DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 21/01263/B Applicant: Mr Jason Elliott Proposal: Erection of a double garage Site Address: Land Adjoining Ard Reayrt And Rear To Wayside Laxey Isle Of Man Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 24.02.2022 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons - R 1. The erection of a garage on this site would be contrary to the Development Plan. Approval of such a scheme on land designated for "Open Space" within an urban environment would erode such open space and set a significant precedent for similar types of development within existing settlements in the Isle of Man and therefore contrary to General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Area Plan for the East 2020. - R 2. The proposal would generate vehicles to and from the site that would not be associated with existing dwellings in the area to the detriment of residential amenity and would require the use of an access with poor visibility which would have a significant adverse impact upon highway safety for all road users and is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. - R 3. It has not been demonstrated that the application would not have a harmful effect on the existing trees within the site or upon the ecology within the site. The application is therefore contrary to Environment Policy 3 & 4 & Strategic Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

Additional Persons

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 Fairways, Ramsey Road, Laxey
• o Weyham, Laxey As they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy
• on Interested Person Status (July 2018).

• 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 Ard Finwork, Ramsey Road
• o The Haven, Ramsey Road
• o 70 Ard Reayrt, Laxey
• o 16 Ard Reayrt, Laxey
• o 62 Ard Reayrt, Laxey
• o 65 Ard Reayrt, Laxey
• o The Creggans, Laxey
• o Sunny Brae, Laxey
• o 66 Ard Reayrt, Laxey;
• o 11 Ard Reayrt, Laxey
• o Westroyd, Laxey
• o Ballakneale, Laxey

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. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is an irregularly-shaped parcel of land off the Ard Reayrt housing estate in Laxey. The site is heavily-treed, mainly with self-set vegetation, and is on a slope that falls away from Ard Reayrt and down towards an unnamed and unadopted rear access lane that runs behind the houses lining the main A2 road through Laxey; this lane has a number of garages along it, all of which are owned by those dwellings fronting the A2. An existing double garage exists to the lower section of the site to the western corner. - 1.2 The application site does not form part of any neighbouring property and is a standalone site.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the erection of a double garage to the lower section of the site and runs parallel with the southern boundary of the site. The garage will require the cutting in of the ground (hillside) to accommodate the proposal. The garage will measure

• 7.2m in width, a depth of 7m and a ridge height of 5.9m.

2.2 The applicants have indicated the following; "The client is looking to create an additional double garage unit on the plot predominately for dry storage of domestic Vehicles & goods. To facilitate the proposed development the removal of 3 trees and small group as indicated on the attached plan in purple would to be carried out, all of which have been rated as low value."

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 There are a number of previous planning applications upon the site which are considered relevant in the determination of this application; - 3.2 PA 21/00750/B - Erection of a dwelling with associated access whicjh was refused for the following reasons; "R 1. The erection of a dwelling upon this site would be contrary to General Policy 3 and the land use zoning of "Open Space." Approval of such a scheme on land designated for "Open Space" within an urban environment would set a significant precedent for similar types of development within existing settlements in the Isle of Man.

• R 2. By virtue of its scale and design, the proposed dwelling would introduce an incongruous and unsympathetic element which would harm the appearance of the site and the overall character and appearance of the street scene when considered against the overall design in the area. The proposed dwelling due to its elevated vantage point would create unacceptable overlooking and overbearing to the rear of "Wayside."
• R 3. Whilst the proposal does not propose the loss of many trees, the overall level, both what is proposed within the application and that which could reasonably be assumed may well occur in future given the likely pressure from occupants of any dwelling erected on the site means the proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 3.
• R 4. The application is missing information which would be required to make a full assessment including details on the drawings given and an ecology report."

3.3 PA14/01189/A - Approval in principle for erection of a dwelling addressing siting and means of access" and was refused for the following reasoning;

• "R 1. The level of woodland loss - both that now proposed and that which it can be reasonably assumed may well occur in future given the likely pressure from occupants of any dwelling erected on the site - makes the application is contrary to the provisions of both Policy L/OSNC/PR/6 of the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005 and also Environment Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007."
• "R 2. It has not been demonstrated that the application would not have a harmful effect on highway safety. The application is therefore contrary to parts "h" and "i" of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007." R 3. The proposal is contrary to Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 in that it fails to take account of the character and identity of the area, while the loss of the green space that would result from a dwelling's construction here would be of detriment to the visual amenity and sense of place offered by the site's tree-covered nature."
• 3.4 There are two further previous planning applications which have been submitted in the vicinity of the proposed dwelling site, PA91/01775/A and PA00/01508/A. Both pre-date the most recent Local Plan and Strategic Plan policies. Both sought Approval in Principle for new dwellings, and both were refused.

3.5 PA91/01775/A carried the following reason for refusal: "The proposal constitutes what is essentially backland development access by a service lane that is unsuitable and inadequate to service the development". - 3.6 PA00/01508/A was refused at appeal following a Review of the original decision - a refusal was issued on both occasions. The Inspector recommended the appeal be dismissed with the result that the decision to refuse - and the reasons thereof - was upheld from the Review stage. These reasons were:

"R 1. The location and site plans are not coincidental and the location plan would appear, from comparison with digitally produced maps, to be the more accurate. From this, it is apparent that there is insufficient space for the erection of a new dwelling without it being positioned almost immediately behind 'Wayside' so as to be detrimental to its amenities."

" R 2. There is no obviously safe means of access available to any new dwelling on this site the rear lane is narrow and not suitable for further traffic and there would appear to be insufficient spaces for a new access to be formed directly onto Ramsey Road so as to have adequate manoeuvring space and visibility splays."

3.7 It is noted under the planning history for the single dwelling "Wayside" which is immediately to the southeast of the site, that this parcel of land formed part of this property until at least the year 2000 (planning application 00/01508/A included this site within its red line boundary).

- 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The site lies within an area of "Open Space" on the Area Plan for the East. The land which includes the existing double garage and hardstand area fronting the proposed garage is within an area of "Predominately Residential". The site is not within a Conservation Area. The area is within a Registered Tree Area, No.RA2057. It is noted that the site itself is not within a Flood Risk Zone but the road surrounding the site is within a Flood Risk Zone. The following proposals within the Area Plan for the East are relevant;

4.2 Landscape Proposal 5 (Laxey) - the landscape of the site must be taken into consideration and demonstrate how the development is appropriate in the landscape setting. - 4.3 Urban Environment Proposal 3 - development must make a positive contribution to the local character and distinctiveness. - 4.4 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider the following Strategic Plan Policies are relevant for consideration; - 4.5 General Policy 2 states: "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 water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an 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."

4.6 General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
• (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
• (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
• (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;

• (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
• (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
• (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."

4.7 Environment Policy 1 states: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative." - 4.8 Environment Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and seminatural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value." - 4.9 Environment Policy 4 states: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:

• (a) species and habitats of international importance:

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

• (b) species and habitats of national importance:

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

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

Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."

4.10 Environment Policy 22 states: "Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of:

• i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater;
• ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and
• iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution."

4.11 Environment Policy 42 states: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."

4.12 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan." - 4.13 The IOMSP also defines "Open Space" as, "Any land, whether enclosed or not, on which there are no buildings or on which not more than 5% is covered with buildings." - 4.14 Chapter 20 of the IOM Strategic Plan talks about the importance of Open Space and whilst most of the context is regarding recreational space, Paragraph 10.3.1 and part of Paragraph 10.3.2 is relevant Paragraph 10.3.1 "The presence and use of various forms of Open Space in towns and villages on the Island form an integral part of the fabric of community life. Open Space takes various forms and serves many purposes. It ranges from formally laid parks to the wide and extensive public footpath network including Raad Ny Foillan and Millennium Way."

Part of Paragraph 10.3.2 states, "Open Space forms part of our heritage as well as being an attractive and usable asset, and, in the wider context, provides visual and spiritual relief from the developed urban settlements on the Island."

4.15 Strategic Policy 4 states: "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
• (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance."

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 The following consultations can be seen online in full and therefore the following is only a summary of these comments;

5.2 Highway Services have considered the application and have objected with their concluding remarks below (19.11.2021); "The proposal raises public safety, road user and functionality issues from there being inadequate access to and egress from the public road. Furthermore, the narrow width of lane provides insufficient width to cater for an intensification of use and passing. Despite parking arrangement being acceptable, the proposal, if permitted, would likely give rise to detrimental conditions for safety and convenience contrary to IOM General Policy 2 (h) and (i). Accordingly, Highways Development Control raises its opposition to this proposal."

5.3 Garff Commissioners (23.11.2021) have considered the application and object, raising the following points;

• proposals were contrary to General Policy 3 in regard to the zoning;

• o could set a precedent for future use of the land;
• o concerned about access and the potential for additional traffic along a lane that is both unsuitable and has a hazardous exit onto and from the highway; and
• o concerns expressed including the consequent 'pressure' to which the trees at the site would likely be made subject.

5.4 The Arboricultural Officer (DEFA) has written to object to the application with the following key points of their submission highlighted below(17.11.21);

• o Given the importance of the trees on this site in the local landscape it is important to have a clear understanding of a) the trees that need to be removed to facilitate the proposed development and b) the likely impact of the proposed development on retained trees;

• o The tree removal plan (drawing 101) shows that a group of trees (G1) will be removed but this application does not include details of how many trees are contained within this group
• or what species they are;
• o The shaded area around each tree shown on drawing 101 is presumably the calculated root protection area (nominal circle centred on tree stem); there is no key on the drawing to confirm this. If this is the case however, the proposed location of the garage appears to be within the RPA of several adjacent trees, indicating the potential of the proposed development to have a detrimental impact on retained trees; and
• o It is recommended that a full arboricultural impact assessment is obtained prior to the determination of this application. If this information is not provided the Directorate will object to the application on the basis that there is insufficient information available to fully assess the arboricultural impact of this proposal;

5.5 The Ecosystems Policy Officer have considered the application and object for the following summarised points (26.11.2021):

• o The land is an area of broadleaved woodland, zoned for open space in the area plan for the east. We therefore object to this development proposal;
• o As has been previously stated, if the applicant wishes to pursue this further then the development proposals should be accompanied by a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal undertaken by a suitable qualified ecological consultancy (further details about this are below); and
• o Additionally the plans should be accompanied by a arboricultural impact assessment, tree protection plan and an updated tree removal plan which clearly details all of the trees that are to be removed.

5.6 Representation have been received from the following residential properties;

• o Ard Finwork, Ramsey Road (15.11.2021 & 19.11.2021);
• o The Haven, Ramsey Road x 2 (15.11.2021);
• o 70 Ard Reayrt, Laxey x 2 (18.11.2021);
• o 16 Ard Reayrt, Laxey (18.11.2021);
• o 62 Ard Reayrt, Laxey (18.11.2021);
• o 65 Ard Reayrt, Laxey (18.11.2021);
• o The Creggans, Laxey (22.11.2021);
• o Sunny Brae, Laxey (22.11.2021);
• o 66 Ard Reayrt, Laxey (18.11.2021);
• o 11 Ard Reayrt, Laxey (23.11.2021);
• o Fairways, Ramsey Road, Laxey (23.11.2021);
• o Westroyd, Laxey (23.11.2021);
• o Weyham, Laxey (01.12.2021);
• o Ballakneale, Laxey (14.12.2021);

5.7 The following are summarised comments from the above residential properties;

• o Is not zoned for residential, commercial or any development under the Area Plan for the East 2020.
• o Zoned as Open Space under the Area Plan for the East 2020.
• o It is also designated as Woodland, and Referenced RA2057 under the Tree Preservation Act 1993 since the 12th November 2018;
• o All previous applications to develop the land have been refused.
• o The Applicant's land has a double garage (which was purchased from the previous
• owners of Wayside. The garage has recently been the subject of a proposed sale;
• o There is a prohibition against development outside designated areas unless they fall within exceptions (a) - (h) provided under General Policy 3 ("GP3") of the Strategic Plan of 2016 (Page 33). None of the exceptions apply;
• o Even if the Application fell within land zoned for residential (or commercial) development, as was the case in the 2014 Application (14/01189/A), it would 2 fall foul of several of the stipulated requirements of General Policy 2;

• o Contrary to Environment Policy 3, 4 & 42.
• o Essentially 'Backland' development and runs contrary to Environmental Policy EP42 of the Strategic Plan;
• o Access to this site has been previously refused on suitability grounds;
• o the lane is eminently unsuitable;
• o As there is no residence on the land, what is the necessity for the proposed garage when there is a garage present;
• o The development would require a significant amount of soil to be excavated. This would require the soil to be removed by vehicles traversing along the Ramsey Road Lane, which has been deemed unsuitable by Highways in the most recent, 21/00750B Application, and the 3 previous Applications;
• o There is no information as to what the system is for removing rain water run off, or how this is expected to operate with the current garage;
• o It is unclear how many trees are proposed to be removed from within this protected woodland area;
• o The Land and neighbouring Verge in Ard Reayrt are habitat for a variety of wildlife;
• o Previous planning refusals (2014 and 2021) included the wildlife in the area. Biodiversity and ecology has progressed over the past 7 years, which has been noted in the surrounding areas;
• o This seems to be a commercial development as there is no residential need for this many car parking spaces and garages on a site which has no residential property associated with it. It would be like a car or van park;
• o Lane is already dangerous and not purpose built for high vehicle capacity;
• o More vehicles on a lane that is maintained by each individual household living on the road would experience maintenance costs from the increase in vehicles;
• o Bats and a notable amount of woodland moth species have been found in this vicinity;
• o The verge which forms part of land between the proposed development and Ard Reayrt road has a covenant over it restricting engineering works on the land indicated within the application;
• o It is noted Highways have not been consulted in relation to this Application;
• o The Application is silent as to where the services proposed in the Application are to be routed from;
• o Removal of the trees would expose the properties on the Ard Reayrt Estate that the Manx Museum, Heritage organisations and the Laxey Village Commissioners insisted were planted and kept to protect the heritage elements of the village. The trees help reduce the visual impact of the houses within the Estate;
• o The removal of the trees would also increase the noise generated from vehicles using the highway on Ramsey Road;
• o The Ard Reayrt Estate is home to a large number of children that play within this wooded area This is an important area of greenspace valuable to the well-being of the children, that allows them to socialise with other children, and they will naturally learn to respect the flora and fauna available to them;
• o The proposed building design and materials are not in the building style of any other buildings within the area;
• o Elliot Construction already owns the garage on the site, which has been offered for sale with "storage" cited as the likely use;
• o The potential use of this lane for heavy construction vehicles would be detrimental, and potentially very dangerous for other uses; and
• o We question the motivation for the building of another double garage on this site, by a non-resident, and its potential usage, which can only lead to more vehicles on the lane.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are:

• - Principle of development
• - Character and appearance
• - Impact on neighbouring properties

• - Impact on ecology/ trees
• - Possible flooding
• - Potential impact on highway safety for access
• - Other matters

PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT

6.2 Fundamentally, in terms of Planning Policy there is a long established presumption against development on land not designated for development, whether it's within the countryside or on land not designated for development under the relevant local plan. As stated above the zoning for the land in question is "open space" which means that the site is not zoned for development.

6.3 As such the proposal is not in accordance with the land use zoning, this means General Policy 3 which is the most relevant policy for the land zoning. - 6.4 When looking at General Policy 3, the proposal does not meet any of the exceptions. It should be noted that private garages have been approved (and refused) to residential properties within the countryside (land not designated for development) and some of these properties have constructed garages under Permitted Development rights, which can allow a double garage to be constructed on curtilage associated with a residential property (subject to conditions). However, in this case the proposal is not associated with any residential property and is essentially development on land not designated for development and unconnected with an existing residential property. It is noted that the applicants have stated that; "The client is looking to create an additional double garage unit on the plot predominately for dry storage of domestic Vehicles & goods.". The reasons are not considered sufficient to overcome the strong presumption against development on land which is not designated. The proposal does not meet the criteria of any of the exceptions listed within General Policy 3. - 6.5 Overall when looking at the proposal for a garage on this site, the proposal does not comply with General Policy 3 and is contrary to the Area Plan for the East. CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE - 6.6 Environment Policy 42 in part states, "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans." - 6.7 An argument could be used that the proposed pitched roof garage in terms of its design and finish would be in keeping with the immediate locality, given there are a number of similar garages in the area and on the site. Further, the position of the garage to the lower part of the site would limit its potential visual impact from the surround public viewpoints, with either limited, intermittent or distance views from the Ramsey Road or from the opposite side of the Laxey Valley (junction of New Road & Rencell Hill). However, a counter argument to this is the Area Plan for the East has clearly demarked the application site as "Open Space". The line of this designated and "Predominately Residential" cross the application site. It is clear therefore that special attention has been made to ensure the existing "Open Space" / wooded area has been designated as such and to ensure no further development occurs within this area given its overall visual importance. Allowing such development would be eroding this recently adopted "Open Space" and while not being the most prominent section of the site, this would still introduce built development on the site, which would be public viewable in places and require the remove of existing trees. Accordingly, it is considered the proposal would be contrary to Environment Policy 42. IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES

6.8 Turning towards the impact upon neighbouring amenity, the physical structure of the garage would have little to no impact upon neighbouring residential amenities given its size and siting away from neighbouring properties. The issue is perhaps the use of the garage. Not being connected with a residential property in the area there is significant concern on the use of the garage - which could be used for a variety of purposes - could give raise to unacceptable levels of noise, traffic generation and general coming and goings which could each or collectively have an adverse impacts upon residential amenities, especially those adjacent to the site/access lane. Accordingly, given the use of the garage would potentially be used by parties not connected to nearby residential properties, this has the potential to give rise to unacceptable impacts and therefore contrary to Environment Policy 22 and Genera Policy 2. IMPACT ON ECOLOGY/ TREES - 6.9 Turning towards the proposal and the potential impact to the ecology of the area and the Registered Trees. It is first noted that the Ecosystems Policy Team are opposed to the development and several concerns have been raised by the Arboricultural Officer. - 6.10 The Ecosystems Policy Team are opposed to the development due to a lack of information within the application and note that the woodland is of a broadleaf variety and they have previously commented on (PA 21/00750/B) stating that it would "support a wide variety of biodiversity such as feeding, sheltering and breeding birds and roosting and feeding bats and providing refuge for wildlife in the Laxey settlement Area." Due to this they have sought Preliminary Ecological Appraisal undertaken by a suitable qualified ecological consultancy. This has not been provided. Accordingly, the proposal is considered contrary to Environment Policy

4 as there is insufficient information to assessment on the impact of the development on this site.

6.11 The Arboricultural Officer has also raised an objection and seeks a full arboricultural impact assessment is obtained prior to the determination of this application as there is insufficient information available to fully assess the arboricultural impact of this proposal. Accordingly, given the site land uses designation (Open Space) and as there or registered trees on the site, the Department when making a decision needs to be comfortable that it has sufficient evidence to full assess the application. Clearly form the comments made by the Arboricultural Officer and Ecosystems Policy Team it does not and therefore it is considered a refusal reason on this ground can also be made, being contrary to Environment Policy 3 also. POSSIBLE FLOODING - 6.12 No details have been provided within this application on what drainage is to be provided to intercept any surface water runoff from the site. Highway Services have indicated that the Applicant / Developer must provide run off / surface water drainage where necessary to prevent water from flowing out onto lane and towards other property or the public road. POTENTIAL IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY FOR ACCESS - 6.13 Visiting the site it was noted the private access lane to the site was in a poor condition and narrow in places. Highway Services have also comment on this matter and have raised concerns of additional use. Of significant concern is the visibility splay or lack of, onto the Ramsey Road. There are clearly existing concerns with this access with the provision of two mirrors opposite the access which give limited help when egressing from this access. It is considered wholly inappropriate to allow further development (no matter what amount) which would increase the traffic generation to and from the site, which would have to utilise this access when exiting onto the Ramsey Road with little to no visibility on the inside of a bend. The angel of the junction also make accessing the site difficult and dangerous for all road users. - 6.14 Accordingly, the proposal which would generate vehicles to and from the site; would not be associated with existing dwellings in the area; and would require the use of this access

with very poor visibility would have a significant adverse impact upon highway safety for all road users and therefore contrary to Transport Policy 7.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION

7.1 It is considered that the principle of a garage on this site would be contrary to General Policy 3 and the land use designation of "Open Space" and any approval would erode the recently adopted Area Plan for the East which clearly identified this site as such. Approval of such a scheme on land designated for "Open Space" within an urban environment would set a significant precedent for similar types of development within existing settlements in the Isle of Man. Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to General Policy 2 & 3, Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and the Area Plan for the East 2020.

7.2 There are also concerns in relation to insufficient information to adequately consider the potential loss of trees within the site and also the loss of ecology and therefore contrary to Environment Policy 3 & 4 and Strategic Policy 4. - 7.3 Finally, there is also significant concern that the proposal which would generate vehicles to and from the site; would not be associated with existing dwellings in the area; and would require the use of this access with very poor visibility would have a significant adverse impact upon highway safety for all road users and therefore contrary to Transport Policy 7.

- 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;
• (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 Director of Planning and Building Control 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 : Refused Date : 25.02.2022 Determining officer

Signed : J CHANCE Jennifer Chance

Director of Planning and Building Control

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.