issues are expected. Sufficient refuse provision and access is provided.
Habitats 6.12 The agent provided a bat report late on in the application process, this was circulated to Ecosystems Policy Officers and comments were sought. The report outlined that only un- rendered parts of the rear building offered an environment suitable for roosting, while no evidence of bats was found there had been some house sparrows nesting in some crevices. A bat emergence survey demonstrated that there were a number of bats foraging for night-flying insects in the area. The rich supply of such insects due to the riverside location and proximity to trees. From the behaviour of some of the foraging bats it also appears that if roosting opportunities were to be provided it is likely that they would be used. This could be treated as an opportunity to enhance the site for wildlife. While there was one bat showing potential for roosting in the building given that it disappeared from the south side survey, it was concluded on the northern survey reading that it flew over the ridge rather than into the building. Updated comments from Ecosystems Policy Officer did not indicated any concerns and they stated that the level of survey was acceptable, noting that bat roosting facilities would be supported within a design and highlighting the separate obligations under the Wildlife Act in respect of protected species including bats and birds.
CONCLUSION 7.1 Although the proposed changes will be prominent when viewed from the main public thoroughfares it is considered that by reason of the loss of the existing rear outbuildings not having such a significant or adverse impact on the Conservation Area, the design of the extension offering an acceptable contrast between the older main public house building and the newer features, the scheme having an acceptable impact both in terms of flood risk, highway safety, habitats and neighbouring living conditions, and ultimately providing an expansion to an existing and established public house sitting within the Laxey community and which contributes to the overall vitality and viability of the village and in the interest of local economy.
7.2 For these reasons the proposal is considered to comply with Strategic Policies 1, 2, 4 and 6, General Policy 2, Environment Policies 10, 13, 35 and 39 and the principles of Community Policy 4 and paragraph 9.11 from the Area Plan for the East. Notes shall be added in respect of the Wildlife Act 1990 obligations in respect of bats and birds and conditions relating to lighting in respect of fish in the watercourse and that parking be carried out in accordance with the submitted details.
8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 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;
==== PAGE 11 ====
21/00336/B Page 11 of 11
(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.
8.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status
8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status. __
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Head of Development Management in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status
Decision Made : Permitted Date : 07.09.2021
Determining officer
Signed : S BUTLER
Stephen Butler
Head of Development Management
Customer note
This copy of the officer report reflects the content of the file copy and has been produced in this form for the benefit of our online services/customers and archive records.
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal