**Document:** DEC Officer Report
**Application:** 22/01113/B — Demolition of existing dwelling and redevelopment of the site and adjacent land with an apartment block accommodation seven apartments with associated drainage, access, basement parking and landscaping
**Decision:** Refused
**Decision Date:** 2023-12-04
**Parish:** Braddan
**Document Type:** report / officer_report
**Source:** https://planningportal.im/a/9595-braddan-gloccamora-douglas-head-demolition-dwelling/documents/960561

---

# DEC Officer Report

## PLANNING OFFICER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

**Application No.:** 22/01113/B
**Applicant:** Mr John Barton
**Proposal:** Demolition of existing dwelling and redevelopment of the site and adjacent land with an apartment block accommodation seven apartments with associated drainage, access, basement parking and landscaping
**Site Address:** Gloccamora Douglas Head Douglas Isle Of Man IM1 5BW
**Planning Officer:** Mr Toby Cowell
**Expected Decision Level:** Planning Committee
**Recommended Decision:** Refused
**Date of Recommendation:** 27.11.2023 _________________________________________________________________ R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons Reasons for Refusal - R 1. The application site partially falls within land not zoned for any form of development in the Area Plan for the East. The principle of a high density residential development is therefore contrary to the Island's spatial strategy, and does not meet one of the defined exceptions to the presumption against new development in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan (2016). The development is therefore further contrary to Spatial Policies 1 and 5. - R 2. The design, scale, form and massing of the proposed development is considered to be out of character with the largely open and undeveloped nature of Douglas Head, to the detriment of its character, appearance and visual amenity. By reason of its substantial scale, massing and architectural vernacular, the proposals are further considered to be unduly prominent in the context of key long distance public vistas within Douglas Bay and offshore, to the detriment of the wider landscape, townscape and seascape setting. The proposals are therefore considered further contrary to Strategic Policies 3 and 5, General Policy 2 (b) and (c), and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan (2016). - R 3. The application site falls within the inner consultation zone of a major hazardous installation, with the nature and high density of the proposed development deemed to be inappropriate in this location due to the potential health and safety risk to members of the public, contrary to Environment Policy 29 of the Strategic Plan (2016).

## 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:

Department of Infrastructure Highways Services

It is recommended that the following should be given Interested Person Status as they are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings:

Manx Radio Ltd, Broadcasting House, Douglas Head, Douglas

as they have explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy.

It is further recommended that the following should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):

Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society, 95 Malew Street, Castletown Manx Wildlife Trust, 7-8 Market Place, Peel 11 Marine Gardens, Ramsey 9 Fort William, Head Road, Douglas Ballaqueeney Lodge, Ballaquayle Road, Douglas

- 4 Park Avenue, Douglas

as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy,

- as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________

## Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN REFERRED TO PLANNING COMMITTEE ON THE ADVICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site relates to Gloccamora, a two-storey flat roofed detached dwellinghouse and its associated curtilage to the front and rear, together with a larger irregular portion of land to the immediate west which falls under the applicant's ownership. The adjoining land in question has recently been largely cleared of vegetation and rises sharply north to south away from the streetscene. The land immediately adjoining the residential property and associated curtilage to the south is also on noticeably higher ground and occupied by the Manx Radio building, - 1.2 The site is located on the southern side of Fort Anne Road on Douglas Head, whilst benefitting from long distance views northward to Douglas Harbour, The Promenade and the entirety of Douglas Bay. A formal area of communal amenity land (The Remembrance Garden) is located immediately opposite the site to the north on the opposite side of the road. The property is located immediately in front of the three-storey Manx Radio building and associated telecommunications mast, with the ornate Douglas Head apartment block located further south.

1.3 A small brownfield site is located immediately adjacent to the site to the east, and which was previously occupied by a residential property known as Stanley House. The redevelopment of the site to provide a 6 unit apartment block was granted in 2004. The expiration date of this permission was subsequently extended to July 2010, however it does not appear that this permission was lawfully implemented and therefore has expired with the site remaining vacant.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling and redevelopment of the entire site to provide a four-storey 7-unit apartment block with associated landscaping and basement car parking for 10 vehicles. - 2.2 The apartment block would incorporate a flat roof with the top floor staggered from back to front to accommodate a penthouse apartment and associated private front terrace. The design and form of the proposals demonstrates a strong vertical emphasis utilising a significant degree of glazing in the principal elevation, together with a combination of white, light and dark grey coloured blocked rendering, cedar and aluminium cladding for the exterior. The proposals would include a Manx stone base/plinth to the building to be built up from ground level in response to the site's varied topography, whilst further providing vehicular access to the basement car parking and bin stores. - 2.3 The development further makes use of Oriel windows on the western elevation of the building as an added feature, together with a total of 59 solar panels mounted on the sedum green roof. Additional landscaping in the form of a communal grassed garden area is further proposed, reinforced with new native tree and shrub planting. Further planting is proposed to the front and side of the building. A gabion retaining wall is further proposed at the rear if the communal garden, terraced area at the point where the site steeply rises, with the plans further indicated that the existing scrub land at the very rear of the site would remain undisturbed.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site benefits from a fairly extensive planning history, which is listed as follows:

- - 11/00407/B - Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of replacement dwelling, Gloccamora and Adjacent Land - Permitted
- - 06/01205/A - Approval in principle for residential development, Land adjacent to Gloccamora and Adjacent Land - Approved at Appeal
- - 04/01510/A - Approval in principle for the erection of a dwelling to replace existing, Gloccamora and Land Adjacent to Gloccamora - Refused
- - 99/00186/A - Approval in principle for the erection of apartment block, Gloccamora Refused at Appeal
- - 97/00695/A - Approval in principle for three residential building plots, Land adjacent to Gloccamora - Refused
- - 95/01499/A - Approval in principle for erection of a take-away refreshment unit (single storey), Gloccamora - Refused at Appeal
- - 95/00540/C - Change of use for siting mobile refreshment van, Gloccamora - Refused

4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 The application site is identified in the Area Plan for the East partially land zoned for 'predominantly residential' purposes within the settlement boundary of Douglas, whilst partially

- land not zoned for any form of development (i.e. countryside). The site is not within a Conservation Area or an area identified as being at risk of flooding, but does fall within the non-statutorily designated Douglas Head and Marine Drive Wildlife Site.
- 4.2 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application; Strategic Policy

- 1 Efficient use of land and resources
- 2 Priority for new development to identified towns and villages
- 3 To respect the character of our towns and villages

5 Design and visual impact Spatial Policy

- 1 Priority to Douglas for development 5 Development only in countryside in accordance with General Policy 3 General Policy
- 2 General Development Considerations
- 3 Exceptions to development in the countryside Environment Policy
- 4 Protection of species and habitats
- 5 Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats 29 Development within hazardous installation consultation zones 42 Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality

Transport Policy

- 4 Highways safety 7 Parking

4.3 Area Plan for the East (2020) This document confirms the planning land use zoning of the site (i.e. mixed residential and land that is not zoned for development). The Island Spatial Strategy promotes a 'Sustainable Vision' for the Island, part of which forms a framework describing where new development should be located. In terms of the East, this means that development should be concentrated,

at an appropriate scale, in Douglas (Main Centre), Onchan (Service Centre), Union Mills and Laxey (Service Villages) and the five Villages of Crosby, Glen Vine, Baldrine, Strang and Newtown.

4.4 Residential Design Guide (2021) 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. - 4.5 UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) land use planning methodology (2021) This document provides advice for planning applications and development which could be affected by major hazard establishments in the UK. Local planning authorities are required to consult the HSE on certain planning applications within the vicinity of major hazard establishments. The methodology contained within this document was adopted by the Isle of Man's Health and Safety at Work (HSWI) in 2004 and is therefore a strong material consideration in the determination of planning applications within consultation zones associated with major hazard establishments across the Island.

## - 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Douglas Borough Council - Following consideration of the above planning application at a meeting of the Council's Environmental Services Committee held on the 17/10/22 I can advise that the Committee has resolved to object to the application.

The Committee was of the opinion that the application failed to comply with IOM Strategic Plan 2016 GP 2 (c) and (g).

Having considered the application it was believed that the application would adversely affect the character of the landscape and that it would adversely affect the amenity of the local residents and the locality.

It was also believed that the application was contrary to TAPE landscape Proposal 6 (Douglas Head) as the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the development can be suitably integrated into the surrounding landscape particularly with regards to the scale of the proposed development in comparison to the existing dwelling on the site.

The Council also noted the comments made by the Head of Health and Safety regarding the site's location being within the Inner Zone of the Princess Alexandra Pier licenced dangerous goods site and how the H&S at Work Directorate would advise against this development due to the risks associated with the development site's location.

Should there be any changes to the design or a reduction in its mass or other amendments that may mitigate against the affects the development may have on the landscape/townscape and the amenity of local residents then we would be happy to review the application. (18.10.22)

The above planning application was considered by Douglas Borough Council's Environmental Services Committee at a meeting held on the 13/03/23 when it was resolved to withdraw the Council's previous objection based upon the amended application and the additional information provided.

Having now had the opportunity to review the application the Council no longer objects to the proposed development. (13.03.23)

5.2 Highway Services - Previous Highways response dated 21/09/2022 opposed the proposal due to the access height to the basement garage, vehicular access to spaces No.8 and No.14 appearing to require numerous and awkward movements, and various accessible mobility insufficiencies to the ground floor level. The amendments now altered the plans to address these concerns.

The proposal has now reduced the number of bedrooms to be created, therefore also dropping the vehicular parking requirement. The previous plans resulted in a parking requirement of fourteen vehicles. The alterations now mean a total number of ten bedrooms are provided, four one-bed apartments and three two-bed apartments, giving a total parking requirement of ten spaces. The alterations to the basement parking area reflect this with ten parking spaces provided. The parking places are well spaced away from the entrance and the walls meaning movement in and out of the spaces can easily be achieved. The reduction in parking requirement and spacious arrangement means the swept path analysis is no longer required.

No alterations have been proposed to the access arrangements or visibility achievable from the access and will therefore remain acceptable to Highways. Electric vehicle spaces have been retained at a rate greater than 10% which is welcomed by Highways.

The applicant is again advised that a Section 109(A) Highway Agreement is required for the alteration to the highway post planning consent.

The reduction in bedrooms has also resulted in a reduction in the number of bicycle parking spaces required. At a rate of one per bedroom, the bicycle parking requirement now stands at ten spaces and has been fulfilled in the new proposal. Bicycle storage is provide through semivertical bicycle racks which are an acceptable storage method. The new location for the bicycle parking is on the ground floor, to the rear of the building. Access can be gained through a door to the rear outside of the building to a designated bicycle storage room. The new location of the bicycle storage means no alteration is required to the garage access height. Arguably, bicycle storage in the garage is a more sensible and more convenient location, especially at times of inclement weather. However, the full requirement has been provided, is easily accessible from the rear and garage storage may require extensive structural redesign to allow for the headroom clearance. The location and capacity of the bicycle storage is acceptable to Highways.

Improvements have been made to the exterior of the building in order to facilitate pedestrian and mobility impaired access. Handrails have been added to all ramped sections of pedestrian areas in order to support pedestrian access. In addition, the access ramps have been altered so that the maximum gradient of 1:15 only has a 'going' of the maximum 5m. In between ramps of this gradient, flat landing sections have been added to support wheelchair users when accessing the building. Pedestrian access to the entrance to the front of the building has been increased to the minimum requirement of 1.5m. Mobility around the exterior of the building along the block paving has been improved through widening. The majority of the area around the building exceeds the desirable 2m width requirement. Instances where the design of the building means outcrops protrude, width of the minimum acceptable 1.5m are still achieved. From scaled measurements, there appears to be only one section where a width of 1.2m is given. This is to the north-western side of the development, past the main entrance where a stepped look appears. The 1.2m width at this point is instantaneous and of a section where pedestrian conflict is unlikely to occur. The mobility improvements to the exterior of the building now meet the minimum requirements and are acceptable to Highways.

As stated in the previous response, the gradient of the garage means there is a chance surface water from the highway will drain into the basement garage. Additionally, surface water could be discharged onto the highway from the pedestrian access. The suitability of surface water drainage proposals should be reviewed and accepted by Highway Services Drainage Team.

The proposal raises no significant road safety or highway network efficiency issues. Accordingly, Highway Services Development Control raises no objection to the proposal subject to all access arrangements accordingly to drawing Nos. P-10-04 and P-10-06. The Applicant is advised that a S109(A) Highway Agreement is needed after the grant of planning consent. (15.03.23)

5.3 DEFA Biodiversity - Although we are not supportive of development of this type within Wildlife Sites, having been to view the site, we acknowledge the following:

- - the area included in this planning application is not the best part of the Wildlife Site, and has previously been cleared;
- - the remaining area of habitat, which has not been cleared, is to be retained and managed for wildlife;
- - the development area is fairly small;
- - the applicants have now proposed a number of measures in their updated plans to avoid and mitigate their impacts.

A member of the Ecosystem Policy Team met with the applicants on site to talk through the plans and potential mitigation, and we are pleased to see that all of the mitigation has been incorporated. However, it has since come to light that the development site is not zoned for development and we therefore believe that this application should be refused on this basis. The Ecosystem Policy Team will therefore be retaining our objection, and our preference would be

that this site is not developed and is instead restored, protected and managed for its ecological interest going forward, but should Planning be minded to approve this application, we recommend that conditions are secured to ensure that any ecological impacts are minimised. (03.04.23)

5.4 Health and Safety at Work Inspectorate (summary of latest comments) - This assessment is a revised version of the assessment provided to your Planning Office in September 2022. The assessment was carried out in line with the HSE's Land Use Planning Methodology and a decision was made in accordance with the 'Decision Matrix' which can be found on the HSE's website. This methodology was adopted by the Isle of Man's Health and Safety at Work Inspectorate in around 2004.

1) Assessment to identify the site location in relation to the hazardous installation:

- i) The development is identified as being in close proximity to the Princess Alexandra Pier (PAP) hazardous compound managed by Islands Energy Group (Isle of Man Energy).
- ii) The main hazard for consideration is the 600te spherical LPG gas storage vessel AGI.
- iii) Using the measuring function on the Isle of Man Government Manngis mapping system the property identified as Gloccamora is approximately 232 metres from the outer wall of the 600te spherical vessel to the property boundary.
- iv) HSWI zoning for the PAP site (also stored on Manngis) provides the dimensions of 3 zones (Inner, Middle and Outer) the Outer Zone also acts as a Consultation Distance and where consultation requests are received it is assumed that all requests are within the Consultation Distance, section v) below confirms this to be the case.
- v) PAP 600te sphere Zones: Outer Zone (Consultation Distance) 606m Middle Zone 452m Inner Zone 339m As the development is within the 606m Outer Zone (Consultation Distance) it is correct that HSWI were consulted by Planning in this case.
- vi) The development falls within the Inner Zone (339m); the approximate distance from the vessel wall to the property boundary is 232m.
- vii) A consideration when determining advice is the type and use of the premises. Where the development is a dwelling the maximum occupancy levels of the site must be considered. PA22/01113/B is designed and proposed as an apartment block consisting of 6 x two bedroomed apartments over three floors and a larger 2/3 bedroomed apartment on the 4th floor. The maximum occupancy level of this development is therefore 30 persons however it is accepted that it is unlikely that the maximum occupancy level will be achieved.

- 2) HSE land use planning methodology decision matrix.

- i) Sensitivity levels Sensitivity Levels are based on a clear rationale in order to allow progressively more severe restrictions to be imposed as the sensitivity of the proposed development increases. There are

4 sensitivity levels:

- Level 1 - Based on normal working population;
- Level 2 - Based on the general public - at home and involved in normal activities;
- Level 3 - Based on vulnerable members of the public (children, those with mobility difficulties or those unable to recognise physical danger); and
- Level 4 - Large examples of Level 3 and very large outdoor developments.

- ii) The assessment considers the guidance in the HSE methodology

Conclusion This assessment has determined that the development has a sensitivity level of '2' and is situated within the Inner Zone of a hazardous installation.

The HSWI, on behalf of DEFA therefore advises against this development.

The aim of health and safety advice relating to land use planning is to mitigate the effects of a major accident on the population in the vicinity of hazardous installations, by following a consistent and systematic approach to provide advice on applications for planning permission around such sites. (08.03.23)

5.5 Manx Utilities Authority - no response received at the time of writing. - 5.6 Manx Wildlife Trust - Manx Wildlife Trust wish to highlight that this planning application falls within the 'Douglas Head and Marine Drive Wildlife Site' which was formally designated on 18th April 2012 by the multi-agency Wildlife Sites Selection Panel formed of representatives from DEFA Biodiversity, DEFA Planning, the DOI, Manx National Heritage, Manx Wildlife Trust and the Mammal Society. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 defines Wildlife Sites as follows (at p. 120):

'Wildlife Sites Places which are of high wildlife value but are not statutorily designated or recognised by law, but they are protected through the planning system (as they are designated as Sites of Ecological Interest in Local and Area Plans). They are the most important places for wildlife outside legally protected land, such as Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs).'

Environment Policy 4 states, 'Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect… species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites.' Of note, at present there are only 67 Wildlife Sites on the Island, covering just 2.15% of the terrestrial area. If, contrary to Environment Policy 4, this application is approved, Manx Wildlife Trust will require notification in relation to the ongoing management of the network of Manx Wildlife Sites. (06.03.23)

5.7 Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society - Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society has as its object "shall have for its objects the advancement of the knowledge, promotion and conservation of, Natural History and Human History and Cultural Development, especially in the Isle of Man and countries related thereto."

The Society is aware that the Douglas Head Locality has been suggested for designation as a Conservation Area and that suggestion is still on the 'books'.

Conservation Areas are designated on the basis of being "an Area of Special architectural or historic interest, the character of which it is desirable to preserve or enhance". Their designation takes into account the character of existing buildings but also of the spaces between them. The Society recognises that Gloccamara and its neighbour Stanley House are / have not been buildings of architectural interest in themselves; however the scale of the buildings as they exist at present is of relevance in the context of the current application.

The Society would therefore draw attention to the recent appeal decision on PA 21/00918/B Fort William within the same suggested Conservation Area. In his report the Independent Inspector considered that even though such a Conservation Area has not been designated, it is important to consider any proposals in the context of any such future designation - paras 27 and 44 of the attached report refer.

Isle of Man Natural History & Antiquarian Society would, therefore consider that, regardless of previous consents, the current proposal which would dominate its location above Douglas Head

Road is, by virtue of its scale and design, inappropriate within the locality. The Society objects to the application. (26.11.22)

Further to our previous comments, IOMNHAS would like to forward the attached images which show the scale of development previously existing on Douglas Head.

- 1. What is now the current radio station building being built up during war time; below it is Stanley House.
- 2. A view of Douglas Head taken in 1993 showing the scale of the then existing buildings in relation to the Radio Station.

Most of the current application site appears to fall outside of the settlement boundary for Douglas as defined in the Area Plan for the East.

The Isle of Man Strategic Plan emphasises the importance of Douglas Harbour as a Strategic entry point to the Island. It is therefore one from which residents, visitors and potential investors need to gain a favourable impression of how the Island treats both its natural and built environment particularly in terms of its Biosphere status.

The Society does not believe that the proposed development by virtue of its scale and design would either maintain or enhance the appearance of the Douglas Head locality. (18.12.22)

5.8 Manx Radio (summary of comments) - Objection

- - Scale of development would lead to significant loss of natural light to our building and areas of the building utilised for long periods of staff working;
- - Development would adversely impact the surrounding area in terms of its conservation value;
- - Design and scale of the development is inappropriate and not sympathetic to the area's value as a proposed conservation area and its national historical importance;
- - Proposed development is at least 1km from nearest public transport service and proposals would exacerbate current parking problems on Douglas Head. (31.10.22)

Objection maintained on the basis of amendments to the scheme, which considers that the issue of the development's impact upon the Manx Radio building has not been suitably addressed, with previous points raised deemed to remain valid. (29.03.23)

5.9 A total of 4 further letters of representation have been received in relation to the application. Whilst full details of comments can be viewed in the online planning file, the following provides a general summary of the comments received:

- - Fewer parking spaces will be available for the public;
- - Development is not in keeping with the area;
- - Site located 1km from nearest public transport and difficult to navigate by foot up a steep slope. Future residents would therefore be dependent on cars;
- - Pollution from exhausts and light in the area as a result of additional cars;
- - Proposed flats are at luxury end of the market and not affordable;
- - Safety concerns for other residents in the event of a major event which will be difficult for emergency vehicles to reach the top of the roadway;
- - Development would set a dangerous precedent for similar forms of development on Douglas Head;
- - Development contrary to zoning of the area for Mixed Use in the Area Plan for the East [officer note - this is incorrect, site is zoned for a mix of residential and land that is not zoned for any development);
- - Proposals are contrary to previous appeal decisions and planning reports;
- - Adverse impact on nature conservation and biodiversity opportunities;

- - Inappropriate layout and density of building design, visual appearance and materials proposed.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 The main issues to consider in the assessment of this planning application are as follows:

- - Principle of development (STP1 & 2, SP5, GP3 & Area Plan for the East)
- - Hazardous installation consultation zone (EP29)
- - Design and visual impact (STP5, GP2, EP42)
- - Residential amenity (GP2, EP29)
- - Ecology and biodiversity (EP3,4,24,27)
- - Highways and parking (TP4,7)

## - 6.2 PRINCIPLE

- 6.2.1 As noted in Map 4 - Douglas of the Area Plan for the East, the application site spans two distinct land designations. The existing residential property of Gloccamora and its immediate curtilage to the north and south falls within an area zoned for 'predominantly residential' purposes, which also includes the adjacent building plot which once contained the property of Stanley House. Likewise, additional land to the immediate south and east, which include the Manx Radio building, Douglas Head apartments and The Point apartments building are zoned as 'mixed use'.
- 6.2.2 By contrast however, the remainder of the application site (i.e. the scrub land to the west of the dwelling), falls outside of Douglas' defined development boundary and is not zoned for development. This position is broadly similar to the site's previous designation as Public Open Space in the now defunct Douglas Local Plan.
- 6.2.3 The applicant's agent has provided the following commentary in an addendum to the submitted Design Statement addressing the issue of land use zoning in the context of this application:

"The application site currently houses a residential property which has an extant approval under PA 11/00407/B, for the demolition of the existing dwelling and its replacement with a large single dwelling. Within that extant approval, the residential curtilage of the property was defined by a red line.

This application follows exactly the same residential curtilage as that defined and approved under PA 11/00407/B.

We note that in Map 4 of the Area Plan for the East, the delineation of the extent of the settlement boundary and shading of residential use of the application site has not been correctly defined to accord with the extant approval of PA 11/00407/B. Nevertheless, we would contend that the residential curtilage of the application site should be considered as that identified and approved under the extant PA 11/00407/B."

- 6.2.4 In response to the above points, it is recognised that the red line plan associated with the approved replacement dwelling appears to be largely contiguous with the red line plan provided as part of the current submission. That being said, it does not automatically follow that the resultant curtilage approved in connection with the replacement dwelling has or should have resulted in a change to the land use zoning, or indeed that a more intensive residential development would be appropriate on this site vis-à-vis a replacement dwelling (i.e. no net increase of residential development).
- 6.2.5 Indeed, the following commentary is noted in the officer report for the 2011 report, which is considered to appropriately sum up the Department's stance on this matter:

"The development is not entirely compatible with the land use zoning of the area, as part of the application site extends into open space, which is to the west of the existing dwellinghouse. This would be contrary to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, as it would result in the loss of open space. However, this issue has been carefully considered at appeal for back in March 2007 for an approval in principle for the erection of a replacement dwelling (06/01205).

The independent inspector states that "The parties are agreed that it would be appropriate for the dwelling on this land to be replaced; that a complementary development to that approved on adjacent land would be desirable; and the consequence of this is likely to be that the residential curtilage would extend in some degree onto the open land, to be replaced fully or in part by open space between the two buildings."

"There is thus no objection to an approval in principle. However, the Planning Authority is correct to express concern that this should not be seen as a licence to develop anywhere on the open land. It seems to me that this concern would be adequately safeguarded if an approval in principle were subject to reservation of the siting and design of the proposed dwelling. The same planning considerations regarding protection of open space would apply to any more detailed plan, and an inappropriately sited proposal may be refused planning permission.

Furthermore, the parties to this appeal have made it clear that the constraints on development encroaching unreasonably for onto the open land are understood, and recorded. Thus any third party seeking to benefit from the permission would be aware of the constraints."

- 6.2.6 On the basis of the above, it is not considered that the previous grant of planning permission at the site for a replacement dwelling and an enlarged residential curtilage represents a precedent or indeed license for any form of residential development to be appropriate, which would in any case by contrary to the site's land use zoning. Moreover, even if such a permission was considered to be a sufficient precedent, no evidence has been supplied to suggest that the 2011 planning permission has been implemented and is therefore extant. On the basis that the permission appears to have expired and was determined against an out of date Local Plan and previous iterations of the Strategic Plan, it is not considered that such a permission could be used as sufficient precedent to weigh in favour of the current scheme in any case.
- 6.2.7 The fact remains that a large portion of the site falls outside of land zoned for development, and therefore the principle of a high intensity residential development is considered contrary to Spatial Policy 5 and General Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan, whilst being further in conflict with the land use zoning identified within the Area Plan for the East.

## - 6.3 HAZARDOUS INSTALLATION ZONE

- 6.3.1 As noted in the detailed response form the Health and Safety at Work Inspectorate (HSWI), the site falls within the Inner Zone of the Princess Alexandra Pier license dangerous goods site Consultation Zone. The main hazard for consideration in this instance is the 600 tonne spherical LPG gas storage vessel AGI. The Inner Zone has been qualified as a spherical distance of up to 339m from the centre of the hazardous installation. The application site is located 232m from the centre of the hazardous installation.
- 6.3.2 At assessment of the scheme was carried out by HSWI in accordance with the UK's HSE Land Use Planning Methodology with a decision made in accordance with the Decision Matrix outlined within this document. This methodology was adopted by HWSI in 2004 and is therefore a strong material planning consideration.
- 6.3.3 The assessment noted that the development corresponds to Development Type DT2.1 Housing in the Matrix, which includes residential development up to 30 dwellings units and at a density of no more than 40 dwellings per hectare. Such development corresponds to Sensitivity

- Level 2 outlined in the Matrix. The decision matrix contained within the HSE's document notes that a decision of 'Advise Against' development will be provided in the instance of such development being classified as comprising a sensitivity level of 2 within an Inner Zone.
- 6.3.4 On this basis, and given that a decision of 'advise against' would have been provided by HSE in the context of the proposals, HWSI have also stated that their decision would be to 'advise against' development in this instance due to the assessed safety concerns associated with the proposals in this location.
- 6.3.5 HWSI has further clarified their decision in an email to the applicant's that:

"HSWI advise on individual planning applications and as far as assessment conclusions are concerned, it cannot change the advisory outcome of a particular assessment because a previous, similar application has been accepted or rejected. HSWI's advice forms a singular aspect of the planning authority's decision making process and it is for them to consider whether it accepts or rejects a planning application."

- 6.3.6 From a planning perspective, the consideration of development in the above context is framed within Environment Policy 29 of the Strategic Plan, which states that:

"In considering development proposals within Consultation Zones as designated on the Area Plans or published Consultation Zone Maps, the Department will consult with the Health and Safety at Work Inspectorate to determine the appropriateness of the development. In all cases, the health and safety of the public will be the overriding consideration. Developments which would conflict with the requirements of health and safety will not be permitted."

- 6.3.7 Given the above, the and in light of the nature of the proposed development within the Inner Zone of a consultation zone associated with a hazardous installation, the development is not considered to be appropriate in the context of ensuring the health and safety of the public, and by extension potential future occupants of the development.
- 6.3.8 In an addendum to the agent's Design Statement, the following information has been provided in response to the issues raised:

"The assessment however does not 'advise against' a hostel, hotel, or guest house providing accommodation for up to 10 beds, (with beds being defined as provision for number of resident's / visitor's sleeping accommodation). This interpretation is, as we understand, after detailed consultation with … (the Head of Health and Safety) the current position taken by the HSWI.

However, on examination of planning precedent, we note that in the case of a previous application, as located on the immediately adjacent site, (which also sits within the same 'inner zone'), i.e. Stanley House (PA01/00032/B) for a block of six apartments the HSWI, under … (the) former Chief Health and Safety Inspector, applied a different interpretation. His interpretation was based on 10 bedrooms as the limiting acceptable factor, rather than 10 sleeping spaces. The application on this adjacent site was subsequently approved, (at Planning Appeal stage), with the development of six apartments totalling 10 bedrooms."

- 6.3.9 Firstly, it needs to be corrected that the reference number cited by the agent should instead read PA04/00032/B. Secondly, the response provided by the former Chief Health and Safety Inspector made reference to an exception that guest houses of up to 10 beds could be acceptable in accordance with the Decision Matrix of the previous (now outdated version) of the Methodology. This exception or 'exclusion' is consistent with the current advice from HSE, but the wording of this exclusion clearly states: "Smaller - guest houses, hostels, youth hostels, holiday homes, halls of residence, dormitories, holiday caravan sites, camping sites". This falls

- within the wider category of DT2.2 - Hotel/Hostel/Holiday Accommodation, but not dwellinghouses.
- 6.3.10 The commentary provided by the former Chief Health and Safety Inspector does at no point state that this should equate to 10 bedrooms in the context of dwellings, and in any case the guidance from HSE is clear in differentiating between dwellings and holiday accommodation, the latter of which is far more transitory in nature in terms of occupants vis-àvis permanent dwellings. Consequently, it remains the Department's view that the HWSI's decision to 'advise against' the development is correct and accords with the UK HSE's methodology and accompanying Decision Matrix.

## - 6.4 DESIGN AND VISUAL IMPACT

- 6.4.1 The application site is located within an area that is largely open and devoid of substantial built development, whilst being in a highly prominent location on Douglas Head that is visible not just within the immediate streetscene but at almost every point along The Promenade around Douglas Bay.
- 6.4.2 The principal structures within close proximity to the site comprise the Manx Radio building to the immediate south and the Douglas Head Apartments complex to the south-east; both of which are generally prominent and visible within the wider landscape. However, such development is historic and has been in situ for a significant period of time, whilst being further set back from the principal streetscene and, in the case of the apartment building, of a generally positive built vernacular.
- 6.4.3 The proposed apartment block comprising 7 no. flats is significant in its scale and width, whilst comprising substantial bulk in terms of massing which is emphasised by the angular proportions of its design whilst articulating a strong vertical emphasis. The design, form and vernacular of the development is not considered to be necessarily poor in isolation, but would appear far more suited to a higher density urban environment than the application site.
- 6.4.4 Due to the site's prominent elevated location in relation to the wider landscape, townscape and seascape setting, there are strong concerns that the development would appear unduly prominent and out of character with its immediate surroundings. The immediate locality is further characterised by a general sense of openness, which the development would clearly puncture on approach up the hill in addition to its long distance impacts upon key public vistas.
- 6.4.5 Moreover, Douglas Head is a prominent natural landmark within the setting of the wider bay and on approach to the Island by sea. The proposed development would therefore be clearly visible in this context and highly visible to those travelling to the Island. Given the substantial scale, bulk and massing of the development, together with the design and architectural vernacular of which is considered to be out of character and context with its immediate surroundings; the proposals are not considered to result in a positive contribution to the visual amenities of the locality and therefore fail from a design and visual impact perspective.
- 6.4.6 Finally, it is noted that the planning submission is not accompanied by a thorough design analysis of the proposals in the context of their surroundings, including key public viewpoints, with no meaningful justification provided for the choice of design and materials palette. On this basis, the proposals are considered contrary to Strategic Policies 3 and 5, General Policy 2 (b) and (c), and Environment Policy 42.

## - 6.5 RESIDENTIAL AMENITY

- 6.5.1 The application site and closest point of the proposed apartment block is located circa. 60m from the closest point of the Douglas Head Apartments building; the only residential property or development within relative proximity to the application site. The site in question is

- further sited at a significantly lower land level than Douglas Head Apartments, whilst the Manx Radio building is sited directly to the rear of the application site effectively blocking any clear line of site between the two sites. Therefore, the potential for overlooking, loss of light or overshadowing is effectively non-existent.
- 6.5.2 Concerns have been raised from Manx Radio over the potential for the development to result in a significant loss of natural light, including areas of the building utilised by staff for long periods of time. The issue of potential impacts of development upon the working conditions of staff in this context is not specifically covered in policy, with General Policy 2 (f) only making specific reference to the impact of the development upon the amenity of local residents only. That being said, it is still considered that the impact of a development upon the working conditions of those within the building should be considered, particularly with respect to loss of light and outlook.
- 6.5.3 In this instance, it is noted that the closest point between the Manx Radio building and the proposed development is circa. 15m, and therefore in reasonable proximity with each other. However, the site is on noticeably lower ground, with the proposed apartment block to be located to the north-east of the Manx Radio building, as opposed to directly in front of it. Therefore, all of the primary windows on the front elevation of the building would retain unimpeded northward views, whilst only likely being subject to a degree of overshadowing in the latter part of the afternoon.
- 6.5.4 The main element of the Manx Radio building likely to be affected is where it cuts the corner on the north-western elevation, and therefore windows on this elevation would likely receive a reduction in natural light and increased overshadowing for longer periods of the day. However, the total amount of windows to be affected represents only a small portion of the total serving the building, and in any case would only be occupied by staff during the working day as opposed to primary habitable windows of a dwelling/apartment block. On balance therefore, whilst it is recognised that the development would clearly pose a degree of impact upon the Manx Radio building with respect to loss of light and overshadowing, it is not considered that the impact would be sufficient enough to warrant refusal of the application on this ground alone.
- 6.5.5 Conversely, due to the positing of the proposed development relative to the Manx Radio building, it is not considered that the amenities of future occupants would be demonstrably impeded from an overlooking perspective. Windows in the north-east elevation of the Manx Radio building would likely only be afforded partial or glancing views of high-level windows serving a single bedroom of apartment 6 on the second floor and apartment 7 on the top-floor. Moreover, such bedrooms are only likely to be occupied during parts of the day/night when staff would not be present in the office. Additional primary windows further along the rear elevation of the proposed development would be effectively screened by the stairwell/lift element which protrudes outward at the rear.
- 6.5.6 Each proposed apartment would comprise a sufficient level of internal accommodation with respect to floorspace, with multiple aspects throughout each apartment to ensure a suitable degree of outlook and natural light. The development would be served by communal amenity space in the form of a rear garden area and terrace/patio at the rear, whilst the topfloor apartment would further benefit from an enclosed patio/terrace to the front. This level of provision is considered to be sufficient, particularly in the context of the proximity of The Remembrance Garden to the immediate north of the site.
- 6.5.7 In light of the above, the proposals are considered to sufficiently safeguard the amenities of surrounding residential properties and the working conditions of staff within the Manx Radio Building, whilst providing a sufficient level of amenity for future occupants of the development, in compliance with General Policy 2 (g) and (h).

## - 6.6 ECOLOGY AND BIODIVERSITY

- 6.6.1 The site falls within the non-statutorily designated Douglas Head and Marine Drive Wildlife Site which is considered to constitute an area of high wildlife value. An initial objection from the Ecosystems Policy Team was based on the lack of information provided with respect to species and habitats present within the site together with no form of mitigation/ecological enhancement incorporated in the proposals.
- 6.6.2 Following a site meeting between a member of the Ecosystems Policy Team and the applicants, it was recognised in a subsequent consultation response that:

- - the area included in this planning application is not the best part of the Wildlife Site, and has previously been cleared;
- - the remaining area of habitat, which has not been cleared, is to be retained and managed for wildlife;
- - the development area is fairly small;
- - the applicants have now proposed a number of measures in their updated plans to avoid and mitigate their impacts.

- 6.6.3 Notwithstanding the above, the initial objection has not been removed on the basis that it is acknowledged that a large portion of the site falls within an area not zoned for development. Therefore, the Ecosystems Policy Team have considered that the application still be refused on the basis that the site should not be developed and instead restored, protected and managed for its ecological interest going forward. However, in the event that the decision to grant planning permission is recommended, it has been recommended that various conditions relating to ecological mitigation and enhancement should be attached to any forthcoming decision notice.
- 6.6.4 Commentary from the Ecosystems Policy Team, Manx Wildlife Trust and various further representations on ecological and biodiversity matters are noted. Moreover, the site's importance as part of a wider designated Wildlife Site is not underestimated. However, it has been recognised that the portion of the application site proposed for development is presently of very limited ecological value, with the proposed development seeking to incorporate ecological enhancement and mitigation measures which, in the round, would likely assist in ensuring a biodiversity net gain at the site. Likewise, the site is not located within the Area of Special Scientific Interest (ASSI) of the same name, and therefore a greater degree of flexibility with respect to built development can be applied in this location versus the designated ASSI.
- 6.6.5 Issues relating to the site's planning land use zoning are considered to be a separate matter which have already been considered in this report. Therefore, in light of the above, and in the context of matters purely relating to ecology and biodiversity, the proposals are considered to be acceptable subject to the attachment of suitably worded conditions to any forthcoming decision notice.

## - 6.7 HIGHWAYS AND PARKING

- 6.7.1 Following revisions to the initial submission, Highway Services note that the proposals contain a suitable number of vehicular and bicycle parking spaces at basement level, whilst the layout of the parking area is considered to be appropriate to allow sufficient movement. Likewise, further amendments to the exterior of the scheme in the form of handrails, 1:15 gradient access ramps and widened pedestrian access around the exterior have been welcomed.
- 6.7.2 With respect to details of surface water drainage, and the potential for drainage both into the basement garage area and onto the highway, further details would need to be secured via condition should panning permission be forthcoming. The proposed access arrangements and visibility splays onto the highway have further been found acceptable by Highway Services.

Consequently, the proposals are considered to be acceptable from a parking and highway safety standpoint, in compliance with Transport Policies 4 and 7.

7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 The proposals would result in a high density residential development outside of land formally designated for any form of development, contrary to the Island's spatial strategy, with insufficient information having been provided justifying the development in this context. Likewise, the proposals would represent an over dominant and bulky form of development which would be at odds with the established character of the immediate locality. The proposals would further represent an unduly prominent form of development which would be clearly visible within key public vistas around the entirety of Douglas Bay and offshore, to the detriment of the wider landscape, townscape and seascape character of the locality. The development is therefore contrary to Spatial Policies 1 and 5, Strategic Policies 3 and 5, General Policy 2 (b) and (c) and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan. - 7.2 In addition to the above, the proposals have the potential to represent a significant health and safety risk to future occupants of the development by reason of the site falling within the inner zone of a hazardous installation consultation zone. The development is therefore considered to be unacceptable in the context of the UK's Health and Safety Executive (HSE)'s guidance on development within proximity to hazardous installations and is therefore further contrary to Environment Policy 29. - 7.3 In light of the above, it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the proposed development.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

- (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
- (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
- (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
- (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
- (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
- (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
- (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

8.2 The decision maker must determine:

- o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
- o whether there are other persons to those listed above who should be given Interested Person Status

8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture (DEFA) 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 confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to that body by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 04.12.2023

Signed : T COWELL Presenting Officer

Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officer report).

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below 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.

---

*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/9595-braddan-gloccamora-douglas-head-demolition-dwelling/documents/960561*