82195

==== PAGE 1 ====

                                      22/00828/B                                     Page  1  of  13

PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Application No. : 22/00828/B Applicant : Mr Rory Dorling Proposal : Construct three storey building with retail use (Class 1.1) at Ground Floor and residential use (Class 3.3) at First and Second Floors, with rooftop terrace Site Address : Market Hill Plot College Street Ramsey Isle Of Man

Planning Officer: Mr Paul Visigah Photo Taken :

Site Visit :

Expected Decision Level : Officer Delegation

Recommendation

Recommended Decision:

Permitted Date of Recommendation: 12.01.2023 __

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun before the expiration of four years from the date of this decision notice.

Reason: To comply with Article 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

C 2. All external facing and roofing materials shall remain as shown on the plans and specified within the list of external finishes on the submitted Drawing No. 265/021 rev A received 13 July2022. No new types of materials shall be added to the external elevations of the development, hereby approved.

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

C 3. Prior to the use of the roof terrace approved as part of this application, the privacy screens to be installed on the west and east elevations of the terrace and which shall be 1.8m high shall be installed. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved detail shown on Drawing No. 265/021 rev A and described in Agents correspondence received 5 October 2022. The privacy screens shall thereafter be retained as such.

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

==== PAGE 2 ====

                                      22/00828/B                                     Page  2  of  13

C 4. No development shall commence until details of the method of opening and closing all of the windows in the building hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department and the development shall only be carried out in accordance with details approved.

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

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Overall, it is considered the proposal would comply with General Policy 2, Business Policy 10, Strategic Policy 10, and Environment Policies 13, 35 and 43 of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan, as well as the Ramsey Local Plan, in respect of the principle of the development, its design and nature of the proposed use, and as the proposal would not have any significant adverse impacts on public or private amenities. It is also considered that the proposal would comply with PPS1/01 as the character and appearance of the Ramsey Conservation Area would be preserved.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings all received on 13 July2022, Additional documents received 1 December 2022, Agents Correspondence received 5 October 2022, and Additional Agents Correspondence received 16 December 2022. __

Interested Person Status - Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

DOI Flood Risk Management __

Officer’s Report

1.0 THE SITE 1.1 The application site is a small vacant plot of land to the rear of the properties along Market Hill in Ramsey, a concreted area to the rear of 1 & 2 Bourne Place, and 1 College Street, and to the south western side of 3 Market Hill.

1.2 This area of Ramsey forms part of the town centre core retail and office area, with the modern St Paul's Apartments and retail centre to the immediate south east of the site and Parliament Street to the north east. There is a contract car park area to the south through which runs an access lane providing access to the site. The primary frontages of the buildings on Market Hill and nearby streets vary, with the closest being 3 storey flat roofed terraces, some with simple design and some with more ornate finishes.

1.3 In terms of appearance, the site plot appears as a hard surfaced rear yard area, in an unattractive rear street scene faced by the rear elevations of the surrounding properties. There is an alleyway which runs from Market Hill between 1 Bourne Place and 3 Market Hill, to the application site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL 2.1 Planning approval is sought to construct three storey building with retail use (Class 1.1) at Ground Floor and residential use (Class 3.3) at First and Second Floors, with rooftop terrace. The proposed building would measure 6.6m long on the front elevation, 7.4m on the east elevation, 6.7m on the west elevation and 6.9m on the rear (north elevation).

==== PAGE 3 ====

                                      22/00828/B                                     Page  3  of  13

2.2 The design approach is simple, having a uniform three storey flat roofed design. The external walls would be finished in a mixture of concrete float finish effect render and Anthracite grey bricks. All the windows would be frameless glass windows with corten steel louvres placed over some on the front and side elevations.

2.3 A roof terrace would be created on the top floor to serve the residential unit. This terrace would have glass balustrades. Translucent privacy screen balustrades (1.8m high) would be installed on the west and east elevations of the terrace to serve as privacy screens.

2.4 An enclosed bin storage area with access to the east elevation would be created on the ground floor level to serve to proposed residential unit, while a larger bin storage area would be created at the rear of the retail unit to serve its occupants.

2.5 The application was supported by a Cover Letter which sets out the details of the site history, the site context in terms of orientation of building, site ownership and proximity of the site to the applicants existing business premises which the retail element would serve to provide a commercial kitchen for, and be part of, that business, which has been successful with demand currently exceeding supply. This letter also notes that the ice cream manufacturing process does not involve any cooking, so there is no need for a flue of any type, and that the machines are all water-cooled. It further states that the mechanical extraction requirements are therefore de minimis and, as indicated on the submitted drawings. It is proposed that this would discharge through the soffit at First Floor level, thus having no grilles visible on the elevations. It notes that the large service door allows for raw ingredients to be delivered and the finished product can be easily transported to Gelatory next door on an 'as needs' basis, allowing for flexibility in supply to feed demand. This Covering Letter also describes the development in detail, addressing matters of appearance and relationship of the development to the surrounding area.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY 3.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site lies within the area designated as Ramsey Town Centre under the Ramsey Local Plan 1998. It also lies just within the boundary of Ramsey Conservation Area, and the site is within an area prone to high tidal flood risk.

3.2 On the Draft Area Plan for the North and West, the site is zoned within the Town centre, and part of the Parliament Street East Town Centre Division where the following apply: "Town Centre Proposal 2a: Ramsey High Street - East

1. Historic buildings in Parliament Street (East) should be retained, brought back into active use and sympathetically renovated. Sympathetic modifications that help to minimise flood risk and promote inclusive access will be supported;
2. The re-use of previously developed sites in Parliament Street is encouraged. The future design of new buildings should be resilient to flood risk, of high design quality and respond to the context of the vernacular character of Parliament Street East;"

3.2.2 Paragraph 5.2.7 (In part) "In terms of the Island Spatial Strategy for the North and West, the key elements of the ISS for the North are: o continued regeneration of Ramsey Town Centre; and o employment opportunities focused on Ramsey Town Centre and Poylldooey/Ballachrink in accordance with the development framework."

3.3 The following policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 are considered relevant to the assessment of this application.

3.3.1 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:

==== PAGE 4 ====

                                      22/00828/B                                     Page  4  of  13

(a) optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under- used land and buildings, and re-using scarce indigenous building materials; (b) ensuring efficient use of sites, taking into account the needs for access, landscaping, open space(1) and amenity standards; and (c) being located so as to utilise existing and planned infrastructure, facilities and services."

3.3.2 General Policy 2: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development: (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; (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."

3.3.3 Strategic Policy 7 states: "Undeveloped land which is zoned in Local or Area Plans for industrial, office, or retail purposes will be retained and protected for such uses, except where those uses would be inappropriate or incompatible with adjoining uses."

3.3.4 Strategic Policy 9: "All new retail development (excepting neighbourhood shops and those instances identified in Business Policy 5) and all new office development (excepting corporate headquarters suitable for a business park(1) location) must be sited within the town and village centres on land zoned for these purposes in Area Plans, whilst taking into consideration Business Policies 7 and 8."

3.3.5 Strategic Policy 10: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to: (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car; (b) make best use of public transport; (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and (d) encourage pedestrian movement."

3.3.6 Environment Policy 35 is considered to be of importance considering that the site lies within a Conservation Area: "Within Conservation Areas, the Department will permit only development which would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Area, and will ensure that the special features contributing to the character and quality are protected against inappropriate development."

3.3.7 Environment Policy 42: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality.

==== PAGE 5 ====

                                      22/00828/B                                     Page  5  of  13

Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans."

3.3.8 Environment Policy 43: "The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans. The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric, rather than its demolition."

3.3.9 Business Policy 9 relates to retail use: "The Department will support new retail provision in existing retail areas at a scale appropriate to the existing area and which will not have an adverse effect on adjacent retail areas. Major retail development proposals will require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment(1)."

3.3.10 Business Policy 10: "Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exceptions of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances identified in Business Policy 5."

3.3.11 In relation to connectivity and access, Transport Policy 1 is important: "New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes."

3.3.12 Transport Policy 7: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."

The current standards are set out in Appendix 7 of the Strategic Plan. For office space within town centres, this is one parking space per 50m2 floor space. For retail use in town centres, there is a requirement for 'space for service vehicle use'.

The standards may be relaxed where development:

"(a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or (b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape; or (c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area. (d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality." (Paragraph A.7.6).

3.3.13 Environment Policy 10: Where development is proposed on any site where in the opinion of the Department of Local Government and the Environment there is a potential risk of flooding, a flood risk assessment and details of proposed mitigation measures must accompany any application for planning permission. The requirements for a flood risk assessment are set out in Appendix 4.

3.3.14 Environment Policy 13: Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted.

4.0 OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONS 4.1 TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1999 S18 Designation of conservation areas Section 18(4) of the Town and Country Planning Act (1999) states, "(4) Where any area is for the time being a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of

==== PAGE 6 ====

                                      22/00828/B                                     Page  6  of  13

preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in the area, of any powers under this Act". It is not considered that this proposal would conflict with that objective and as such the application will be considered in the context of the policies as set out below and within section 3 of this report.

4.2 Planning Policy Statement 1/01 "POLICY CA/2: SPECIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS When considering proposals for the possible development of any land or buildings which fall within the conservation area, the impact of such proposals upon the special character of the area, will be a material consideration when assessing the application. Where a development is proposed for land which, although not within the boundaries of the conservation area, would affect its context or setting, or views into or out of the area; such issues should be given special consideration where the character or appearance of a conservation area may be affected".

4.3 Whilst not adopted planning policy, DEFA's Residential Design Guidance is a material consideration in the assessment of this application as, "It is intended to apply to any residential development within existing villages and towns, including individual houses, conversions and householder extensions". Sections 2.0 on sustainable construction, 4.11 on Roof Terraces, Balconies, Decking and Patios, and 7.0 which deal with impact on neighbouring properties are considered relevant to the current scheme.

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY 5.1 The site has been the subject of two previous applications which are considered materially relevant to the current application:

5.2 PA 19/01069/B for Erection of a building to provide ground floor retail (Class 1) and first and second floor offices (Class 4) - Approved.

5.2.1 The Officer in conclusion noted that although the proposal does not strictly meet the criteria of Transport Policy 7, as no cycle parking is provided and the site is not directly in the main retail core frontage, it is considered to be broadly in accordance with Strategic Plan and Local Plan policies in respect of the principle of the development, its design and issues of amenity impact, given the nature of the proposed use, the uses around it and the arrangement of existing and proposed windows.

5.3 PA 21/00646/B for Erection of a building to provide ground floor retail use and first and second floor residential use - Approved at Appeal.

5.3.1 The application was initially refused on 11th August 2021 for the following reason: "The building in terms of size, design, scale and siting and the use of the ground floor as a retail unit are once again considered acceptable and do not have adverse impacts upon public or private amenities. However, the use of the upper floors as a residential apartment are considered contrary to General Policy 2 (h), in that the level of accommodation would not provide satisfactory amenity standards in itself; and in fact would fall far short of this requirement." 5.3.2 In approving the application, the Appeals Inspector made the following comments: "Assessment by the Inspector

Nature of the Proposal and Issues in Dispute 35. Although treated and refused as a fresh proposal, the original application was for a change of use from office to residential of the upper floors of the building approved in 2020. The approved building would be identical externally but fitted out for residential use on the upper floors. 36. There is no recorded objection to the development on grounds of visual impact on the street scene of the surrounding Conservation Area or neighbouring amenity.

==== PAGE 7 ====

                                      22/00828/B                                     Page  7  of  13

37. Moreover, the extant approval creates a planning fallback position that the approved building could be built in any event. Accordingly, this appal turns on the differences between the effects of the approved office use and the proposed residential use. 38. This gives rise to main issues of: a. the amenity or living conditions of future occupiers of the living accommodation with respect to outlook and natural lighting, b. whether the residential as opposed to office use would preserve the character or appearance of the Ramsey Conservation Area, c. car parking provision, d. the viability of the building in its approved retail and office uses, with respect to evidence of marketing, and e. any benefits of the proposal.

Amenity 39. The existing built development neighbouring and in the immediate vicinity of the appeal site is in mixed use, including residential. Although situated to the rear of Market Hill, the site is closely linked to the town centre. 40. The main outlook in front of the proposed apartment would be towards a car park with the bins and other paraphernalia associated with the service entrances of commercial premises also visible. The outlook would therefore not be ideal. 41. At the same time, the apartment windows, elevated at first and second floor level, would be naturally lit from the south and would face distant views of the hills. 42. Overall, I consider that the outlook and level of natural lighting to the apartments would be acceptable in planning terms. Moreover, prospective occupiers would have the choice whether to accept the living conditions offered by the property. 43. On balance, I consider the proposed residential use of the building to be compliant with GP2(h) of the IMSP in terms of amenity.

Parking 44. There is no dispute that the town centre location of the appeal site adjacent to a car park compensates for a lack of off-street car parking space within the appeal site itself, such that the requirement of TP7 of the IMSP for two car spaces to serve the proposed apartment can properly be relaxed in this case, leaving no objection parking grounds.

Conservation Area 45. Equally, there is no dispute that the proposed development, whether in its approved or proposed part-residential use, would enhance the Ramsey CA in line with EP35 of the IMSP, by developing the vacant site with a new building in keeping with the area.

Viability 46. It is true that the marketing and viability evidence of the Appellant is undocumented but his assertions are essentially unchallenged and it is apparent that the approved office use is not attracting interest whereas the residential use has found a potential tenant. This factor lends a degree of weight to the case in favour of approving the development now proposed.

Benefits 47. As well as physically enhancing the CA, the development would bring a degree of economic benefit to the town centre. Conditions

48. It is necessary for any approval to carry the same planning conditions as the previous permission. These are to provide control over finishing materials and details of windows within the Conservation Area, all in the interests of visual amenity.

Conclusion

==== PAGE 8 ====

                                      22/00828/B                                     Page  8  of  13

49. For the reason explained above and with those conditions in place, it is my conclusion that the development now proposed would be compliant with all relevant planning policy and would bring a measure of visual and economic planning benefit to Ramsey. This appeal should therefore be allowed and the refusal of the application overturned."

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 Representation from the Department of Infrastructure (DOI) Highways Division confirms that they not oppose (DNO) the application. They find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking. The Applicant is, however, advised that highway licences may be necessary for use of the highway during works for equipment and materials (22 July 2022).

6.2 DOI FRM do not support this planning application. They note that the proposed property is within a Tidal and Surface water flood zone. They request that a full FRA should be performed before the application is considered and any recommendations from the FRA should be conditioned in to the application if it is permitted (25 July 2022/17 November 2022).

6.2.1 Further to reviewing the Flood Risk Assessment provided by the applicants, the DOI Flood Risk Management Team have indicated that the FRA does not change the fact that this planning application is for a new building in a flood zone (06 December 2022).

6.2.2 In response to the consultation comments from the DOI Flood Risk Management Team, the applicant's agent has made the following comments in correspondence dated 15 December 2022: o They note that the Flood Risk Team is yet to formally respond but that, in the correspondence referred to above, they note 'The FRA does not change the fact that this PA is for a new building in a flood zone'. o They note that whilst the statement is technically correct, it is potentially misleading in that it suggests that the choice on this site is to a) have no building, by Refusing the Application, or b) have a building that includes flood resistance and resilience measures (as outlined in the submitted Flood Risk Assessment), by Approving the Application. That is not the actual choice in this instance. o They state that if this Planning Application is Refused, the Applicant is entitled to build the substantially identical building (in terms of footprint, size, etc.) Approved under PA 21/00646/B on 13th December 2021; however, that proposal does not include any flood resistance or resilience measures. o They suggest that the Refusal of this Application on the grounds of Flood Risk does not seem to be appropriate as, if the extant Approval is implemented instead, it would allow the construction of a new building in a flood zone that has less flood protection than that proposed under this Application. o They therefore consider that it would be more appropriate to Approve this Application, as the proposals include the necessary flood protection measures.

6.3 DEFA Biodiversity Team has made the following comments regarding the application (4 August 2022): o They have no objection to this application. o They request that the applicant gives consideration to the inclusion of integrated swift nest boxes (at least 2) high up on the side elevation of the new building, as an enhancement for wildlife. o They note that Swifts are a bird that make use of our towns and villages, and are entirely reliant on buildings to nest, but a significant number of nest sites have been, and are continuing to be lost when buildings are demolished or refurbished.

==== PAGE 9 ====

                                      22/00828/B                                     Page  9  of  13

o They state that where possible they encourage people to put up nest boxes on suitable buildings, in order to help this declining bird species.

6.4 Ramsey Commissioners have not made any comments on the application although they were consulted on 20 July 2022.

6.5 No comments have been received from neighbouring properties.

7.0 ASSESSMENT 7.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this application are: a. The Principle of development on this plot (GP2, SP1, EP 43, & Ramsey Local Plan); b. The visual impact on the street scene and Conservation Area (GP 2, EP 42 and EP35); c. The potential impact on neighbour amenity (GP 2); d. The amenity of future occupants (GP2); e. The acceptability of parking and access arrangements (GP2 & TP7); and f. Potential flood risks (GP2, EP 10 & EP 13).

7.2 The Principle 7.2.1 In assessing the principle of the proposed development, it is considered that the site is within an area zoned for development (GP 2), the site lies within the Ramsey Town Centre where there is a presumption in favour of office uses, some residential and retail uses; a mix of uses which fits with the proposed scheme.

7.2.2 Whilst it is noted that the site is not on any primary street frontage and could be considered to be a backland development (being situated behind the main retail and office units and fronting on to a car park), it is considered that the principle of the proposed mix of uses which includes retail on the ground floor and residential at first and second floor levels is acceptable given the surrounding uses and geographic relationship between the site and surrounding amenities.

7.2.3 Another factor the weighs in favour of the proposal to develop the site is the fact that the site in question is not of any amenity value or attractiveness in its current undeveloped state, as such, its development would not contribute to the loss of public amenity land or green space in the area.

7.2.4 It is also considered that there is considerable support for schemes which serve to encourage the regeneration of brownfield sites such as the current site (as articulated in EP43).

7.3 The visual impact on the street scene and Conservation Area 7.3.1 In assessing potential impacts of the proposed development on the existing street scene, it is noted that the site is not on any primary street frontage, with the site being largely visible from an area which is mainly used as a car park and rear lanes servicing the rear of main retail and office premises in the town centre.

7.3.2 Notwithstanding the above, it is considered that due to its mass, height and design, the building would be a fitting addition to the area when viewed from the surrounding area which comprises mainly the rear outrigger of buildings. Whilst the new building would be a modern take on the type of buildings here, the design would ensure that it blends into the rear street scape, although offering its unique contemporary appearance with glazed balcony, flat roof and its glazed sections on the front elevation which compliments the large flat roofed development within St. Paul's Square which is directly adjacent.

7.3.3 Whilst it would have been more appropriate for the building to have a pitch roof over to be more reflective of the dominant roof type in the area, the building would not be prominent within the street scape. Besides, a large flat roofed three storey building already exist within the street scene, and as such, the development would not be an anomaly. It is also considered

==== PAGE 10 ====

                                      22/00828/B                                     Page  10  of  13

that the external finishes and design would be an improvement over the existing undeveloped form which offers little in contributing to the appearance of the area, making the building a fitting addition to the area.

7.3.4 In terms of impacts on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, it is considered that the building does not reflect the dominant traditional appearance of the buildings in the locality. However, it should be noted that the site is within a rear enclosure/lane where there is little on which any new building can base its design. Moreover, the rear of buildings here do not bear the key features which serve to determine the classification of the area as a Conservation Area, and as such are not given particular attention. Also, there would be no views from key vantage points along the frontages of the properties which have been given particular attention within the Conservation area. Thus, it is considered that the development would not will not detrimentally affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

7.4 The potential impact on neighbour amenity 7.4.1 With regard to potential impacts on neighbouring amenity, it is considered the properties that are most likely to be impacted are 3 Market Hill to the east, as well as Nos. 3 and 5 College Street to the southwest, given that these properties have their rear windows directly adjacent to the proposed building, with potential to be overlooked from the proposed terrace on the new development. It is, however, noted that a greater proportion of these windows in the adjoining and adjacent properties to the southwest and east of the site appear to be either bathroom windows or storage room windows, as they do not appear to be primary outlook windows.

7.4.2 However, due to the proximity of these windows to the new development and the elevated position of the proposed terrace relative to these windows, the applicants have indicated that they would provide privacy screening to the sides of the proposed development to ensure that overlooking of these windows does not occur from the terrace. As such, a condition would be imposed to ensure that the privacy screening is provided as part of the proposal.

7.4.3 Additionally, the height and orientation of the new development relative to the existing properties is such that would not result in overbearing impacts or overshadowing for the neighbours to unacceptable levels.

7.4.4 Given the above, it is not considered that there would be unacceptable levels of overlooking, overbearing impacts, or overshadowing of neighbouring buildings which would result in unacceptable levels of harm to residential amenity. In this respect, the proposal in considered to be in accordance with General Policy 2 (g).

7.5 The amenity of future occupants 7.5.1 With regard to the amenity space provisions for the new residential unit, it is considered that the lounge/kitchen and bedroom room are positioned such that they are afforded views out with clear and pleasant outlook. Whilst it is noted that the main outlook in front of the proposed residential unit would be towards a car park with the bins and other paraphernalia associated with the service entrances of commercial premises, the windows being positioned at elevated levels on the first and second floor would be naturally lit from the south and would face distant views of the hills around Ramsey. As such, it is considered that the outlook and level of natural lighting would be acceptable in planning terms and compliant with GP2 (h) of the Strategic Plan in terms of amenity.

7.5.2 There is also provided adequate amount of space within the unit suitable for the required number of occupants. Furthermore, there is ease of level access to good public open space that would provide an added degree of amenity provision in the area, with the site being situated to many public outdoor spaces within Ramsey (such as the war memorial, the

==== PAGE 11 ====

                                      22/00828/B                                     Page  11  of  13

Promenade, Ramsey Bay, and Sulby River). The bin storage provision on the ground floor would also be accessible for use by occupants of the apartment.

7.5.3 The proposed retail unit is also considered appropriate for many town centre retail uses in terms of total floor area and size of provision for bin storage. Of particular importance is the fact that it would be appropriate in terms of size and proximity to the applicants business which the unit would support (in terms of business expansion).There is also ease of access to the adjoining lane which serves the properties here and connects to the main business and retail streets at the town centre.

7.6 The acceptability of Parking and Access arrangements 7.6.1 In terms of vehicle parking, the Strategic Plan parking standards relate to both office and retail uses separately. For town centre retail uses, no parking for staff or customers is necessary but adequate space for servicing vehicles is required (bin collection and deliveries etc.). The location of the site at the end of an access lane, and the adjacent car park would provide access to such vehicles and temporary waiting space if needed.

7.6.2 With regard to the residential use, it is considered that the site is at a town centre location and adjacent to a large car park which compensates for the lack of off-street car parking provision within the scheme. Additionally, the site is within close proximity to primary public transportation links within Ramsey. It is also important to note that there are also local services and employment opportunities within close proximity to the site to encourage pedestrian movement amongst the above. As well, Highways have accessed the proposal and stated that the development has been found to have no significant negative impact upon the highway safety, network functionality or parking.

7.6.3 Given the above, it is considered that the requirement of TP7 of the Strategic Plan for car parking provision to serve the development (particularly the residential unit) can properly be relaxed in this case, leaving no objection on parking grounds.

7.8 Potential Flood Risk Matters 7.8.1 In terms of flood risks associated with the development, it is noted that the site is within an area associated with high tidal flood risks, with the DOI Flood Risk Management maintaining the position not to support schemes in such area, despite the applicants providing a flood risk assessment as required by Environment Policy 10.

7.8.2 Whilst the issues noted above weigh against the application, it is considered that the residential accommodation would be on the first and second floor where the occupants of the proposed residential element of the scheme would not be exposed to immediate danger from flood occurrence in the area. Thus, if floods were to occur, the height of the residential unit above the ground floor level set at about 2.7m above the ground level would ensure that any flood impacts would be minimal. Based on the foregoing, it is not considered that there is sufficient risk of flooding to the residential use to such as extent that would warrant refusal of the proposal.

7.8.3 Perhaps, it would be vital to state that the policy test (as stipulated in EP 10 and EP 13) is whether the proposal would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site. As such, given that the floor level of the proposed residential unit would be considerably above any established or predicted flood levels for Ramsey, and as a Flood Risk Assessment has been provided which sets out appropriate mitigation measures should floods occur, it is considered that the requirements of Environment Policies 10 and 13 have been met in the current case.

7.8.4 Another factor that weighs in favour of the proposed development is the fact that the site benefits from an extant application for a similar development under PA 21/00646/B for a similar arrangement (although with a different appearance) which could still be built on site should the current application be refused. It is vital to note that the extant approval for the site

==== PAGE 12 ====

                                      22/00828/B                                     Page  12  of  13

does not benefit from a Flood Risk Assessment where flood mitigation measures would be integral to the development of the site. As such, it is considered that the scheme proposed under the current scheme would offer a significant improvement over the previous approval for the site, in terms of managing flood risks.

7.8.5 It has been considered that access to the ground floor could be impacted by future flood occurrence. However, there is no immediate danger for properties as there is no car park provision within the site as part of the application.

7.9 Other matters 7.9.1 The opening hours for the retail use proposed within the proposal has not been specified in the proposal, however any retail or office uses are considered unlikely to operate outside of the normal hours seen elsewhere in the town centre. Such uses are also unlikely to result in noise nuisance of unacceptable levels which would be considered likely to be of detriment to neighbouring dwellings. As such, it is not considered that opening hours for the retail element would be a concern for the area.

8.0 CONCLUSION 8.1 Overall, it is considered the proposal would comply with General Policy 2, Business Policy 10, Strategic Policy 10, and Environment Policies 13, 35 and 43 of the Isle Of Man Strategic Plan, as well as the Ramsey Local Plan, not having any significant public or private amenities. It is also considered that the proposal would comply with PPS1/01 as the character and appearance of the CA would be preserved. The application is, therefore, recommended for approval.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons: (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent; (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested; (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material (d) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

9.2 The decision maker must determine: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

9.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status __

I can confirm that this decision has been made by a Principal Planner in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Officer has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Permitted

Date: 13.01.2023

Determining officer

==== PAGE 13 ====

                                      22/00828/B                                     Page  13  of  13

Signed : J SINGLETON

Jason Singleton

Principal Planner

Customer note

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