DEFA Planning Officer Appeal Statement

Please reply to the signatory Our Ref: 23/01066/B Your Ref:

Mr. A. Johnstone, Planning Appeals Secretary, Chief Secretary's Office, Government Offices, Buck's Road, Douglas, IM1 3PN.

Tel: (01624) 685910

Fax: (01624) 686443 Email: [email protected]

Jennifer Chance, M.R.T.P.I. Director of Planning & Building Control

13 February 2025

PA No: 23/01066/B Proposal: Construction of two new houses to replace existing single house. Address: Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas, Isle Of Man, IM2 6AQ

Please find attached a statement that sets out the position of the Department in respect of the appeal against refusal of planning approval. Appendix 1 lists a set of conditions and drawing numbers should the Inspector be minded to recommend approval. Yours sincerely,

Paul Visigah, B.Tech (Hons), MSc, RTP, MRTPI Senior Planning Officer

Appendix 1

STATEMENT OF THE

Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Planning & Building Control Directorate

Planning statement on behalf of the Department relative to:

Erection of a dwelling with associated parking Leyton Victoria Road Douglas Isle of Man IM2 6AQ PA Reference: 23/01066/B Prepared on behalf of the Planning Department by Senior Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah, B.Tech (Hons), MSc, RTP, MRTPI

1. Introduction

• 1.1 The appeal is against non-determination of the application which was submitted on 14.09.2023, following which the subject building was considered for registration and included on the list of registered buildings on 28 February 2024. The decision to register the building was contested by the appellants on via an application to de-register the building on 19 March 2024. Upon the submission of an application by the appellants to de-register the building, instruction was received from the Director of Planning and Building Control (DEFA) to defer assessment of the application until the matters related to registration and de-registration were concluded.
• 1.2 This application to de-register the building was refused on 10 June 2024 on the following grounds:

“Insufficient information has been submitted in respect of the reasons for registration (as Included within the registry entry summary) that would justify the removal of the building from the Protected BuildingsRegister”.

• 1.3 Following the refusal of the application to de-register the building under PA 24/90001/S1, and appeal was lodged by the appellants 28.06.2024. This appeal was determined on 11 December 2024, with the recommendation to refuse the application for de registration. The appeal Inspectors provided the following as basis for refusal of the appeal:

“Reason: The readily identifiable special architectural and historic interest of this 1896/7 Arts and Crafts style dwelling overrides its present dilapidated state, justifying its continued inclusion on the Protected Buildings Register.”

2. The Application Site

• 2.1 The application site is the residential curtilage of Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas, a two storey detached dwellinghouse, set back from the highway within in its own large curtilage of mature gardens. The dwelling is set closer to the northern boundary which most of its garden area situated south of the dwelling, forming a large side garden, similar to the properties on this part of Victoria Road. The property backs unto the Braddan AFC Clubhouse grounds with a significant cluster of mature hedging which connects to the mature trees within the abutting Registered Tree Area (RA0555) forming its entire western boundary.
• 2.2 From the elevation of the property facing towards the highway of Victoria Road, the dwelling is characterised by projecting bay windows at two stories either side of this elevation, with prominent chimney stacks situated on either gable. The single storey projection on the northeast elevation has hipped roof over. The external walls are finished in red facing brick with the upper sections and side projection having render with Black Tudor Boarding finish. The dwelling also features Arts and Craft detailing on the roof, and parts of the elevations.
• 2.3 From the highway the property is bounded with a Manx stone wall and has some mature set behind the boundary wall along the site frontage. Access is from an existing gated driveway with pillars to each side and set back from the edge of the carriageway.

• 2.4 Leyton was added to the Protected Buildings Register in 2024 for the following reasons: “HISTORY

The site now occupied by Leyton was historically part of the Glencrutcherylandholding. The ownerof the land was Thomas Kneen. When Lay bought the plot from Kneen (April 1897), the house wasalready erected and complete. There was a covenant on the land that only one dwelling was to bebuilt on the plot. There is a date stone in the gable with William Lay’s initials on it.

Thomas Kneen was a significant figure on the Isle of Man during the latter part of the 19th centuryand the early 20th century. The owner of Glencrutchery House, Farm and Lands, Kneen served asCaptain of theparish of Onchan from 1895-1916, an MHK in 1890-91, and was a notable lawyerwhich culminated in being made Head of the Isle of Man’s Judiciary as Clerk of the Rolls from1905-1916.

William Lay was a young advocate who qualified for the Manx Bar in 1891at the age of 23. He setup his own practice in 1896 and later he took into partnership R G Johnson. In time he became HighBailiff of Peel and Ramsey which was a part time appointment and at the same time he continuedpracticing as an advocate. Then he became High Bailiff of Douglas and Castletown, a similar parttime but busier role. Lay subsequently became the first full time High Bailiff for the whole Island. Hehad two sons who became advocates–one also subsequently became High Bailiff.

Leyton is contemporary with the houses in Little Switzerland, as well as The Red House and Oakleigh. The house is a one-off compared to the other houses in Little Switzerland, having the firstfloor bay windows projecting over the ground floor. It has a mixture of sliding sash and casementwindows throughout. At the side it has flat roofed dormers as used by Baillie Scott and an unusualroof scape. Records suggest that the house is not the work of either Baillie Scott or Armitage Rigby.

FORM AND MATERIALS

Designed inan Arts and Crafts style, Leyton differs from all the other contemporary houses in theLittle Switzerland /Victoria Road/ Glencrutchery Road area by virtue of its double frontage and itsdoor set on the side. The porch on the side is a modern addition andthe original front door waswithin the two storey side projection without a vestibule as was the case with Baillie Scott’s RedHouse originally. The front door faced the main road.

On the gable between the original front door and the front corner of thehouse a carved sandstoneplaque was inserted as the house was being erected. It bears thedate 1896 and the initials W L(William Lay) intertwined.

MATERIALS: Ballanard brickwork at ground floor level. Half-timbered first floor with render infill. Rosemary tiled roof. Painted timber framed windows. Painted timber fascias and barge boards.

PLAN: Historic part of house has hallway on left hand side with stair to first floor and direct access to four rooms, two facing front and two facing rear. First floorlanding gives access to WC, bathroom, and four bedrooms; two facing front and two facing rear.

A modern flat roofed single storey extension at the rear contains a kitchen, sun room, rear lobby, shower room and WC. The porch at the front right corner of thehouse is not historic.

EXTERIOR: Ground floor is finished in facing brickwork from Ballanard brickworks. First floor is black painted exposed timber with white painted render infill. Pitched roof is finished in rosemary tiles, dormer windows are flat roofed. Windows are a mixture of sliding sash and casement opening, all framed in white painted timber. Two first floor front facing oriel windows (one of which has been replaced in UPVC) sit above the ground floor bay windows. Fascias and barge boards are black painted timber.

Reasons for Registration

Leyton, Victoria Road, Douglas, is entered into the Protected Buildings Register for the following reasons:

ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST

• • Victorian dwelling designed in an Arts and Crafts style with a twin-gabled front elevation featuring oriel windows, Ballanard brick ground floor and half-timbered first floor. HISTORIC INTEREST
• • Constructed in 1896, the property illustrates the arts and crafts style of architecture that formed a key part of the island’s cultural history during the late Victorian era.”

3. Proposed Development

• 3.1 Planning approval is sought for Construction of two new houses to replace the existing single dwelling, which is a Registered Building.
• 3.2 The proposed works would include the following:

• 3.2.1 Demolition of ‘Leyton’, the existing Arts and craft styled Registered Building on site, the subdivision of the site into two new residential curtilages, to enable the erection of two new dwellings on site, together with the creation of associated parking and turning areas for both dwellings. This scheme would split the Leyton site which measures about 1, 5243.1sqm into two curtilages, although the red line boundary on the site plan includes a large part of the adjacent Air Raid shelter site that would provide services for the site. A wall, however, defines the boundary of the existing curtilage to be split and the former air rid shelter site.
• 3.2.2 The new dwellings which would each have footprint measuring about 130sqm, would be about 9.6m tall from the ground level to the top of the roof ridge (5.2m tall to the eaves). The front elevation would be about 9.9m wide, while the longest side elevation would be about 13.1m long.

• 3.2.3 The external finish of the dwellings would incorporate natural slate roof, UPVC windows white or anthracite grey, red facing brick, aluminium bi fold doors in white or anthracite grey to rear elevation, and Ashlar Lined render to parts of the external elevation. Six roof lights would be installed on the roof, three on the rear roof plane. A first floor balcony would be created over parts of the living room on the front elevation with metal balustrades.
• 3.2.4 The new site layouts would provide for at least three parking spaces on each site, with a detached double garage situated within the rear garden. The detached garage would each measure about 7.6m x 7.5m (57sqm) which is more than the floor area allowable under Class 17 (Private garages and car ports) of the Permitted Development Order 2012, set at 36sqm (6m x 6m).

No plans or elevation drawings have however been provided for the detached garages, even though they would not pass for permitted development.

• 3.2.5 Five of the seven registered trees along the site frontage would be removed to create the required site lines for the access to the new dwellings. Five new trees are proposed to be planted on site. The existing wall along the site frontage would also be reduced in height to 1m and there will be no vegetation above 1.05m in height to the sightline area.

• 2.6 The existing mature hedging along the site boundaries would be retained. Bat and bird bricks (suitable for swifts) are to be incorporated into the North and West facades of the houses.
• 2.7 No Ecological report has been provided with the scheme although the site adjoins a Registered Tree Area (RA 0555), with the site left unmanaged for a long period.
• 2.8 The scheme is supported by the following supporting information:

• a. Cover Letter/ Planning statement prepared by MP Associates and dated 29 August 2023;
• b. Planning Statement Relating to Site Hydrology and Flood Risk dated 19 October 2023;
• c. Tree Survey (Drawing No. TS-140721) prepared 14 July 2021; and
• d. Tree Data Table prepared by Manx Roots and dated June 2021.

• 2.8 No details of final floor levels in relation to an established datum are included in the application.

3 PLANNING HISTORY

• 3.1 The site has been the subject of the following previous application which are considered to be materially relevant in the assessment and determination of the current application. These include:

• 3.1 Approval was granted under PA 04/01940/B for the erection of a garden shed to replace existing greenhouse/shed in rear garden of Leyton. This was approved on the grounds that there were no adverse implications for neighbouring properties nor any detrimental impact on visual amenity.
• 3.2 PA 20/00293/A was approved for the broader site area, which includes the south-eastern section of the current application site. As the Reserved Matters application was not submitted within the stipulated time period the approval has lapsed.
• 3.3 An application for Erection of a dwelling with associated parking within the site which sought to erect a new dwelling on site and subdivide the curtilage between Leyton and the new dwelling under PA 21/01504/B was refused on 29 September 2022. This application was the subject of appeal where the decision of the Planning Authority to refuse the application was upheld. The application was refused for 8 reasons.

“Reasons for refusal:

• 1. Due to the overall height, width and form of the proposed dwelling, together with its proximity to the existing dwelling at 'Leyton', which is a departure from the established development density and form of development on this part of Victoria Road, the proposal would disrupt the general rhythm of the overall group of buildings, and result in an obtrusive built development within an area comprising mainly large houses within generous gardens associated with the dwellings. Given the layout and overall density, removal of large areas of mature landscaping, coupled with the quantum of development on the application site, the role of Leyton in contributing to the character of the locality would be diminished, resulting in detrimental impacts on the character and appearance, and the contextof this part of Victoria Road, contrary to Strategic Policy 4(b), Environment Policy 42, and General Policy 2 (b, c and g), and the latter part of Strategic Policy 3(b) of the Strategic Plan.
• 2. The proposed siting, layout, scale, and arrangement of thenew building on the site, would fail to relate positively and appropriately to the site character as it does not take into account a proper analysis of site context in terms of siting, layout, scale, landscape features, and spaces between buildings, and would have a deleterious impact on the application site, by resulting in a particularly intrusive infill development within the site when viewed from the surrounding area. In fact, the new dwelling which seeks to mimic the main dwelling 'Leyton' would be larger, wider and taller than the existing dwelling, and dominate the site area, thus diminishing the role of the main dwelling within its site. The proposal, therefore, conflicts with General Policy 2(b and f) and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• 3. The proposed first floor balcony, by virtue of its proximity and height, would result in unacceptable levels of actual and perceived overlooking from the proposal site into 'Leyton', and the proposed development at Plot 1 under PA 21/01468/B, to the detriment of the residential amenity. In this respect, the proposed building is considered unacceptable when assessed against General Policy 2 (g) and the relevant sections of the Residential Design Guide.

• 4. The proposed new dwelling would, by virtue of its proximity, height and overall mass, have an adverse impact upon the outlook of 'Leyton' resulting in an overbearing impact and significant loss of light to the windows on the south elevation which includes principle rooms, which wouldbe to the detriment of the residential amenities of the occupants of Leyton, contrary to General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• 5. The potential for the loss of biodiversity on site would adversely affect the site character, and would detrimentally affect the amenity value of mature landscaping within the established garden as the proposals do not enhance or protect the landscape quality and nature conservation value to this site. The proposal also has the potential to adversely impact ona variety of biodiversity such as feeding, sheltering and breeding birds, feeding and commuting bats, and invertebrates due to the loss of the mature garden habitat linked to an established registered tree area, and hence the proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 (d and f) Strategic Policy 4(b) of the Strategic Plan (2016), and the IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025.
• 6. There is insufficient information available to understand the flood impacts of the development on the area or the resulting floodimpacts on the proposed dwelling contrary to Environment Policy 10 and General Policy 2(l).
• 7. The access arrangements as proposed would create an adverse impact on the existing highway or upon those users approaching from the north, as the visibility in this direction which is below the acceptable standards would be further impeded by existing trees along the site frontage and the proposed 1.6m high fence and gate along the northern boundary of the proposed site, and make it difficult for vehicles to exit the site in a safe and appropriate manner, contrary to the principles of General Policy 2(h and I) and Transport Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
• 8. The removal of a Category B Tree Tulip Tree (T2055) on the southern boundary of Leyton, which wassurveyed (Drw. No. TS 16119) and marked for retention (Drw. No. TR 16119) on the tree survey documents submitted under PA 20/00293/A, without any new supporting information to justify its removal within the current scheme would be averse to the requirements of Environment Policy 3 and General Policy 2 (f), noting this tree contributes to the amenity value of the site and area.”

• 5.4 The most recent application under PA 24/90001/S1 Application for de-registration of a building (RB339) sought approval to de-register the building. This application was refused on 30.05.2024. The subsequent appeal was determined on 11 December 2024.

• 5.4.1 The following parts of the Appeal Inspector Report are particularly relevant:

“CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

• 53. The building has intrinsic architectural merit that is particularly evident in the visual quality of the front elevation, with sufficient of the original fabric and design remaining when the

• building is considered as a whole, to give it special architectural interest. Even in its current poor state of repair, it also survives as a good example of the Island’s cultural history, forming part of the late Victorian and Edwardian Arts and Crafts designed expansion of Douglas.
• 54. In coming to that view, I am mindful hatt no surveys undertaken by a conservation/heritage specialist are before me. Such surveys would have approached the task with a view to securing the conservation/preservation of the building as a first option and would have assessed necessary remedial works. It may be that such an investigation reveals, for instance, that the decay is not as widespread as is suggested by the appellant and that sympathetic repair/replacement may be practicable. In essence, there is no substantiated evidence on the part ofthe appellant to overcome the presumption against the removal of the Registered Building from the Register as set out in Environment Policy 31 of the Strategic Plan.
• 55. In light of the forgoing, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude,on balance, that the appeal should be dismissed. If accepted, this recommendation would have the effect of upholding the decision of the Department to refuse the application for deRegistration of the building.”

• 4 STATUTORY AND POLICY FRAMEWORK

• 4.1 Town and County Planning Act 1999

• 4.1.1 Section 10(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 (“TCPA 1999”) states:

‘In dealing with an application for planning approval […] the Department shall have regard to -

• (a) The provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application; (ab) any relevant national policy directive under Section 2A;
• (b) Any relevant statement of planning policy under section 3;
• (c) Such other considerations as may be specified for the purpose of this subsection in a development order or a development procedure order, so far as material to the application; and
• (d) All other material considerations.’

• 4.1.2 Section 16(3) TCPA 1999 states:

‘In considering —

• (a) whether to grant planning approval for development which affects a registered building or its setting, or
• (b) whether to grant registered building consent for any works,

the relevant Department shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses’.

• 4.1.3 For the purposes of sections 16(3), ‘preserving’ means doing no harm.
• 4.1.4 The obligation to pay ‘special regard’ in section 16(3) TCPA 1990 means that preservation of the building or the preservation or enhancement of the conservation area (as the case may be) are objectives which must be given a high priority. If any development conflicts with those objectives then there will be a strong presumption against the grant of planning approval or registered buildings consent (as the case may be). Consistently with this, the finding of harm to the significance of the registered building or conservation area is a consideration to which the decision-maker must give considerable importance and weight. In exceptional cases the presumption may be overridden in favour of development which is desirable on the ground of some other public interest.1
• 4.1.5 The statutory presumption in favour of preservation in sections 16(3) of TCPA 1999 means that there must be a suitably rigorous assessment of potential alternatives.
• 4.1.6 The two key development plan documents for the purposes of section 10(4)(a) TCPA 1999 are: (1) The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016) (“the Strategic Plan”); and (2) The Area Plan for the East (2020) (“the APE”). The relevant policies within these documents are presented as follows:

4.2 Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2016)

• 4.2.1 The Strategic Plan takes its lead from the Government aims which include the pursuit of manageable and sustainable growth based on a diversified economy which is intended to raise the standard of living of the people of the Island and to provide the resources to sustain and develop public services. It also includes the protection and improvement of the quality of the environment such that it continues to be an asset for future generations.
• 4.2.2 The Strategic Aim (see paragraph 2.6) is:

‘To plan for the efficient and effective provision of services and infrastructure and to direct and control development and the use of land to meet thecommunity's needs, having particular regard to the principles of sustainability whilst at the same time preserving, protecting, and improving the quality of the environment, having particular regard to our uniquely Manx natural, wildlife, cultural and built heritage.’

• 4.2.3 The Strategic Aim is delivered through the detailed policies in the Strategic Plan. The relevant detailed policies are identified below.
• 4.2.4 The Strategic Aim is also supported by a number of strategic objectives. Those objectives include: protecting, maintaining and enhancing the built and rural environment; encouraging high

• quality development throughout the Island; and promoting urban regeneration and the re-use of derelict and redundant sites.
• 4.2.5 Strategic Policy 4 states:

‘Proposals for development must:

• (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings, Conservation Areas, 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.’

• 4.2.6 General Policy 1: The determination of matters under Part 2 (Development Control) and Part 3 (Special Controls) of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and all other material considerations.
• 4.2.7 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."

• 4.2.8 Environment Policy 30 states:

‘There will be a general presumption against demolition of a Registered Building. In considering proposals for demolition or proposed works which would result in substantial demolition of a Registered Building, consideration will be given to:

• - the condition of the building;
• - the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the value derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions);
• - the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and
• - the merits of alternative proposals for the site."

• 4.2.9 Environment Policy 31 states:

‘There will be a presumption against the removal of any Registered Building from the Register.’

• 4.2.10 Environment Policy 32 states:

‘Extensions or alteration so a Registered Building which would affect detrimentally its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest will not be permitted.’

• 4.2.11 Environment Policy 39 states:

‘The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.’

• 4.2.12 The supporting text to these Environment Policies are relevant. The following parts are particularly material in this case. Paragraphs 7.24.1 to 7.24.3 provide:

‘The architecture of the Island, the quality of its buildings, the way in which they blend in with their surroundings, the respect for the built environment and the collective and individual cultural heritage, are all matters that are important to the sustainability of the Island’s unique identity.

The Island possesses an extensive and well preserved historical character. The presence of sites, features, buildings and Conservation Areas undoubtedly adds to the quality of our lives, and the physical remains of our past are to be valued and protected as a central

part of our culture, heritage and sense of national identity. It adds to our ‘sense of place’ and is a constituent part of both the rural and urban environment.

The Island enjoys a rich heritage of buildings, all of which represent the social, economic and cultural history of the Island. These physical remains of our past, which may include historic buildings, ancient monuments and archaeological sites whether in towns, villages or in the countryside sustain the distinctiveness of theIsland which is so vital to the retention of its unique character and our sense of national identity. The historic environment is also a material asset that makes a positive contribution to economic prosperity for the purposes of tourism, leisure and recreation.’

• 4.2.13 Paragraph 7.25.3 explains that the conservation of the built environment ‘should be viewed as an asset to be promoted and not as a constraint to be overcome’.
• 4.2.14 Paragraph 7.29.2 states that development proposals should be in accordance with the Department’s conservation policies set out in Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man (“PPS 1/01”).
• 4.2.15 Paragraph 7.32.2 states:

‘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:

• - the condition of the building;
• - 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);
• - the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; - the merits of alternative proposals for the site.’

• 4.2.16 Other relevant Strategic Plan Policies include:

• a. Strategic Policy 3 - Development to safeguard character of existing towns and villages.
• b. Strategic Policy 3 - Design and visual impact
• c. Strategic Policy 10 - Sustainable transport
• d. Strategic Policy 11 - Housing needs
• e. Spatial Policy 1 - The Douglas urban area will remain the main employment and services centre for the Island.
• f. Spatial Policy 3 - Development within the Douglas urban area.
• g. Spatial Policy 4 - Need to new development to maintain the existing settlement character, be of appropriate scale (local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities).

• h. Environment Policy 3 – Protection of woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and seminatural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value from unacceptable loss of or damage.
• i. Environment Policy - Protection of species and habitats.
• j. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats.
• k. Environment Policies 10 and 13 - Development and flood risk.
• l. Environment Policy 42 - Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality.
• m. Housing Policy 6 - Residential development to be undertaken in accordance with development brief or Paragraph 6.2 of Plan.
• n. Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to existing public transportation services.
• o. Transport Policy 2 - Layouts to link to existing systems
• p. Transport Policy 4 - Highway Safety
• q. Transport Policy 6 - Equal weight for vehicles and pedestrians
• r. Transport Policy 7 - Parking Provisions
• s. Paragraph 11.8.1: “All new development must be capable of being drained of foul and surface water in a safe, convenient, and environmentally acceptable manner. The Department of Transport Drainage Division is the All-Island Drainage Authority and assumes responsibility for all of the Island’s public sewers and treatment works, with a number of local authorities acting as Agents within their particular town, village, or parish. As well as maintaining and improving existing infrastructure, the Drainage Division inspects the proposed drainage plans for new development in order to ensure that the completed works are in accordance with the flow and treatment capacity of the system into which they will link and are, where appropriate, of an adoptable standard.”

4.3 The Area Plan for the East (adopted 2020)

• 4.3.1 In respect of the urban environment, the APE identifies one of the Area Plan objectives at paragraph 6.3(iv) as:

’To identify and celebrate the historic urban environment so that it retains an active and productive role in contemporary life.’

• 4.3.2 Further, APE identifies the following area plan desired outcomes at paragraph 6.4:

‘v. There will be greater recognition of the contribution the East's historic value to the local and visitor economy and to the quality of life on the Island.

vi. The long term future of valuable heritage assets will be assured by creative reuse.’

• 4.3.3 These objectives and outcomes support the spatial vision statement in APE which materially states at paragraph 3.4.6:

‘Built heritage will continue to be recognised as being vital to the east’s identity and its distinctive sense of place. There will be the sensitive reuse and protection of this built heritage wherever possible, to reinforce local character and the relationships between older and newer buildings connected by the spaces between them that people can enjoy.’

• 4.3.4 The spatial vision statement also specifies that Douglas ‘will continue to be a thriving capital rich in historic interest’.

• 4.3.5 In respect of the historic built environment, APE states at paragraph 6.8: ‘The historic built environment

Local character and key features within the built environment, such as Registered Buildings and other heritage assets play a significant role in promoting economic and social prosperity by providing attractive living and working conditions. In addition, they provide economic opportunities through tourism, leisure and recreational uses. It is therefore essential that local character is safeguarded, particularly those features which fundamentally define the historic built environment in the East. Particularly:

• o the buildings and structures associated with the roles of Douglas and Laxey as historic seaside resorts;
• o the harbours of Douglas and Laxey;
• o the historicinfrastructure of the Steam Railway, Electric Tramway and Horse Trams; and
• o the historic grain of Douglas and Laxey old towns, including their street layouts, town yards, plot sizes and landscape settings.

The significance of Manx heritage assets inthe built environment is increased by their relative scarcity. Registered Buildings and Conservation Areas which might not necessarily achieve such status in the United Kingdom have gained a higher status in the Isle of Man where their contribution to national identity and the Island's story is highly valued.

Existing and new development can exist side by side, even with some visual differences presented by old and new building styles. New development should not seek to mimic existing development but beof its own time. Such innovation is crucial and with good precedent: some of the Island's best architectural examples emerged from the building design competitions of the Edwardian era.’

• 4.3.6 Urban Environment Proposal 3 follows the above text in APE and states:

‘Development proposals must make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. Traditional or contemporary approaches may be appropriate, depending upon the nature of the proposal and the context of the surrounding area.’

• 4.3.7 Further, APE states at paragraph 6.9: ‘Creative Re-use

As stated in the Strategic Plan, Paragraph 7.25: 'Conservation of the built environment and archaeological features should be viewed as an asset to be promoted and not as a constraint to be overcome'.

It is recognised that retaining the best examples of built heritage for future generations benefits the resident population by celebrating its unique national identity and increasing the sense of wellbeing and improved quality of life broughtabout by beautiful surroundings.

The value of mid and late-20th Century architecture should not be ignored as the best examples of these periods contribute to a rich and vibrant built heritage. Supporting the continued use and retention of these buildings requires a pragmatic and dynamic understanding of different potential uses. A proposed use which retains a building of heritage value, but requires modification to that building, is superior to a proposal which leads only to demolition or decay of that building.’

• 4.3.8 Urban Environment Proposal 4 follows this text and provides:’

‘Proposals which help to secure a future for built heritage assets, especially those identified as being at the greatest risk of loss or decay, will be supported.’

4.4 Planning Policy Statements

• 4.4.1 PPS 1/01 includes a variety of relevant policies concerning the conservation of the historic environment of the Isle of Man. The specifically relevant polices are:
• 4.4.2 Policy RB/1 concerns the registration of buildings and specifies the following considerations to which the Department shall have regard:

‘ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST AND/OR AESTHETIC QUALITY:

The register is intended to include buildings which are of importance to the Island for the interest of their architectural designs, decoration, craftsmanship, or by virtue of the eminence of the architect; this would include important examples of particular building types and techniques (e.g. buildings displaying technological innovation or virtuosity, as might be found in structures connected with the historic railways of the Island) and significant plan forms;

HISTORIC INTEREST: This includes buildings which illustrate important aspects of the Island’s social, economic, cultural, religious, agricultural, industrial ormilitary history; this importance might also be assessed in the particular local context of the town or village in which the building is located;

CLOSE HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION: with Nationally important people or events;

LANDMARK QUALITIES: Some buildings will be clearly recognisable as having such qualities whether they be located in isolated coastal or rural locations, or as focal points within a busy local townscape;

GROUP VALUE: Especially where buildings comprise an important architectural orhistoric unity or a fine example of planning (e.g. Squares, Terraces or Farm Groups).’

• 4.4.3 Policy RB/3 provides general criteria and states:

‘Issues that are generally relevant to the consideration of all registered building applications are:

• - The importance of the building, it intrinsic architectural and historic interest and rarity, relative to the Island as a whole and within the local context;
• - The particular physical features of the building (which may include its design, plan, materials or location) which justify its inclusion in the register; descriptions annexed to the entry in the register may draw attention to features of importance (e.g. interiors, murals, hidden fireplaces) may come to light after the building’s entry in the register;
• - The building’s setting and its contribution to the local scene, which may be very important, e.g. where it forms an element in a group, park, garden or other townscape or landscape, or where it shared particular architectural forms or details with other buildings nearby (including other registered buildings).’

• 4.4.4 Policy RB/6 concerns demolition and states:

‘There will be a general presumption against demolition and consent for the demolition of a registered building should not be expected simply because redevelopment is economically more attractive than repair and re-use of an historic building; or because the building was acquired at a price that reflected the potential for redevelopment, rather than the condition and constraints of the existing historic building. Where proposed works would result in the total or substantial demolition of a registered building, an applicant, in addition to the general criteria set out in RB/3 above, should be able to demonstrate that the following considerations have been addressed:-

• - The condition of the building, the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and to the value derived from its continued use. Any such assessment should be based on consistent and long term assumptions. Less favourable levels of rents and yields cannot automatically be assumed for historic buildings and returns may, in fact, be more favourable given the publicly acknowledged status of the building. Furthermore, historic buildings may offer proven performance, physical attractiveness and functional spaces that in an age of rapid change may outlast the short-lived and inflexible technical specifications that have sometimes shaped new developments. Any assessment should take into account possible tax allowances and exemptions. In rare cases where it is clear that a building has been deliberately neglected in the hope of obtaining consent for demolition, less weight should be given to the costs of repair;
• - The adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use.An applicant must show that real efforts have been made, without success, to continue the present use, or to find new uses for the building. This may include the offer of the unrestricted freehold of the building on the open market at a realistic price reflecting the building's condition.
• - The merits of alternative proposals for the site. Subjective claims for the architectural merits of a replacement building should not justify the demolition of a registered building. There may be very exceptional caseswhere the proposed works would bring

substantial benefits for the community; these would have to be weighed against preservation. Even here, it will often be feasible to incorporate registered buildings within new development, and this option should be carefully considered. The challenge presented by retaining registered buildings can be a stimulus to imaginative new designs to accommodate them.’

• 4.4.5 The explanatory text to this policy states:

‘The destruction of historic buildings is in fact very seldom necessary for reasons of good planning: more often it is the result of neglect, or failure to make imaginative efforts to find new uses or incorporate them into new developments.’

5. Other Material Considerations

• 5.1 There are a number of other material considerations which are vital for consideration in the assessment of the planning application include:

5.2 Residential Design Guide (2021)

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

• 5.3 The Isle of Man's Biodiversity Strategy (2015 - 2025)

5.3.1 The Department's Biodiversity Strategy is capable of being a material consideration. It seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary.

• 5.4 Manual for Manx Roads: Movement and Place Practitioner's Guide

• 5.4.1 The Manual for Manx Roads sets out the minimum requirements for vehicular visibility splays from driveways. The guide for achieving the required visibility splays are clearly illustrated in Section

• B.3 of the Manual. Paragraphs 5.2.37 and 5.2.38 of the manual relates specifically to visibility along the street edge from driveways, while paragraphs 5.2.39 and 5.2.40 refer to obstacles to Visibility.

• 5.4.2 Additionally, Paragraph C.7.30 (Table C.2) provides guidance on driveway parking space, while Paragraphs C.7.34 and C.7.35 (Table C.3) provides guidance on garages.

• 5.5 Flood Risk Management Act (2013)

• 5.5.1 Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations.

6 Consultation Responses/Representations

Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This statement contains summaries only.

• 6.1 DOI Highways Division confirms that the proposed vehicular access, access visibility splays and internal layout is acceptable and they do not oppose the application subject to a condition regarding the new access (26 September 2023).

• 6.2 The DOI Flood Risk Management has made the following comments regarding the application:

• 6.2.1 Comments received 9 October 2023:

o They require a flood Risk Assessment to enable assessment of potential flood concerns from open field at rear of site.

• 6.2.2 Comments received 5 February 2024:

• 1. They request that the FRA be conditioned as part of any approval granted.
• 2. In relation to part 3.5, they ask that it is conditioned that the land to the rear of the properties Sunnyside Cottage and Ballawana (marked in light blue on their map) is maintained, and that the currently silted up field drain ditch is cleared and that this flows to an adequate receiver without impacting the mentioned properties.

• 6.3 Manx Utilities Drainage have made the flowing comments regarding the application (28 September 2023):

• 1. Once a building has been demolished, it stops communicating to the public sewer, therefore it is regarded as a new connection.
• 2. They will not allow any SW into the combined or foul system, as MU have adopted best Industry practice since the previous comments on the site, and will require attenuation or soakaways (on completion of successful percolation tests) on any new developments.

• 6.4 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team have made the following comments on the application (11 October 2023):

• 1. They object to the application due to the loss of significant amounts of vegetation on site with no ecological mitigation, apart from 1 rowan tree.
• 2. Much greater levels of detail should be provided prior to determination showing which vegetation is to be removed, and should trees need to be removed or works be taking place close to the trees which may result in damage to root structures, then tree surveys will also be required, as are soft landscaping plans showing where proportionate replanting is to take place.
• 3. They strongly advise that an assessment for roosting bats and nesting birds is undertaken on the property by a suitable qualified ecological consultancy.
• 4. They recommend that a report detailing the findings of assessment for roosting bats and nesting birds at the site is either submitted prior to demolition, and ideally prior to determination of this application.

• 5. They state that if roosting bats or nesting birds, or evidence of their presence, is found then avoidance and mitigation measures will need to be put in place to ensure that bats and birds are protected during and after demolition.

• 6.5 DEFA Forestry have made the following comments regarding the application (16 February 2024):

• 1. The proposal involves the removal of 5 registered trees, all of which are a category B. The quantity of removal appears excessive to what would be required to achieve access and visibility. The retention of the 2, or even 3, trees furthest from the access point may be possible and this should be explored. If these can be retained, it would, of course, be a more beneficial outcome, however, the Directorate’s objection would remain due to the removal of the remaining lime trees and the factors outlined below.
• 2. The proposal will result in a considerable loss of the current canopy cover at the site, approximately 50%. This canopy cover is particularly valuable in the urban setting.
• 3. Details of tree protection have not been provided and therefore the Directorate cannot be confident in the outcome for retained trees.

• 6.5.1 Conditions to be applied in the event that the application is approved:

• 1. A condition seeking the provision and implementation of a detailed tree protection plan that provides adequate protection for the registered monkey puzzle tree and oak tree.
• 2. If any degree of resurfacing is to take place on the existing driveway, an arboricultural methods statement detailing how this will occur and how trees will be protected during this process.
• 3. A condition ensuring the proposed planting takes place in full and that any trees that die or fail to establish are replaced.

• 6.6 Douglas Borough Council have no objection to the application (29 September 2023).
• 6.7 The Isle of Man Victorian Society have made the following comments regarding the application:

• 6.7.1 Comments Received 8 October 2023:

• 1. They refer to the non-display of the yellow notice for the proposal.
• 2. They state that their principal objection to this application relates to the demolition of Leyton which is of far more importance to our architectural heritage than perhaps appreciated.
• 3. They refer to the history of the site and the properties within the Little Switzerland Conservation Area.
• 4. They state that Leyton is unique amongst all the Little Switzerland houses being the only one to have a full first floor entirely in half‐ timbering. It was the first of the ‘smaller’ houses to be built and is the only one not to be designed by Baillie Scott or Armitage Rigby.
• 5. They and reiterate that the demolition should not be permitted and that it should be afforded protected status

• 6.7.2 Comments received 26 October 2023:

o They refer to the failure of the applicant to display the site notices for PA 23/00942/B.

• 6.8 The Society for the Preservation of the Manx Countryside and the Environment, object to the application for the following reasons (04 October 2023/8 October 2023):

• 1. The proposal is a departure from the established development density on this part of Victoria Road, and the proposal would disrupt the general rhythm of the overall group of buildings, and result in an obtrusive built development within an area comprising mainly large houses with generous gardens associated with the dwellings.
• 2. The proposed dwellings are taller than Leyton which fits neatly and unobtrusively within the garden area for 127 years. The previous refusal recognises the role Leyton plays in contributing to the character of the area.
• 3. Although on the other side of the road from the main cluster of arts and crafts houses, Leyton is still part of it as is The Red House a little further up the road and Oakleigh around the corner on Glencrutchery Road.
• 4. Leyton has been neglected since it became empty but it is not in a dilapidated state and there is no reason to deprive our architectural heritage as proposed and worse still replace it with two shoehorned dwellings that are more suited to a Dandara estate than an area recognised for its longstanding ambience and mature setting.

• 6.8 The owners/occupiers of the following properties object to the application:

• 1. La Paz, 14 Lucerne Court, Douglas (1 October 2023);
• 2. Inglewood, Little Switzerland, Douglas (25 September 2023);
• 3. 7 Hildesley Road, Douglas (26 September 2023);
• 4. 58 Holmewood Gardens, London (25 September 2023);
• 5. 5 Kensington Lane, Douglas (25 September 2023);
• 6. 38 Ballabrooie Way, Douglas (28 September 2023);
• 7. 129 Cronk Liauyr, Douglas (4 October 2023);
• 8. Polzeath, 29 Ballanard Road, Douglas (4 October 2023);
• 9. Holly Bank, Little Switzerland, Douglas (6 October 2023);
• 10. Glen View, South Cape, Laxey (31 October 2023).

• 6.8.1 The above object to the application on the following grounds:

• 1. Architectural Significance of existing dwelling at Leyton to the area;
• 2. Historical Importance of the existing dwelling;
• 3. The dwelling is an example for the Arts and Crafts movement of late Victorian era, many of which were designed by renowned architect of the day MH Bailey Scott;
• 4. This house and the style of the property has connections to artists such as Charlies Rennie Mackintosh and William Morris;
• 5. The building has been allowed to depreciate intentionally;
• 6. Adverse impact on character of locality;
• 7. Two houses at the site will further exacerbate traffic issues along Victoria Road;
• 8. The proposal does not address all the reasons for refusal of PA 21/01504/B;
• 9. Non-display of site notice.

7. Assessment

• 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of the current application are:

• 1. Statutory test (Town and County Planning Act 1999);
• 2. Principle of Development:

• (a) Application of Heritage Policies (STP 1, STP 4, GP 2, EP 30 & 31, and RB/6 of PC1/01)
• (b) Local Plan land use allocation (UEP3 & 4 from the Area Plan for East Written Statement and STP 1, 2, & 11, SP1, GP 1 & 2, EP43, of the IOMSP);

• 3. Potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scenes (STP5, GP2, EP 42 & 43 & UEP 3 of TAPE);
• 4. Impact on Neighbouring Residential Properties (GP2(g));
• 5. Traffic Impacts / parking provision (StP10, GP2, TP 1, 2, 4, 6, 7);
• 6. Potential impacts upon ecology/trees (EP3, EP4, EP5 & GP2); and
• 7. Drainage/Flooding (GP2, EP13).

• 7.2 STATUTORY TEST

• 7.2.1 In assessing the scheme as currently proposed, it is considered that the proposals involve the demolition of a Registered Building, as such due consideration needs to first be given to the statutory tests, which are a significant material planning consideration as outlined within the Town and County Planning Act 1999.

• 7.2.2 Section 16 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) requires decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses in assessing works which may affect registered building or its settings. In this case, it is considered that the Registered Building (Leyton RB No. 339) was added to the register on 28 February 2024 for the following reasons;

• o “ARCHITECTURAL INTEREST

Victorian dwelling designed in an Arts and Crafts style with a twin-gabled front elevation featuring oriel windows, Ballanard brick ground floor and half-timbered first floor.

• o HISTORIC INTEREST

Constructed in 1896, the property illustrates the arts and crafts style of architecture that formed a key part of the island’s cultural history during the late Victorian era.”

• 7.2.3 The above clearly points to the fact the existing Registered Building has significant heritage assets which are worthy of retention, and these views were evidently reinforced by the Appeal Inspector under PA 24/90001/S1 for the de-registration of the building who made the following conclusions: “The readily identifiable special architectural and historic interest of this 1896/7 Arts and Crafts style dwelling overrides its present dilapidated state, justifying its continued inclusion on the protected buildings Register.”
• 7.2.4 When the above is taken into consideration, it is adjudged that the scheme which seeks to demolish the Registered Building, will result in the total loss of the building, together with its significance exemplified in the special architectural and historic interest of the building. Accordingly,

• the proposal would fail Section 16 (3) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) and a refusal can be made on this ground.
• 7.2.5 Given that the application fails to meet the statutory requirements of Section 16(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999), which carry significant planning weight, the application can be refused on this basis alone, without further consideration. However, for the sake of completeness, the following planning policy considerations have also been evaluated.

• 7.3 PRINCIPLE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

• 7.3.1 In assessing the principle of the proposed development, two key elements are to be considered. These have been set out within Paragraph 7.1 of this statement, and would be assessed here in the order they have been listed.
• 7.3.2 Application of the relevant heritage policy

• 7.3.2.1 The loss of the Registered Buildings and the harm to the setting of the registered building, as well as the character and appearance of the area gives rise to a number of obvious planning policy conflicts. These include:

• 1. Conflict with Strategic Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan: The proposal by virtue of the fact that it seeks the demolition of a registered building would fail to protect or enhance the fabric and setting of the Registered Buildings, and this conflicts with the above policy.
• 2. There is conflict with General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan as the heritage loss and harm described above gives rise to part (a) a failure to respect the site and surroundings; and (b) adversely affects the character of the surrounding townscape.
• 3. The loss of the Registered Building will also result in conflict with the provisions of Environment Policy 31 which presumes against the removal of any Registered Building from the Register.
• 4. The loss of the Registered Building means that the proposed development does not make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island, as it would result in the removal of a heritage asset which contributes to the islands ‘Heritage identity’, and this conflicts with Strategic Policy 5, as well as Paragraph 4.3.4 which reinforces the need to preserve these assets by stating that the retention of such is “strongly supported by Government and the resident community”. Moreover, the resulting loss of a contributor to the Islands local character and distinctiveness, conflicts with Urban Environment Proposal 3 of the APE and fails to secure a future for built heritage assets, contrary to Urban Environment Policy 4 of the APE.
• 5. There is also conflict with Environment Policy 30 of the Strategic Plan, and policy RB/6 of PPS 1/01. These policies all operate on the same basis by creating a general policy

presumption against the demolition of Registered Buildings (EP 30 and RB/6). Further these policies prescribe four considerations which are vital for consideration in the assessment of whether a registered building should be demolished or not. The Department’s position is that the Proposed Development fails to satisfy any of those considerations.

• 7.3.2.1.1 The starting point is to first recognise that the demolition of the Registered Buildings is not acceptable simply because redevelopment of the site is not considered viable to now restore and/or extend commercially, than repair and re-use of the historic buildings (see Policy RB/6). This appears to be the main basis for the current application as evidenced in the applicants Cover Letter dated 29 August 2023. In considering proposals for demolition or proposed works which would result in substantial demolition of a Registered Building, consideration will be given to the following (EP 30 and RB/6):

• a. the condition of the building;
• b. the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the value derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions);
• c. the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and
• d. the merits of alternative proposals for the site.

• 7.3.2.1.2 It is not considered that these issues have not been adequately considered in this application for the following reasons:

1. Condition of the building:

The applicants consider that the existing house was left unoccupied and was broken into and vandalised, and as such it is not considered viable to now restore and extend it commercially. This however, is not supported by any information or structural report detailing the condition of the building, as a basis for demolition in line with the above policies. It is also worth noting the appeal Inspector in refusing the previous scheme for the site under PA 21/01504/B, noted that Leyton is particularly pleasant and of its time design, features which the dwelling still retains even after the acclaimed vandalism as was evidenced during the site visit for this application on 3 October 2023.

Given that no evidence has been identified that would support a case for the demolition of the dwelling, or that it could not be effectively restored without the need for demolition, it is not considered that there are any basis to allow for the demolition of the dwelling, particularly as the owners of the registered building are obligated to repair and maintain the building, yet there is little evidence as witnessed during the site visit to suggest that there has been efforts to keep the building in good state as seen in the fact that the windows are left open to the elements, and that the site is not maintained.

This was clearly reinforced by the Appeal inspector for PA 24/90001/S1 for de-registration of a building (RB339), where the Inspector made the following comments:

“51. Whilst the impact of the deteriorated state of a building may have implications for viability, it cannot be right that an owner might benefit from permitting a Registered building to deteriorate deliberately in the hope of making consent or permission easier

to gain. I am not suggesting for one moment that the current state of the appeal building is a result of deliberate neglect. It would seem, however, that little has been done in recent years to protect the property against ongoing damage, such as securing the roof against water ingress, carrying out running repairs, or properly securing the property against illegal entry and consequent vandalism. With that in mind, I consider that the current condition of the building should be disregarded in determining whether it should be de-Registered at this time, in accordance with theOperational Policy. 52. The Policy also indicates that no regard should be had to other factors, such as implications of building condition for future use, or financial issues. Even so, I would have expected some financial viability analysis, supported by detailed surveys, given the appellant’s assertion that refurbishment is unviable. None was before me.”

2. The cost of repairing and maintaining the building:

Another factor that requires consideration is the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the value derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions). From review of the sites history and documents submitted for this application, there does not appear to have been any repairs /remedial works done to the existing building. In fact, the only comments related to costs in the submitted documents relates to the commercial viability of restoration and extension, with no supporting viability assessments (or other adequate evidence) to support such claims. Accordingly, the proposed development fails this aspect of the policy requirement.

It is further important to note that the matters relating to cost was also addressed by the Appeal Inspector for the application to de-register the building and this has been addressed iwthin paragraph 7.3.2.1.2 above (See extract form Appeal Inspectors Report above reference as Paragraph 52).

3. Adequacy of efforts to retain the building in use:

With regard to this requirement which also needs to be satisfied to allow for the demolition of the registered building, the appellant (applicant) has not provided any evidence that efforts have been made to retain the buildings in use. No evidence has been provided of any marketing or potential advertising the property for rent etc. Likewise, the only works which were proposed to improve the site conditions via improvements to the site access under PA 20/00293/A were never implemented as they were not commenced until the application lapsed; factors which point to the lack of intention to improve the property. Moreover, no justification has been provided to clearly state why none of these works were ever carried out, instead, there has been action geared towards maximizing profits from the site via the addition of another dwelling on site, or the current scheme which seeks to remove and replace the dwelling, whilst also adding another dwelling on site. As a result, it is considered that the proposed development fails this aspect of the policy.

4. Merits of alternative proposals for the site.

In assessing the merits of the alternative proposals for the site, it is first considered that a similar scheme was proposed for the site, although seeking to retain the main dwelling on, but this was clearly refused at appeal for eight (8) reasons, and it is not considered that the policy circumstances or conditions on site have changed to such a point as benefit a similar type of development on site.

Secondly, the dwelling which existed on site, and which was protected for its unique design as evident in the first and second reason for refusal under PA 21/01504/B is now a registered building on the basis of its architectural and historic contributions, such that it is now being afforded protected status over that which was extant under PA 21/01504/B. This clearly, increases the presumption against the proposed scheme. Besides the basis for refusal under PA 21/01504/B in terms of the architectural merits still remains given that no additional information has been provided to clarify how the presumption against the development of the site due to potential adverse impacts on the existing dwelling and site character via the introduction of an additional dwelling on site has been addressed within the current scheme.

Based on the foregoing, the Department submits that the proposed development lacks merit in terms of its offerings as an alternative proposal for the site, and is, therefore not considered to be an appropriate development for the site. Thus, the proposal is considered to fail this final aspect of the policy.

• 7.3.2.1.3 Having regard to the four requirements (criteria) assessed above, it is clear that the scheme fails the provisions of Environment Policy 30 of the Strategic Plan, and Policy RB/6 of Planning Circular 1/01. Therefore, the Department submits that the applicant has not produced any evidence to demonstrate that the criteria are satisfied by the proposed development, thus the presumption against demolition has not been overcome.

7.3.3 Local Plan land use allocation

• 7.3.3.1 In terms of compliance of the scheme with the zoning of the site, it is considered that the site is zoned for residential use in the Area Plan for the East 2020, as such, the proposal would be in compliance with IMSP SP2 and HP4 in terms of acceptability of the site for the proposed residential development.

• 7.3.3.2 Likewise, the site is adjacent an existing public transport corridor within Douglas, and is adjacent to and surrounded by existing residential dwellings which would mean that the proposed residential development here broadly aligns with the Strategic Plan goal to locate new housing and employment close to existing public transport facilities and routes, or where public transport facilities are, or can be improved, thereby reducing the need to use private cars and encouraging alternative means of transport. Therefore, in terms of the acceptability of the use of the site for residential development there is no conflict in these terms.
• 7.3.3.3 Notwithstanding the factors that weigh in favour of the proposed development, it is not considered that these factors are afforded similar weight over the need to protect the islands heritage as articulated in Environment Policies 30 ad 31 which presume against the demolition or removal of a building from the register, particularly where the criteria set in these policies have not been met. Moreover, it is not considered that the scheme in its current form overcomes the first and second reasons for refusal of a similar scheme at the site under PA 21/01504/B, with the now confirmed registered building status established via PA 24/90001/S1, which addressed attempts to de-register the building reinforcing the need for the dwelling to be retained.

• 7.3.3.4 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the principle of demolishing the existing dwelling and subsequent erection of two new dwellings in its stead would be at variance with the provisions of the aforementioned Policies within the strategic Plan, as well as the relevant Policies within Planning Circular 1/01. Thus, the principle is unacceptable.

7. 4 Other Matters

• 7.4 Potential impact upon the visual amenities of the street scene (StP5, GP2, EP 42 & 43; & UEP 3 & 4 TAPE);

• 7.4.1 In assessing the potential impacts of the scheme on the visual amenities of the site and immediate locality, it is pertinent to consider that a recent application which sought to erect a new dwelling within the curtilage of ‘Leyton’ under PA 21/0504/B was refused at Appeal on 14 June 2023, where the Inspector considered that the scheme which was less significant in terms of impacts on the site and area, as it sought to only erect a new dwelling within the curtilage, without demolishing Leyton, would diminish the role of the main dwelling (Leyton) within its site, contrary to General Policy 2(b and f) and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016. It is also important to consider that the proposed development would be apparent from public views, being situated along a primary route into Douglas, where views to the proposed development would be clearly noticeable.

• 7.4.2 Whilst it is noted that the new scheme has been designed to mimic the existing dwelling at Leyton, and would offer a semblance of the dwelling on site, such that they could be perceived to possess the features of the dwelling ‘Leyton’, and would offer a semblance of the dwelling on site, It would be important to point out that even if a mimic attempts to replicate the appearance of the original building, it will inevitably lack the authenticity and historic significance of the listed building. Moreover, Arts and Crafts buildings are renowned for their high-quality materials and meticulous craftsmanship. Thus, replicating these details authentically is extremely difficult and often results in a superficial imitation lacking the soul and patina of the original. Likewise, modern materials and construction methods often fall short in providing true representations of original features, and this is particularly the case when developers seek to install UPVC windows as replicas of original windows as with the current application.
• 7.4.3 It is essential to note that mimics frequently rehash existing styles, failing to introduce anything new in terms of form, function, or material use. Often, they capture only the superficial elements of a historical style without comprehending the underlying principles of design, proportion, and detailing. Consequently, this results in a pastiche that appears contrived and unconvincing. While the original building likely possesses a unique and compelling visual presence, the two mimics, even if well-executed individually, risk diluting the overall impact of the existing dwelling within the street scene. This consideration does not negate the possibility that the new buildings might offer an improved appearance over the existing structure. However, assessing the contributions of a development that has not yet been executed is inherently challenging. This difficulty weakens any argument that the new dwellings would enhance the area, particularly when the existing dwelling still retains features that significantly contribute to the built heritage within the area and the island as a whole.

• 7.4.4 Moreover, the historic building exists within a specific context, including its landscape, surrounding buildings, and historical period. Thus, replacing it with mimics can disrupt this context, creating a jarring and disharmonious streetscape. The new buildings, even if attempting to replicate the style, may not sit comfortably within the existing environment. At this point, it would be important to refer to the Inspectors comments for the previous planning application at the site (PA 21/01504/B), where the Inspector noted the following in paragraphs 81 and 82:

“81. In this way the new dwelling,at the scale proposed, would strongly compete in visual terms against Leyton, diminishing it presence and importance in the streetscene. 82. This relationship would not respect the site and its immediate surroundings in terms of scale and massing. Consequently, it would adversely affect the character of the surrounding townscape.”

The preceding text highlights the potential loss of significance that ‘Leyton’ represents, a loss that would occur should approval be granted for two imitative structures on the site of an original masterpiece. The Arts and Crafts movement celebrated individual craftsmanship and the unique expression of the maker. In contrast, mimics tend to be more standardized and mass-produced, undermining this core principle. Therefore, while some might find the mimics aesthetically pleasing, this is a subjective judgment. On that basis, the loss of a recognized and historically valuable architectural asset should not be justified based on subjective preferences.

• 7.4.5 Based on the foregoing, it is adjudged that replacing a well-designed, historic, registered Arts and Crafts building with two mimic dwellings represents a significant loss in terms of architectural integrity, authenticity, and design innovation. Furthermore, it diminishes the streetscape, disrupts historical context, and offers no genuine improvement over the existing dwelling. For that reason, a scheme that prioritizes superficial resemblance over genuine architectural merit and long-term cultural value cannot be considered a development that takes into account the specific character and identity of the buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality (EP 42). Additionally, such a scheme fails to respect the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design, and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them (GP 2b). Furthermore, it cannot be judged as a development that does not adversely affect the character of the surrounding townscape (GP 2c).
• 7.4.6 It is crucial to emphasize that if the site were a vacant plot without the presence of the registered building, there would be limited basis for the nuanced evaluation conducted above. However, in this case, the existence of a registered building on-site means that the potential impacts on this protected asset, or the proposed loss of the registered building, form a significant and interconnected aspect of the overall assessment. This outweighs any positive appraisal of the development's design, form, and massing that might result if the new dwellings were judged on their own merit.
• 7.4.7 These considerations formed the basis for the Registered Buildings Officer's comments. He noted that “the total demolition of the building inherent in this scheme would eradicate all of its special architectural and historic interest, resulting in the irreparable loss of an important heritage asset. This loss, without sufficient justification, contravenes the statutory tests within Section 16 of the Act and the policy tests within the strategic plan and Planning Policy Statement 1/01”.

Accordingly, it is considered that the scheme as proposed conflicts with the provisions of Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2, and Environment Policies 42 & 43 of the Strategic Plan, as well as Urban Environment Proposals 3 & 4 of the Area Plan for the East.”

• 7.5 Impact on neighbouring residential properties (GP 2 and RDG 2021)

• 7.5.1 Regarding impacts on neighbouring residential amenity, the proposal has attempted to mitigate overlooking concerns from the proposed balconies, which was a key issue with the previous application (PA 21/01504/B). The front balconies are now positioned to avoid direct overlooking of the two new curtilages. However, the proposed balcony at Plot 2, situated approximately 5 meters from the southern boundary with the undeveloped land, would create significant overlooking of large portions of this adjacent site due to its elevated position. This overlooking is further compounded by the proposal would prejudice the use or development of adjoining land, and this is at variance with General Policy 2, Paragraph "k", which generally prohibits such development. It must be emphasised here that the proposed Plot 2 balcony has the potential to influence and restrict the development potential of parts of the adjacent land, given the need to mitigate the resulting overlooking, as any future residential development there would have its privacy compromised.

7.6 Traffic Impacts/parking provision (GP2, & TP 1, 2, 4, 6, & 7)

• 7.6.1 In assessing the potential impact of the scheme on highway safety, it is considered that the location of the site along a public transport corridor, coupled with the provision of on-site parking and turning areas, aligns with the principles outlined in Transport Policies 1, 4, and 7. This integration into existing public transport facilities and routes, and provision of onsite parking would minimize reliance on street parking and promote sustainable transportation choices. Furthermore, the scheme incorporates improvements to visibility splays at the access, enhancing safety for both vehicles exiting the site and those using the adjacent highway. These adjustments to sightlines will improve driver awareness and reduce the potential for conflicts.

• 7.6.2 Likewise, DOI Highways have reviewed the proposal and, subject to addressing specific access conditions, has deemed the scheme acceptable from a highway perspective. Therefore, it is considered that the terms of the aforementioned policies would not be compromised.

7.7 IMPACTS ON TREES/BIODIVERSITY (GP2, EP4 & EP5)

• 7.7.1 In terms of potential impacts on protected species resulting from the proposed development, it is considered that the demolition of the existing dwelling on site to facilitate the new development holds potential to result in impacts on site biodiversity, particularly as the windows have been left open for long periods, and due to the sites proximity to mature woodland areas within the adjacent registered tree area. It is also noted that the applicants have not provided any ecological information to address these matters.

• 7.7.2 Further to the above, advise received from consultees confirm that the property is located less than 200m away from Summer Hill Glen broadleaved woodland and Wildlife Site which has multiple bat records, and around 250m from a watercourse, such that as assessment for roosting bats and nesting birds at the property would be essential, yet no ecological information has been provided to clearly judge if there is potential for harm to these protected species, given the roosting

potentials at the site. Based on the foregoing, it is considered that the scheme as proposed would conflict with the principles promoted by General Policy 2 (d) of the Strategic Plan, which requires that development should not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses.

• 7.7.3 Given that the scheme holds the potential to impact on protected species in the area, yet no information has been provided to ascertain the real impacts, extent or severity of any impacts resulting from the proposal on biodiversity within the site and area.
• 7.7.4 The matters related to tree impacts have been subsumed in the recent approval under PA 23/00942/B, where approval was granted for the removal of the registered trees on the southern boundary of the application site, and which are the subject of contentions for the current application. Consequently, since the removal of these boundary trees has already been approved, further discussion regarding the impact of their removal within the current application is not considered necessary.

• 7.8 Drainage/Flooding (GP2, EP 10, & 13)

• 7.8.1 With regard to drainage for the site, it is considered that the proposal includes a drainage scheme that would be discharged into the existing drainage systems on site. These details are clearly depicted on a Plan which clearly shows every element of the drainage management scheme, and have been considered by Manx Utilities Drainage who confirm that they will not allow any SW into the combined or foul system, as MU have adopted best Industry practice since the previous comments on the site, and will require attenuation or soakaways (on completion of successful percolation tests) on any new developments.

• 7.8.2 Notwithstanding the above, no additional information (percolation tests or details of how surface water would be independently managed) has been provided to details how surface water would be managed for the site given Manx Utilities position not to allow new connections to the existing systems. Therefore, it is adjudged that there remains inherent concerns with regard to how surface water would be managed for the site, as a result of the lack of information to clearly ascertain these matters.

• 7.8.3 In terms of flood risks associated with the development, it is noted that adequate provision has been made to address potential concerns with flood risk for the site, and this has been supported by a Hydrology Statement, which has been considered by DOI Flood Risk Management, and considered acceptable, subject to the Hydrology Statement being conditioned as part of any approval granted for the site. As such, it is not considered that there would be sufficient risk of flooding to the residential use to such as extent that would warrant refusal of the proposal.

8. Conclusion

• 8.1 The primary concern outlined in this report centres on the Registered Building and the proposed demolition, which would result in the loss of an important heritage asset. Both EP 30 of the Strategic Plan and RB/6 of PPS1/01 clearly state a presumption against the demolition of

registered buildings. It has not been demonstrated that the registered building could not be retained and improved to suit modern living standards, nor have any structural reports or viability assessments been provided to justify the removal of the building as the best and only option.

• 8.2 The proposals would fail to preserve the registered building, leading to a failure to protect or enhance the fabric and setting of the Registered Building. Consequently, this would contravene Section 16(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999), GP4, EP30, 35, and 39 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016; policies RB/6 of PPS1/01, and Urban Environment Proposal 3 of the Area Plan for the East. Accordingly, a refusal on these grounds could be justified.

• 8.3 The proposal raises no concerns in terms of parking and highway safety. Likewise, the potential impacts on trees and potential flood impacts are considered acceptable.

• 8.4 In conclusion, while the highway, tree, and flood-related impacts would be acceptable, these factors do not outweigh the strong policy objection against the demolition of registered buildings. Therefore, the proposals would fail to protect or enhance the fabric and setting of the Registered Building. Additionally, the visual impacts, impacts on biodiversity, drainage, and impacts on neighbouring amenity are considered unacceptable. For these reasons, it is recommended that the application be refused.
• 9. RIGHT TO APPEAL AND RIGHT TO GIVE EVIDENCE

• 9.1 In the context of this application, it is important to note that the Right to Appeal and Right to Give Evidence section, typically included in Case Officer reports, has been superseded by the fact that this application is only being considered at the appeal stage, as it has not undergone the standard application process. Given that the application is currently under appeal, all individuals who have submitted representations are inherently granted the right to appeal and present evidence. This procedural adjustment ensures that the rights of all parties are preserved and duly acknowledged during the appeal process.

10. Reason For Refusal

• 10.1 The following are the reasons for refusal:

• R1 Fails Statutory Test

The application fails the statutory tests of Section 16 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 as the proposals would fail to preserve the building and the features of special architectural and historic interest which it possesses.

• R2: Loss of Historic and Architectural Significance of the Registered Building

Overall, it is judged that the proposed demolition of the existing registered Arts and Crafts style dwelling ‘Leyton’, and its replacement with two new dwellings, while attempting to mimic the style, would fail to protect or enhance the fabric and setting of the Registered Building, and would be detrimental to the character and significance of the heritage asset. This would be contravene Environment Policies 30 and 32, and Strategic Policy 4(a) of the Strategic Plan 2016, and RB/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01.

• R3 Inadequate Replication of Arts and Crafts Character

The proposed replacement dwellings, whilst superficially resembling elements of the Arts and Crafts style dwelling on site, would fail to authentically replicate the inherent quality, craftsmanship, and detailing of the existing registered building, and as such represents a loss of genuine historic fabric and architectural character. The mimicry proposed would lack the authenticity and patina of the original building, resulting in a contrived and ultimately superficial representation of the style. The inherent value of the original building, rooted in its history, materials, and craftsmanship, cannot be replicated in the new dwellings, however stylistically similar. Therefore, the proposals are considered to be at variance with the provisions of Strategic Policy 4 and General Policy 2 (c).

• R4: Lack of Design Improvement and Positive Contribution

The proposal fails to demonstrate that the replacement dwellings represent a genuine improvement in design terms. The mere replication of some stylistic elements does not constitute an enhancement as required by Strategic Policy 5. The proposed development offers no innovation in design, nor does it make a positive contribution to the street scene beyond superficial imitation of existing features. The loss of the original building’s unique character and contribution to the area’s heritage is not outweighed by the proposed replacement, which offers neither comparable architectural merit nor demonstrable public benefit, such that the scheme would also be contrary the provisions of Environment Policy 39.

• R5: Unjustified Loss of a Registered Building

The demolition the Registered Building 339 - Leyton, Victoria Road, is unacceptable as the application does not demonstrate that all reasonable efforts have been made to preserve the building, nor has sufficient justification been provided for its total loss. As such, the unnecessary

• loss of the building would fail to preserve the building, its setting and features of special architectural and historic interest and is contrary to SP4, GP2, EP 30, 31 and 32 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan

2016, RB/3, RB/6 of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man.

• R6: Sterilise Neighbouring Site The inclusion of the first floor balconies on the front elevation of the proposed development at Plot

• 2, by virtue of its elevated height and proximity to the low boundary wall which separates both curtilages, holds the potential to result in a sterilisation of the immediate neighbouring site (which is only situated 5m from the edge of the balcony) and would prejudice the potential re-development of part of this site which is zoned for residential development, contrary to General Policy 2(k) of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

R7: Insufficient drainage information

Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that surface water can be adequately drained from this site, in a safe, convenient, and environmentally acceptable manner, without creating in adverse impacts on the site and immediate vicinity, and therefore the proposal is contrary to General Policy 2 and Paragraph 11.8.1 of the IOMSP.

R8: Insufficient Ecological Information

Insufficient information has been provided to support that the proposed development would not impact on the ecology of the site, or result in detrimental impacts on the conservation value of the adjacent site, and as such the development is considered to be contrary to Environment Policy 4, Strategic Policy 4(b), and General Policy 2 (d) of the Strategic Plan.

R9: Non-Compliance to PD and Insufficient Information

The application is refused due to non-compliance with permitted development limits and insufficient information regarding the visual impact of the proposed garages. The proposed garages exceed the permitted development floor area limit of 36 square meters (being approximately 49sqm, individually), necessitating planning permission. Additionally, the application lacks essential details about the height, form, design, external appearance, and material finishing for the proposed garages. This absence of information prevents the Department from adequately assessing the potential impact of the garages on the character and appearance of the site and area. Consequently, the proposal cannot be properly evaluated for compliance with GP 2 (b, c, g, k, n), EP 42, and STP

• 3 (b) of the Strategic Plan.

11. Suggested Conditions

• 11.1 In the event that the Inspector is minded to recommend approval it is recommended that the following conditions be applied:

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.

C2: Photographic Survey

The Development shall not commence until a programme of historic building recording in accordance with Level Two as set out in Historic England's document 'Understanding Historic Buildings: A guide to good recording practice' has been undertaken, submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. Thereafter the information will be placed on the Isle of Man Historic Environment Record and available for public view.

Reason: To ensure the matters of historical importance associated with the building/site that will be

• lost in the course of works are properly recorded and available for public view.

• C3: Schedule of Building Materials

No development, including demolition or removal of materials in connection with the development hereby approved shall commence until a schedule of building materials and items to be salvaged for re-use, details of the means of removing them from the existing building and details of their incorporation either into the approved scheme of redevelopment, or for re-use elsewhere on the Island, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved schedule.

Reason: In order to preserve the character and appearance of the area, and to ensure that the proposal makes best use of existing building materials in line with Strategic Policy 1(a) of the Strategic Plan.

C4: Sample of brick

No development shall commence until samples of the red facing brick to be used in the construction of the external facing of the building(s) have been provided on site and approved in writing by the Department. The approved facing brick shall be kept on site for reference until the development is completed. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. The development shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

C5: Roof Materials

No development shall commence until a sample of all roofing materials to be used has been provided on site and approved in writing by the Department. The approved sample(s) shall be kept on site for reference until the development is completed. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details, and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.

C6: Window Details

Prior to the commencement of construction works above slab level, full details of all new windows shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The details to be submitted shall include elevation and sectional drawings at a scale of not less than 1:20, including dimensions, glazing patterns, ventilation and opening methods. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved details, and thereafter retained as such.

Reason: In order to preserve the character and appearance of the site and area, pursuant to Strategic Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Planning Policy Statement 1/01.

C 7: Ecological Survey

No development shall commence until an ecological survey of the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The ecological survey shall identify matters of ecological interest within the site and measures to mitigate ecological impacts where appropriate, including a timetable for their implementation. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site.

C 8. Bat Boxes

No development shall commence until details of bat and bird bricks (suitable for swifts) to be incorporated into the North and West facades of the houses, been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be occupied/operated until the bat and bird bricks have been completed in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter.

Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site.

C9: Permanent External Lighting

Prior to the installation of external lighting at the site, a detailed external low level lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The lighting of the site will be

designed in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8 Bats and Artificial lighting (12th September 2018).

The lighting details shall include detailed drawings of the proposed lighting columns and fittings, information about the levels of luminance and daily duration and any measures for mitigating the effects of light pollution.

The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plan.

Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site.

• C10: Obscure Glazing Only

The proposed first floor windows for the bedrooms on the north elevation of Plot 2, and south elevation of Plot 1, shown on Drawing No. 23/103/PL01, shall be glazed with obscure glass to Pilkington Level 5 or equivalent and permanently retained as such.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers from overlooking and loss of privacy.

• C11: Access, Parking & Turning Areas

The development hereby approved shall not be brought into use unless the access, visibility, vehicular and pedestrian access and all parking and turning areas, have been provided and surfaced in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans (Drawing No. 23/103/PL02). Once provided, all access, parking and turning areas shall thereafter be permanently retained as such.

Reason: To ensure the provision of a means of access, parking and turning space to an adequate standard in the interests of road safety.

• C12: Surface Water Drainage

Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the proposed surface water drainage system, which shall include the use of soakaway(s) on completion of successful percolation tests, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

No part of the development shall be occupied until the agreed surface water drainage system has been implemented.

The surface water drainage system shall be permanently retained thereafter in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: In order to ensure that adequate drainage facilities are provided, and retained, in the interests of the amenity of the area.

• C13: Implementation of Flood Risk Mitigation

Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, the Flood Mitigation measures detailed in the Hydrology Statement prepared by BB Consulting Civil and Structural Engineers, and dated 19 October 2023, shall be carried out in accordance with details submitted. The measures implemented on site shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of prospective occupiers and to ensure the development complies with Environment Policy 10 & 13 of the Strategic Plan.

• C14: Bound surface for access

Prior to the occupation of the new dwellings hereby approved, the resurfacing of the first 6m of the altered access shown on Drawing no. 23/103/PL02, shall be finished in a bound surface such that no material is tracked onto the public highway. The new access shall thereafter be permanently retained as such.

Reason: in the interests of highway safety.

• C15: Remove PD (All)

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling, and no garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwellings hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department.

Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.