**Document:** Condition 11 Report
**Application:** 03/00520/B — Erection of a block of fifty four apartments and creation of a public car park with residents parking and landscaping
**Decision:** Permitted
**Decision Date:** 2003-10-28
**Parish:** Malew
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/73553-malew-land-at-junction-apartment/documents/1571318

---

# Condition 11 Report

## Memorandum TO: Director of Planning and Building Control FROM: Miss Sarah Corlett, Planning Officer REF: PA 03/00520 - erection of a block of 54 apartments and creation of a public car park with residents' parking and landscaping, land at the junction of Farrant's Way and Scarlett Road Castletown DATE: January, 2007 SATISFACTION OF CONDITION 11 The above application was permitted on appeal subject to a number of conditions, some of which required the submission of further information prior to works commencing on site. Condition 5 required there to be a landscaping scheme approved by the Planning Committee - this was the subject of a plan reference P/RSK/2/01 D which was submitted on 22nd June, 2006 and which was approved as satisfying this condition. Condition 10 required that details of the site compound be approved by the Planning Committee: this was the subject of a plan submitted on 5th June, 2006 which was approved as satisfying condition 10 of the permission. Condition 11 required that "Prior to the commencement of the development, a scheme to indicate the adoption and management of the public car park must be submitted for consideration and approval by the Planning Authority." The applicant has now submitted their scheme for the management of the public car park which involves not the adoption of the car park by the Commissioners or the Department of Transport neither of whom are offering to pay for the facility - the Commissioners indicate that they cannot afford to purchase it. Department of Transport have written separately to the Directorate expressing concern that the price put on the development by the developer is greater than that at which it was valued by their Department and suggest that spaces such as these are generally conveyed to the Department for "nominal consideration". They query how the spaces will be adopted and be provided. As such the applicant is now proposing to operate the car park themselves (or perhaps lease it out) to the public on a daily charge basis (pay and display type arrangement with a barrier at the entrance). They indicate that they operate a similar car park at Lake Road in Douglas. The car park would be made available in accordance with the provisions of condition 13 which states "The public car parking area must be formally laid out and available for use prior to the occupation of the penultimate apartment". The Inspector's report refers to the applicant's case for the development which includes the following: "It was however wrong to conclude that there would be a link between the current level of use, when parking was free and not subject to any time restrictions, and use when the proposed parking was likely to be controlled at least by time limits if not charges" (paragraph 24). The inspector refers to the car parking area at his paragraph 42 where he concludes "Taking account of these various factors it is my opinion that the provision of 64 public parking spaces represents a significant gain for those wishing to park whilst visiting Castletown and represents a level of provision which is reasonable and acceptable". I understand that whilst the applicant was being considered, it may have been the case that the Commissioners would be adopting the public car park - hence the reference to "adoption" in condition 11. This is not now the case on the basis of present discussions. If the operation of the spaces is undertaken by the developer as described the spaces will still be available for public use in a similar way as they would be if the spaces were administered by others (Douglas Corporation's pay and display for example). If the Directorate resolves that this is not in compliance with the condition then it would seem that an impasse has been reached between the developer and those who may provide the spaces and this may result in the spaces not being provided at all and the development not being proceeded with or some agreement being reached which results in the spaces being adopted by the Department of Transport or local authority. This would not seem likely on the basis of the current correspondence. I would conclude that who provides the spaces is not particularly relevant provided that the spaces are available to the public: the barrier and pay and display method is not dissimilar to other schemes around the Island and I consider this to be acceptable.

---

*Data sourced from the Isle of Man public planning register under the [Isle of Man Open Government Licence](https://www.gov.im/about-this-site/open-government-licence/).*
*Canonical page: https://planningportal.im/a/73553-malew-land-at-junction-apartment/documents/1571318*