Officer Report with Recommendation

The development does not appear to respect the very open land surrounding it in that some of the buildings are built almost right up to the boundary with the necessary peripheral planting having to be provided outside the site, which is not desirable, possible or able to be required by condition. The design of the buildings is similarly unexceptional and does not appear either to be specifically designed for this site or taking its lead from any existing and attractive architecture in the vicinity. The properties backing onto the Castletown Road (plots 11 to 18) present a rear elevation to the principal highway with no privacy or any private space for their occupants and a less attractive elevation to the public. 13. Due to the triangular nature of the site the corners of some buildings will be closer to the boundary than others. There are four examples of this throughout the proposed development. No front, rear, or side elevations are close to the boundary. Whilst there is very open land beyond the site in the form of Pulrose Golf Course, this is predominantly screened and softened with trees and foliage. At present, there is a boundary area adjacent to Visitor Parking and the Turning Head that has no planting. We do not propose to screen this area, however, our planting would serve to soften the transition to the golf course but maintain aspects across it. From SW clockwise through to NE there is no open land. Please also see comments 2, 3 & 7 above. The entrance into the site is between the side of the apartment block and the side of number 11, both of which are very close to the carriageway and the footway, presenting a dense appearance from the public road. The apartments have little in the way of private space. 14. There is 37'6 (11,470mm) between the gable of the apartments and the gable of plot 11 which should be sufficient to not create a dense appearance from the public road (for visualisation purposes this length is slightly more than that of a standard bus). The apartments have a garden space to the SW of the site. Should the sod hedge and planting be the preferred boundary treatment, this would afford the area a good level of privacy, however, it should be noted that with any communal space provided for apartments the level of privacy is reduced by virtue that any other occupant may share the space at the same time. Little effort has been made to retain any of the trees on site and the replacement of the existing roadside hedge with a brick wall, which offers the residents on the other side of the wall little or no privacy from passing traffic or pedestrians and furthermore detracts from this boundary with the golf course which is generally provided by an established hedge with planting. This would offer the residents to the rear more protection from the noise and intrusion of the passing pedestrian and vehicular traffic. 15. A total of eleven small and medium sized trees would need removing from within the site in order to accommodate the development. Ten out of the eleven trees sit on a large hump on the NE of the site. Removing the hump would in turn expose the tree roots, however, retaining the hump would restrict the entire NE of the site from development by virtue of its height and contours. Eleven trees is also a small number for a development of this nature and in any case would all be replaced as part of a planting scheme. Also, please see comment 2 above. No information has been provided to illustrate how the development has been designed to minimise energy consumption as required by General Policy 2n above and by Energy Policy 5 of the Plan. 16. An Environmental Impact Assessment and Energy Impact Assessment has been completed and is included with the Reptile Study. By virtue of specification we have achieved the highest possible rating of 'B' for a development of this nature. The Energy Efficiency Rating achieved is 82% with an Environmental Impact (CO2) Rating of 81%. Housing Policy 5 states "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department 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". This can be required by condition although the application indicates that all of the units will be made available as Affordable Units. Appendix 7 of the Plan states: "New built residential development should be provided with two parking spaces per dwelling, at least one of which should be within the curtilage of the dwelling and behind the front of the dwelling, although the amount and location of parking will vary in respect of development such as terracing, apartments, and sheltered housing. In the case of town centre and previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing this requirement having regard to: a) the location of the housing relative to public transport, employment and public amenities, b) the size of the dwelling, c) any restriction on the nature of the occupancy (such as sheltered housing) and d) the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area (paragraph A.7.1). This goes on to recommend that one space is provided for a one bedroomed apartment, 2 spaces for two or more bedrooms but that "These standards may be relaxed where development: a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape, or c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality" (A.7.6). The proposal fails to satisfy this requirement in that none of the spaces are provided behind the building line. In the case of the apartments, the proposal lacks 5 spaces with no provision for overspill parking within or outwith the site other than eight visitors' spaces at the other end of the development. Some of the spaces - those serving plots 41 to 26 are positioned in front of other people's dwellings. The spaces serving plots 11, 12, 17 and 18 are tandem spaces (one behind the other) which can lead to under-use and residents parking one of their vehicles on the estate road rather than being blocked in by their other vehicle and having to manoeuvre both vehicles in order to get one off the property. 17. All traffic and highway arrangements inclusive of parking were discussed and agreed with the DOT in the presence of officers from DLGE Planning – nobody raised any of the points above as an objection, and the DOT still do not object to the scheme's traffic arrangements. The comments listed above are based on the Strategic Plan which had not been adopted at the time during which the consultation stages and finalisation of this application had taken place. Notwithstanding this, the majority of the points can be addressed as follows: Appendix 7 provides that the amount and location of parking will vary in different circumstances one of which relates to restrictions on occupancy. First Time Buyers are a specific demographic and all dwellings are restricted to occupancy by First Time Buyers. Within this demographic it is accepted that they are of low income (from a property affordability point of view) and this consequently reduces the chances of owning more than one vehicle. Additionally, the apartments (and 2 bed mews houses on other developments) are what single first time buyers without children generally qualify for, and this would reduce the requirement for parking. It is fair to say that single first time buyers would be likely to find partners and possibly have children in time. If this is to happen it would not happen to all occupants at the same time, and traditionally upon the arrival of the first child occupiers would generally look to move on to a house if their financial parameters permit it. With the above in mind it was agreed with the DOT that 10 of the 15 spaces be allocated and 5 remain as 'communal'. In addition to this there are two further visitor spaces within reasonable proximity to the apartments. With regard to the tandem spaces, there was no objection received in this regard, however, if the Committee would deem it more suitable these could be laid side by side as there is sufficient space to achieve this. With regard to plots 43 to 46 were vehicles are not directly in front of the respective properties there is scope to amend these arrangements slightly if the Committee would prefer, however, it should be noted that whilst it is more desirable to have your vehicle in direct view, it is not always possible, and this is demonstrated on many recent developments. Also, a new bus stop is proposed as part of the scheme that would link the development to the town centre, under present bus timetables 4 buses per hour, between the hours of 6.53am and 10.15pm, pass the proposed site on route to the town centre and back. The Strategic Plan sets out standards for Open Space to be provided in respect of developments of ten dwellings or more. This would require 2304 sq. m of formal open space, 738 sq. m of children's play space and 9840 sq. m of amenity space. It is important in this development that adequate provision is made, as the nearest open space is across one of the busiest roads on the Island and children particularly should not be required or encouraged to have to cross this road in order to access the requisite play facilities. 18. This report states that a total of 12,882 sq.m of open space is required; this figure is either a typing error or miscalculated by more than 3 times. According to the formula provided in Appendix 6 of the Strategic Plan the actual requirement for the provision of open space, be it on-site or off, would be 4,096 sq.m. Amenity space has been provided for within the development and, most importantly, for a development of predominantly 'young family' homes, a central play area has been provided for children old enough to 'play out' from the back garden but not old enough to play further afield without supervision. As the open space formula was not adopted during consultation the required amount does not fully appear within the boundary of the development, however, neighbouring space was considered in the form of the open aspects of the golf course, public footpaths thereon, leading down to the Pulrose playing fields. In addition to this there is a proposed cycleway on the development that would link up with the Anagh Coar cycleway via a proposed crossing on the Castletown Road. This cycleway link-up and new crossing was requested during consultation. It is accepted to be a safe means of crossing for Children on bikes and therefore cannot be denied as a safe means of crossing for children on foot. This route would allow children access to the play facilities and open space in Anagh Coar. Upon submitting the application Ian Brooks checked over the documents and advised that we may need to pay a 'Commuted Sum' that could be expended on enhancing these facilities. We are happy to do this if it is deemed necessary. ### Party Status The Department of Transport and the local authority are, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005, paragraph 6 (5) (c) and (d), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status. The Manx Electricity Authority and The Isle of Man Water Authority raise issues associated with the provision of services, which are not material planning considerations and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance. The occupant of Port Soderick and The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment are not directly affected by this development and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance. The Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service and Disability Access Officer raise issues which are the responsibility of the Building Regulations or other legislation and as such should not be afforded party status in this instance. Estates and Housing Directorate are part of the Department and as such should not be afforded separate party status in this instance. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry are a statutory authority who raise issues which are material planning considerations and as such should be afforded party status in this instance. In summary therefore, it is considered that the following parties accord with the provisions of Planning Circular 1/06 and should be granted Interested Party Status: - Department of Transport Highways Division - Douglas Corporation - Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Accordingly, the following parties are not afforded Interested Party Status: - Manx Electricity Authority - Isle of Man Water Authority - Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and Environment - Mr Jessop, Seacliffe, Port Soderick, Braddan - Community Planning Service, 33 Ballaquark, Douglas - Isle of Man Fire and Rescue Service - Disability Access Officer - Department of Local Government and the Environment Estates and Housing Directorate. ### Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 28.12.2007

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal O : Notes attached to refusals

R 1.

The proposed development fails to make adequate provision for public open space on a site which is physically separated by a very busy main road from other usable areas of public open space. The Strategic Plan sets out the standards required for the provision of Public Open Space (Appendix 6) and the amount of space provided within this development falls well short of this.

R 2.

The development fails to make adequate or convenient provision for car parking facilities to serve the proposed housing. Each dwelling should, in accordance with Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan, have two parking spaces, one of which should be behind the building line and in the case of the apartments, each unit should have two spaces whereas there are only fifteen spaces proposed for ten two bedroomed apartments. Some of the spaces serving the semi-detached dwellings are tandem spaces which could lead to parking on the estate road and others, for example those serving plots 41 to 46 are arranged such that some of the spaces serving each dwelling are not directly alongside the properties they serve, leading to a lack of supervision and potential inconvenience for the occupants of the dwellings.

R 3.

The roadside frontage of the development is characterised by the removal of an established hedge which compliments the remaining boundary of the Castletown Road with the golf course, and its replacement with a brick wall which is neither sympathetic in appearance nor provides adequate protection for the occupants of the adjoining houses, from the noise and intrusion of the passing pedestrians and traffic.

R 4.

The style and design of the dwellings and the apartments and their layout, close to the estate road and to the boundaries of the site, appear as over-intensive and unsympathetic to the very open location of the site within a golf course and in an open, green landscape.

• 1.

The site or land around it is known to accommodate lizards which are protected by the Wildlife Act 1990. The applicant is advised to consult the Conservation and Wildlife Office of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in order to undertake a survey to determine whether any action needs to be taken in this respect.

Decision Made : ...

Committee Meeting Date : ...

In summing up my response to this report I would like to point out that it is clear that, when preparing the report over the Christmas period, Miss Corlett was not made privy to all the available information documenting consultations and was not afforded consultation with her colleagues that would have been more au fait with the application to date.

With this in mind I would ask that the Committee take's the time to consider very carefully the points and comments I have raised in response to Miss Corlett's report.

I have endeavoured during the process to consult and accommodate all the parties and take suggestions and make amendments to satisfy the same, in order to secure an approval and be able to provide comfortable good quality affordable housing.

I personally have lived in some very poor quality 'new developments' over the past 10 years and have a particular passion to try and provide a much higher quality property at an affordable cost.

In order to achieve this on a site of this nature there will always be small areas of compromise. I feel that all I have said above is of great relevance, and subject to any conditions the Committee may wish to impose for the good of the development I truly hope I have provided enough information for the Committee to be minded to approve the development.

It is a shame that Miss Corlett had not been assigned the file earlier and that I had not had the opportunity to consult with her.

Although Miss Corlett's report appeared initially rather damning due to the limited information made available, I do feel that from a lengthy consultation with Miss Corlett after circulation of this report that the 'reasons for refusal', have been addressed to include the two points not directly in line with Policy, being the parking for the apartments and the open space. Whilst these two issues are not directly in line with Policy, I do believe that they are within the parameters of Policy as explained earlier.

I appreciate that the Committee will no doubt have a full agenda and little time, although, I would ask once more that you kindly afford the consideration of this application all the time that you possibly can as it is so important to so many. I have personally spent two years working towards achieving approval for this scheme, and have consulted all the relevant parties along the way, to include but not limited to Brian Sinden and Ian Brooks of DLGE planning, Phil Halliwell of DLGE housing and estates, Derek Sewell of the DOT and Mike Radcliffe of IOM Constabulary 'Secure by Design'

I am unsure of the protocol of your Committee meetings as to whether or not an applicant can be invited to speak - I will be in attendance and would be delighted to expand on or clarify any of the points above should you be able and wish to invite me to do so.

Thanking you in anticipation,

David Lewis