Loading document...
Application No.: 19/00243/B Applicant: Mr Colin & Mrs Kerry Mills Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of three dwellings with associated works and access (in association with (19/00244/CON) Site Address: Cranleigh Ville Glen Road Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7AB Principal Planner: Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 27.03.2019 Site Visit: 27.03.2019 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Refused Date of Recommendation: 16.04.2020 _________________________________________________________________ Reasons for Refusal R : Reasons for Refusal O : Notes attached to reasons R 1. The proposed development would represent an unacceptable risk upon on-site flooding in terms of future occupants of the three dwellings proposed and therefore contrary to Environment Policy 13 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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 and are not mentioned in Article 6(4):
It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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):
As they are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with paragraph 2B of the Policy
It is recommended that the following organisations should not be given Interested Person Status:
As they are not Government Departments and have not identified land which they own/occupy which would be impacted on by the proposal. _____________________________________________________________________________
0.0 PREAMBLE - 0.1 This application was considered by the committee on 05.05.20 and deferred for a site visit. Given wider circumstances this visit was not carried out until 20.07.20 (date and time agreed at the meeting on 13.07.20). An extract from the minutes for 05.05.20 is provided below for reference.
"Whilst the following two applications both related to the same site they were offering differing recommendations, but could be reported on together within the same Head of DM presentation.
Item 5.23 Cranleigh Ville Glen Road Laxey Isle Of Man IM4 7AB
Additional comment from objectors (2 Rosedene Cottages), Lewin's and 1 Rosedene Cottages, had all been received and published subsequent to the issue of the agenda, highlighting concerns as to parking site levels and flooding. There had also been late objection from Garff Commissioners. A statement had also been received from Mr McGarrigle, agent on the applicant's behalf.
It was clarified that Glen Road is at risk of flooding in the 1% AEP + 20% (and 30%) CC events according to the Flood Risk Assessment, and these are rare events; albeit it should be noted that all recent flood events have not reached the 1 in 100 year flood event (lower level that the 1% AEP + 20% (and 30%) CC events) and has still caused substantial flood damage to the existing property on site and surrounding properties.
The site (initially given Nr GH018) in the call for sites and was placed (desk based assessment)
Due to the above there is no design brief i.e. stating x number of properties could be built on the site. Further it is not included in the "Sites proposed for residential allocation within existing settlement boundaries" (page 56 of Inspectors report) by the Inspector, where each site which is listed has an estimated number of houses which could be built on each site.
Site GH020 (Land adjacent to Ard Reayrt, Laxey - above Glen Road) was recommended by the Inspector that it should be removed from proposed res dev due to flood/surface water concerns by Inspector
Sites GH011, GH013 & GH038 (outskirts of Laxey) the Inspector has recommended they be removed for res dev due to access concerns (GH011 & GH013), but also as; "Furthermore, I have seen no evidence that there is a local housing need that would justify the extension of this settlement into the surrounding countryside…". Overall, there is still sufficient housing within the East which has been designated.
Given the above it is still considered the risks to future residents are real and present, and the provision of two additional dwellings are not key to providing the required amount of housing in the East, which have clearly been designated elsewhere on more suitable sites.
The members felt that a site visit was needed to consider give a more informed assessment, whether there may be need for further reasons to be added for a refusal and whether over development of the site was resulting. Tightness of parking, flood and ancillary issues would be clearer after a site visit.
The lack of objection from Manx Utilities was noted. The Head of DM reflected on site comparatives, the proposal, risk level, impact was all explained. DECISION Item 5.22 and 5.23 The Committee unanimously agreed to defer both applications for a site visit noting that one could not be conducted until the current social distancing restrictions had been lifted, sufficiently to allow such visit to proceed (at a date to be determined)".
0.2 The remainder of this report is unchanged.
THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT
1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is Cranleigh Ville an existing residential dwelling situated on the northern side the of the Glen Road within Laxey Village. The dwelling is a traditional two storey Manx farmhouse styled property with three upper windows over a central doorway which is flanked with single window either side. The application site also includes the land to
2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the demolition of the existing dwelling and erection of three dwellings with associated works and access (in association with (19/00244/CON). The three dwellings would be made up of a two storey detached house sited to the front of the site and on a similar position to the existing dwelling Cranleigh Ville albeit turned 90 degrees so its gable elevation faces towards the Glen Road. The two remaining dwellings would be two storey semi-detached dwellings and these would be sited to the rear section of the site (behind the detached dwelling). - 2.2 All three dwellings would share a new vehicle access off the Glen Road and each would have two off road parking spaces. A turning head is also included within the site. - 2.3 The design of the dwellings is of a Manx traditional style, following similar lines of the existing property Cranleigh Ville and other traditional properties in the area. Each dwelling would have a small garden/landscaped area to the front of each dwelling, with larger rear gardens.
3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The following previous planning applications are considered relevant in the assessment and determination of this application; - 3.2 The erection of three houses and associated site works (Land to rear of Cranleigh Ville -
3.3 Construction of 3 first time buyers houses and associated works (Site At Cranleigh Ville & land to north and east i.e. same as current application) - 04/01579/B - APPROVED - 3.4 Approval in principle for the erection of dwelling (land immediately to the east of Cranleigh Ville) - 99/01238/A - REFUSED - 3.5 Provision of temporary access to plot of land at rear of Cranleigh Ville and side garden of 10 - 95/00485/B - APPROVED
4.0 PLANNING POLICY - 4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is within an area of predominantly residential use under the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005. Under this Local Plan the following Policy L/RES/PR/1 states:
4.6 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." - 4.7 The Strategic Plan identifies a hierarchy of settlements that guide what type of development is appropriate within them. Laxey is designated as one of the nine "Service Villages" within the Island (Spatial Policy 3). This Policy states that; "Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such villages so as to maintain and where appropriate increase employment opportunities. Housing should be provided to meet local needs and in appropriate cases to broaden the choice of location of housing." - 4.8 General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:
4.9 Housing Policy 4 states: "New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans…" - 4.10 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan." - 4.11 Transport Policy 7 states: "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." - 4.12 Environment Policy 13 states: "Development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted." - 4.13 Environment Policy 42 states: "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. 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." - 4.14 Environment Policy 35 states: "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." - 4.15 Environment Policy 39 states: "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area." - 4.16 Paragraph 7.32.2 of the IOMSP states (which is the supportive text for EP 39): "The general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. When considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to:
4.17 Conservation Areas of Planning Policy Statement 1/01 (Policy and Guidance Notes for the Conservation of the Historic Environment of the Isle of Man):
"POLICY RB/6 DEMOLITION There will be a general presumption against demolition and consent for the demolition of a registered building should not be expected simply because redevelopment is economically more attractive than repair and re-use of an historic building; or because the building was acquired
set out in RB/3 above, should be able to demonstrate that the following considerations have been addressed:-
4.18 POLICY CA/6 DEMOLITION Any building which is located within a conservation area and which is not an exception as provided above, may not be demolished without the consent of the Department. In practice, a planning application for consent to demolish must be lodged with the Department. When considering an application for demolition of a building in a conservation area, the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the conservation area. Similar criteria will be applied as those outlined in RB/6 above, when assessing the application to demolish the building, but in less clear cut cases, for example, where a building could be said to detract from the special character of the area, it will be essential for the Department to be able to consider the merits of any proposed new development when determining whether consent should be given for the demolition of an unregistered building in a conservation area. Account will be taken of the part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the building for which demolition is proposed, and in particular of the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the conservation area as a whole." - 4.19 The RESDIENTIAL DESIGN GUIDE (JULY 2019) is also considered to be relevant.
5.0 REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Garff Commissioners make the following comments: (06.04.2019)
"Concerns were expressed in regard to:
(01.11.2019) "Concerns were raised by the Commissioners in regard to this application within their previous submission dated 6th April 2019.
The additional information has been noted and considered by the Board. Members have considered the details provided by Manx Utilities in regard to 'floodplain storage' and 'flow pathways'. They have also considered the assumptions and conclusions made in the subsequent report commissioned by the developer.
Please can the Planning Committee note the following observations:
5.2 Highways Services initially objected to the application (07.05.2019) on the grounds that it has not been demonstrated that the development would have sufficient highway visibility and site access arrangements including emergency vehicle access. Following amended plans /additional information Highway Services have made the following comments (14.08.2019); "Following the previous highway response dated 07/05/19 the applicant has submitted additional information. Visibility splays of 2.4m x 25m in both directions at the proposed site access junction, with a
The site turning head is inadequate to allow a fire appliance to turn around which is not ideal. The swept path analysis shows an 8.6m length fire appliance reversing into the site from both directions. The reversing movements would encroach over the carriageway centreline which is deemed acceptable on this occasion as emergency access to the site should only be required on an occasional basis. As specified in section 10.3 of the 'Manual for Manx Roads' (MfMR) design guide, the proposed emergency access arrangements must comply with the UK's Building Regulations Approved Document B on fire safety. This document requires access for a fire appliance to be provided to within 45m of all points within a dwelling. All parts of the
development site are within 45m of the public highway so emergency access to the site should be adequate.
A planning condition would be needed to ensure the proposed site levels were no steeper than 1:12 to facilitate suitable disabled, pedestrian and vehicular access to and within the site. The proposed highway drainage at the site access junction is subject to change and would be dealt with as part of a Section 109A Highway Agreement that would be required for the proposed site access junction onto the public highway.
The first 7m of the proposed site access road would be surfaced in tarmac, with the remainder of the site access road gravel, which should be adequate to avoid gravel being illegally deposited onto the adjacent adopted highway.
Summary Highway Services does not oppose the application subject to the following planning conditions:
5.3 Manx Utilities Drainage (MUA) initially sought a deferral (03.04.2019) to consider the Flood Risk Assessment. Following these initial comments, MUA comment (12.04.2019) that the site is within a fluvial flood zone and the predicted extent of fluvial flooding for a 1 in 100 year return period plus climate change. Plots 2 & 3 fall outside of the flood zone and on an area of higher ground. They comment that due to this risk, just raising floor or ground levels may not be appropriate as raising the ground levels may disrupt flood flow routes and result in the loss of floodplain storage making the situation worse to surrounding areas. They comment they need to understand what impact the proposals might have on surrounding properties before making comment on the application site as a whole.
We are satisfied that the proposals will not result in loss of floodplain storage or alter any flood flow pathways. Providing the proposed Plot No.1 within the 1%AEP + 30% CC predicted flood extent does not result in an increased development footprint, and on the basis that finished
floor level will be raised to 7.60mAOD - approximately 600mm above the predicted flood level, then redevelopment of the site is acceptable."
In other words, that the new properties would be of not more than the external plan area of the buildings that they replaced, and that flood resilience would be achieved by setting the internal floors at an appropriate level. Raising the whole site would be at odds with this."
We have carried out extensive improvements to the hydrological and hydraulic modelling of the Laxey catchment. The changes offer benefits including more accurate channel capacity, better representation of interactions between channel and floodplain, as well as more explicit account of floodplain topography and possible floodplain flood routes. We gave JBA Consulting permission to use the latest data available in order to make their assessment.
There have been some bank replacement/ repair works and river maintenance carried out since the last flood but nothing that would alter the outcome of this application? Just to note that the new bridge was replaced by the Department of Infrastructure."
JBA Consulting are currently underway with options analysis to realise any credible flood mitigation solutions for the Laxey catchment. Whilst we cannot foresee any proposals that will affect this site, the planning department may feel it would be prudent to await the conclusion of the study before a final decision is made on the application. The report is due in May 2020."
The hydraulic model used is the one Manx Utilities have had built and calibrated in order to test flood defence and mitigation scenarios to protect the residents along Glen Road. We allow planning applicants to use our hydraulic models on the condition that any improvements or additional data collected are provided back to us.
We do value local knowledge and photographs of flood mechanisms on the ground as ultimately these improve the models and analysis. We have carefully considered the points raised by Abbey Kimber and have some commentary below.
Can we suggest that these are put back to the applicant and their agent (JBA Consulting) to carry out the additional checks required and updates to the Flood Risk Assessment where necessary. We can discuss the below with them directly if that helps?
To understand why the flood mechanism over the site we have reviewed the data inputted into the model at this location. Looking at the LiDAR data (Ground levels collected by light detection and ranging) this land at Cranleigh Ville appears to be much higher than the surrounding land (circa 1m). Looking at the data it seems that either the land has been artificially raised or that the vegetation coverage over site has led to poor coverage of this site. The hydraulic modelling has used this LiDAR data within the modelling to establish flood mechanisms. Thus, it seems sensible that the LiDAR data is checked against topographical survey data collected on the site to check for any misrepresentations. If discrepancies are found we would expect this to be altered in the hydraulic model and Flood Risk Assessment also.
Manx Utilities have undertaken a site visit and it is possible that the mechanism circled in the below figure would pond on the Cranleigh Ville site rather than discharging on to Glen Road. The site is a drop below the road level at this location. The photos sent in and ours collected from the site visit can be forwarded to the applicant and their agent (JBA Consulting) for comment on whether they have accurately represented this flood mechanism."
5.4 Manx National Heritage makes the following comments (17.04.2019); "I write on behalf of Manx National Heritage ('MNH'), whose statutory responsibilities pertaining to the protection of the cultural and natural heritage of the Isle of Man are defined under the terms of the Manx Museum and National Trust Act.
Ecology & Environment We would like to highlight the potential for the existing dwelling to support roosting bats.
The Laxey Valley and surrounding area is well known for supporting a number of bat species, with records for Leisler's (Nyctalus leisleri), brown long-eared (Plecotus auritus), common pipistrelle (Pipistrellus pipistrellus), soprano pipistrelle (P.pygmaeus) and Myotis species bats present within 1km of the site. The scrub and tree line to the rear of the property as well as the densely wooded valley of the Laxey River, on the opposite side of the road provide highly suitable foraging areas and commuting corridors for a wide range of bat species, whilst the Laxey River itself provides an ideal foraging ground for Daubenton's bats (Myotis daubentoni), which feed on insects over water bodies.
All Manx bat species are listed as Schedule 5 species under the Wildlife Act (1990). As such, it is an offense to intentionally kill or injure any species of bat. It is also an offence to intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or obstruct access to, a location which a bat is using for shelter or protection. Disturbance to a bat whilst it is occupying such a location is also an offence.
For this reason, we recommend that a bat survey of the building be undertaken by a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist prior to the demolition of the building.
Built Heritage Ordnance Survey mapping published in 1870 shows this building in its current extended form, save for the smaller of two extensions added to the east gable. In form the buildings is therefore at least 150 years old and as a good example of a traditional double-fronted Manx cottage, with a traditional single-storey gable extension covered by a traditional single-pitch roof.
We would suggest that if approval is forthcoming, it would be appropriate, ahead of demolition, to require a photographic record to be made by the applicant under the terms of the Department's published guidance, 'Guidance on Undertaking Historic Building Photographic Surveys'.
We trust that the above remarks will be useful to the Department."
5.5 There have been a total of 10 individual objections to this application and the details of which can be views on the Online Planning Services. The following addresses of the person/s objecting are:
6.1 The fundamental issues to consider in the assessment of this current planning application are (i) the principle of the proposal; (ii) the principle of the demolition of Cranleigh Ville; (iii) visual impact on the streetscene; (iv) Potential impact on highway safety for access/parking provision; (v) Potential flood risk; and (vi) Potential impact on the neighbouring residents living conditions (overlooking, loss of light and over bearing impact).
6.2 As outlined within the planning policy section of this report, the site is designated as predominately residential use and therefore the proposal for residential development is acceptable in terms of complying with the land-use designation. Further, the previous planning applications (06/01775/B & 04/01579/B) were approved for three and four (including retention of Cranleigh Ville) residential dwellings on this site and the land use designation has not changed since these times. - 6.3 Consideration should also be given to The Isle of Man Strategic Plan which has been adopted (June 2007 & 1st April 2016). Within this document Strategic Policies 1 & 2 require that new dwellings be located within existing sustainable settlements. Spatial Policy 3 also indicates that Laxey is a Service Village and that housing should be provided to meet local needs and in appropriate cases to broaden the choice of location of housing. - 6.4 Accordingly, given the above reasons it is considered the principle of developing the site for residential development is acceptable. This is not an automatic reason to allow the proposal as the other matters listed within paragraph 6.1 of this report still need to be considered and be considered acceptable.
6.5 Environment Policy 39 indicated that the general presumption will be in favour of retaining buildings which make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. The supportive text of this policy indicates that when considering proposals which will result in demolition of a building in a Conservation Area, attention will be paid to the
part played in the architectural or historic interest of the area by the relevant building and the wider effects of demolition on the building's surroundings and on the Conservation Area as a whole. In addition, consideration will be given to: the condition of the building; the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use (based on consistent long-term assumptions); the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use; and the merits of alternative proposals for the site.
6.6 The building proposed to be demolished is a traditional Manx farmhouse style property, and while it appears to be in a habitable condition, it does need some restoration. The building itself has lost some its traditional features, for example traditional chimney pots; original slate roof; original sliding sash windows and original door, with their replacements not especially attractive or in keeping with the property or Conservation Area. The property has also been pebble dashed which again is not a traditional finish expected on this type pf property. Accordingly, the dwelling in its currently form does not specifically add significant interest to the Conservation Area from a visual perspective; albeit it could be argued that the dwelling could be easily restored with more traditional styles and finishes; which in turn be more of a positive feature in the Conservation Area. - 6.7 The applicants' statement does not address the points outlined with in the supportive text of EP39 and therefore the considerations of the condition of the building; the cost of repairing and maintaining it in relation to its importance and the issue derived from its continued use; and the adequacy of efforts made to retain the building in use have not been explored. - 6.8 It is noted that Manx National Heritage have not objected to its demolition and only seek a photographic survey be undertaken prior to any demolition. - 6.9 While not specifically addressed by the applicants submission, an argument in favour of the demolition is the "the merits of alternative proposals for the site"; which could be argued to be providing three new dwellings in the centre of Laxey, where new developments in such area has been very limited over a number of years. It is noted that the supportive text of EP39 are consideration and not a "requirement" and it could be argued that the "the merits of alternative proposals for the site" outweigh the other three considerations listed. It is considered each application should be judged on its own merits. - 6.10 Overall, while the loss of the existing dwelling is unfortunate, it is not considered to be of such architectural or historical interest to refuse the application; especially given the lack of objection from Manx National Heritage and as the proposal would create three dwellings within the centre of Laxey. These reasons outweigh the loss of the existing building. Accordingly, the Department is satisfied the proposal would comply with Environment Policy 39.
6.11 The Department has a duty to determine whether such proposals are in keeping with not only the individual building, but the special character and quality of the area as a whole. With this in mind it is very relevant to consider Environment Policy 35 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. This policy indicates that development within Conservation Areas will only be permitted if they 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. Further General Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 should also be considered. - 6.12 In terms of the visual impact the aspect of the development that would be most apparent within the street scene and Conservation Area would be the two storey detached dwelling (Plot 1), which sits to the front of the site with its gable end elevation parallel with the Glen Road. This dwelling sites on a similar footprint as the existing property Cranleigh Ville; albeit it would be closer to the Glen Road.
6.13 Public views from the Glen Road to the east (towards Laxey Bridge) would not be especially apparent, given the curve in the road and the amount of existing building development along the Glen Road. To the west, public views would be more achievable, namely of the western elevation of the main dwelling, albeit would not be so different given the existing views, which are of the gable elevation of the existing dwelling, roof of Nr 1 Rosedene Cottages and the two storey gable elevation of the residential property Thie-ny Keylley beyond. Views of the application site will be more apparent the closer you are and when passing the site. - 6.14 The dwelling on Plot 1 with its gable end elevation facing the Glen Road, is not considered to be out of keeping or uncharacteristic of the Conservation Area, where there are a number of dwellings which have a similar arrangement along the Glen Road, where their gables area either directly abutting the highway or setback slight (as proposed). - 6.15 The style of properties in the area is made up of a variety of architectural styles/finishes which have evolved over the decades. The proposed traditional design, size, proportion, form and finishes are considered to be appropriate and fit well within the area. - 6.16 In terms of EP42 and whether the development would remove areas of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area; it is not considered it would. The existing site, namely the land to the rear and side of Cranleigh Ville is not especially attractive nor is it considered to create a sense of place, rather undeveloped land between existing residential properties. - 6.17 Overall, it is considered the proposal given their design, proportion, form, finish, siting of the scheme it would not result in a significant adverse impact upon visual amenities of the street scene or affect the character or quality of the Conservation Area and would preserve the character of the conservation area therefore all complying with GP2, EP32 and EP35.
6.18 There are clear, very reasonable concerns from local residents of the potential impact on existing on-street parking provision, which would appear to be in high demand; given the majority of properties along this section of Glen Road have no off street parking provision. - 6.19 While comments have been received that there is insufficient parking for the proposed three dwellings (3/4 bedroomed); the proposals do meet the required parking standard of two off road parking spaces per dwelling as outlined within the Parking Standards of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan. Accordingly, from a parking perspective within the site, the proposal is acceptable. - 6.20 A further concern is raised by creating the new access to the site, and that there will be a number of on-road parking spaces lost. The new access is 6m wide and therefore there is the potential of one or two spaces (generally parking spaces are required to be at least 5m long) to be lost by the new entrance. There is an argument to be had, that given there is a general acceptance/requirement that a single dwelling generates a requirement of two off-road parking spaces, and the existing dwelling Cranleigh Ville currently has no off-road parking provision, relying on the on-street parking; that the loss of the said one or two on-road parking spaces by the access, would be mitigated by the fact Cranleigh Ville would be demolished and the new dwelling replacing would have the required two off road parking spaces. - 6.21 Comments are also made that parking directly opposite the new access would be lost. Currently, if a vehicle parked along this section of the Glen Road, on both sides of the road,
road. Accordingly, it is not considered there would be a loss of on-road parking space on the opposite side (southern) of the road, as it is not considered such space is available to use/unless obstructing the highway.
6.22 Highway Services have considered the application in detail and have raised no objection
to the proposal, subject to the conditions listed, which are considered acceptable. Potential flood risk
6.23 This is perhaps the main issue relating to this application, and certainly one which has raised significant, and very reasonable concerns of local residents, who have unfortunately witnessed and been significantly impacted by recently flood events over the last two decades, including last year. As outlined by Environment Policy 13, development which would result in an unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site, will not be permitted. - 6.24 The site is partially (southern section only i.e. plot 1/existing dwelling) within a "Flood Risk Zone from Rivers". The site is not within an area identified as being at risk of tidal flooding. The "Flood Risk Zone" in question is regarded as a 1 in 100 year flood event. What this means is that it is estimated the likelihood of a storm event which is one that is expected to be equalled or exceeded once every 100 years; it also has a 1% chance of occurring in any one year. The information also refers to 1 in 100 year flood plus 30% climate change event, which results in a greater level of flooding due to climate change and raising sea levels etc. Due to this zoning, Manx Utilities have carefully considered the scheme (see representations in this report). Furthermore, the applicants have specialist flood consultants to consider the impact of flooding on the site, but also to ensure flooding does not impact neighbouring sites/properties as well. It should be noted that following discussion the Department had with Manx Utilities they have confirmed that Both December 2015 and October 2019 flood events are predicted to be of a magnitude less than the 1 in 100 years. - 6.25 The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) concludes that: … "The 2019 modelling indicates that flood water is not flowing through the development, but instead, is ponding due to flood water downstream entering the site. The alignment of the proposed development will not, therefore, impede the upstream flow of water and providing that the proposed development footprint remains the same as that of the existing building, then there will be no net loss of floodplain storage." - 6.26 As part of the detailed discussion with the applicants a further plan was produced using LIDAR data (Light Detection and Ranging) which Manx Utilities allowed the applicants to use to provide a model which shows the direction of flooding in the area and where it comes and goes. It is understood LIDAR has an accuracy of 2.5cm and is used throughout the world. Manx Utilities have used this system to prepare flood defence plans etc. - 6.27 This flood flow plan (submitted 23rd December 2019 by applicants) indicates that flood water runs from three directions towards the site; firstly down the Glen Road; secondly to the rear of properties Nrs 1 to 10 Glen Road Terrace (west of site - Also referred as Commissioners Houses); and thirdly from the rear of Rosedene Cottages (to east). The flood flow plan indicates that the site is only flooded primarily from the flood water running from the rear of Nrs 1 to 10 Glen Road Terrace into the site and then ponding in the front section of the site, which is currently the case according to the applicants. They also indicate this will continue to be the case as they indicate there would be no loss of floodplain storage on the site given the footprint of the existing dwelling and proposed dwelling (plot 1) is the same. The applicants also comment that given the rear section of the site is higher in terms of ground level; the flood flow plan demonstrates that this section of the site does not flood and therefore the development would have no impact on flood risk. It should be noted the flood flow plan is very similar to the Flood Maps produced by Manx Utilities, in terms of showing where flooding occurs.
6.28 The flood flow plan suggests that flooding of Rosedene Cottages isn't from the site given the height of the boundary flood wall (DOI wall), but also as flood water runs down from Minorca Hill (to the north/northeast of site) and enters the eastern boundary (opposite boundary to application site) and it is this flood water that affects Rosedene Cottages, rather than flood water from the site. This flow pattern also applies to the properties to the east of the site and north of the Glen Road (i.e. Laundry site/ restaurant etc). - 6.29 The owner of 2 Rosedene Cottage disagrees with the information indicated within the submitted flood flow plan, commenting that the levels of the site differ between the LIDAR, site survey and real life, commenting that the rear of the site is not level and is below the road level, meaning that raising the site levels as the developer has put in his plans, would mean redistributing the water which currently ponds in these areas into other peoples properties and altering the current water flow on the site which would alter the flood risk assessment. Further they comment that the water is shown to flow from the rear of the Commissioners Houses to the front of the application site; however, they query this as they state the rear of the site is the same level. They comment that in 2015 flood event a significant amount of water swept across the rear part of site (indicated not to flood) and along the boundary into the site of 2 Rosedene Cottage leaving debris and mud along the shared boundary which was a hedge, now flood wall, destroying their greenhouse and shed, hence the new flood wall. The owner of 2 Rosedene Cottage also comments that the flood flow plan does not show water entering the application site from the Glen Road or the driveway of 2 Rosedene Cottages which is incorrect, both 2002 and 2015 floods water entered from the Glen Road, in 2015 the flood water in area was much deeper due to the location of where the river escaped, whereas recently flooding (2019) the water along the Glen Road was shallower as the water entered the Glen Road much higher up Glen Road (Wollen Mills), meaning a lot of the water has dissipated by the time it got to the application site and even then without their flood wall and flood gates, water would have entered the site. Further the owner of 2 Rosedene Cottage comments that the flood flow map indicates that water flowing down Minorca Hill and entering the car park to the side of Rosedene Cottages, but instead of showing the entry point of the vulnerable steep driveway with no drainage and large area of dropped curb, it instead shows water leaving the road on a steep hill, via a high curb at a right angle to flow through a fence and down a bank which as someone who was present on the day, that did not happen. They also comment that the developer again is only mentioning the much higher flood wall which is adjacent to the back plot (plot 2) which only offers a clearance of 0.9m which isn't sufficient protection from the level of waters we have seen over the past 17 years. Also the flood wall which runs along the boundary with Rosedene Cottages is lower (runs downhill) and as the applicants are proposing to increase the levels on the site and reduce the kerb level to let more water into the site, the protection that the flood wall is less than 0.4m in areas which is not enough to withstand the levels of water that the site will receive, resulting in water over-topping the flood wall and entering Rosedene site again. - 6.30 The Owner of Lewins Cottage also raise concern of the flood flow plan stating that the applicant has been provided with a lot of information but is placing more emphasis on the technical advice rather than the reality of the situation which should take priority over a model. Even if this model was accurate, this does not make this an acceptable scale of build in the flood plain of the village destroyed by recent flooding. - 6.31 Some of the main concerns made by local residents are set out below. Raising of the site levels - 6.32 The application includes existing site levels throughout the site with the ground level lowest being 6.50 (part of footpath around existing dwelling) up to a ground level height of 8.07 (a section of the rear part of the site - location of parking area for Plot 2) therefore a 1.57m level difference between the lowest part of the site and the highest part. However the applicants have advised that while this was the case when the application was submitted, it is not the case now. The highest level (8.07) was the top of a spoil pile in the rear section of the
site which was created by the dug up soil located adjacent to the Manx stone boundary wall (referred also as the DOI wall). The applicant gave more detail by stating: "When we purchased the site the strip of land next to the boundary wall with Rosedene cottages was level and about 6.8 meters A O D. We then allowed the excavation of that part of the site to allow for the construction of the new flood wall. The excavation was 0.5 of a meter deep. During this time the topographical survey was taken and recorded the excavated material as a ridge and the trench as a lower level adjacent to the wall. These are the levels on the site plan. After the wall was constructed the excavated material was returned to the trench and the ground level returned to approximately 6.8 meters A O D. So we are using the original ground level as much as possible and we are not proposing the raising of the site by
0.5 of a meter from its original level. The top of the flood wall (DOI wall) is 7.94 A O D this is 900 mm approximately above the potential once in 100 year + 30% for climate change."
6.33 The applicant's agent also commented: "When the original topographical survey was carried out there was an area of the site excavated down to bottom of the boundary wall to foundation level to allow the boundary wall to be constructed to act as flood defence, so the levels on the survey of this area we much lower than existing ground levels. If you look on the existing drawing you can clearly see the outline and contours of a long spine of spoil near the Rosedene boundary wall. Once the wall was constructed this area was backfilled to the original ground level of the site. The topographical survey drawing and information submitted with the application reflect the lower excavated levels, and that's why there is a 0.5m difference. This does not exist in reality now as its back to the original levels." - 6.34 This is not an ideal situation, i.e. the existing plan is not what the current situation is today, especially when the issue of site levels is important to ascertain. However, the comments made by the applicants above would appear to be correct, i.e. they have reinstated the site levels since the application was initially submitted and the former sites levels immediately adjacent to the boundary wall is approximately 6.80, rather than the 6.20 to 6.30 which is shown on the submitted "existing site plan" levels and this has raised concern that site levels in this location were being raised by 0.5m in height. It is wholly understandable why neighbours (and the Department - see below) have expressed concern of the raising of this section of the site, given what is shown on the existing and proposed plans. However, it is considered the applicants explanation in this case to be acceptable and does appear to tally with what is observed on site, although no new existing plan has been provided (was requested and received the above responses). - 6.35 The Department did ask Manx Utilities the following question: "I visited the neighbouring properties last week, and it was clear that given their past experiences in flooding, this is one of their major concerns. Their concern is that from their experiences is that lifting of any part of the site (including the area indicated not being within river flood plain) will increase the risk of flooding on them. They are adamant that the flood water that affected them wasn't from the river but from the rear bank and from the road. While I note Manx Utilities comments below, are you able to explain how flooding won't be made worse on this site, as I (and neighbours) don't understand how lifting the level of the majority of the site by 0.5m won't affect them?" - 6.36 In response Manx utilities commented: "Thanks for the email. Based on the comments in Gemma's email dated 22 May, we stated that we were satisfied that there would be no increase in flood risk to adjacent properties 'Providing the proposed Plot No.1…does not result in an increased development footprint, and on the basis that finished floor level will be raised to 7.60mAOD - approximately 600mm above the predicted flood level…' In other words, that the new properties would be of not more than the external plan area of the buildings that they replaced, and that flood resilience would be achieved by setting the internal floors at an appropriate level. Raising the whole site would be at odds with this."
6.37 In terms of the last comment "Raising the whole site would be at odds with this" this raise some concern, as the levels where being increased. Accordingly the Department sought additional comment form Manx Utilities which where:
Department - "In terms of point 2: they are changing levels to the front section. Please see attached amended plan which shows the current proposal. However, the level numbers are difficult to read, so please see the initial plan which was first submitted. The site levels are the same as currently proposed as no changes have ever been made during the application process; however easier to read on the initial plan. Very roughly they are being changed to between 6.90 and 7.00 compared to the existing levels which are between 6.50 and 6.95 (please see the existing site plan on the same plans for more detail). Would be grateful for your further comments on this matter…"
Manx Utilities - "The only thing I see as appropriate is for the applicants consultant to confirm in writing that the alterations to the land at the front of the plot (raising the ground levels) will not alter the flood flow pathways in such a way that will be to the detriment of any neighbouring properties.
If the above was confirmed then we would be satisfied."
6.38 The applicants consultants subsequently confirmed that: "In response to the comment / query below, my response is that the nominal raising of levels associated with the new access will not alter the flood flow pathways in such a way that will be to the detriment of neighbouring properties - Please note the flood flow pathways have been considered in previous FRA correspondence from JBA. Also, in our correspondence dated 18/10/2019 it was noted that the kerb is being lowered to form the vehicular access and this would allow flood waters from the south / riverside to back-up into the development and utilise the lower lying ground and undercroft within the development thereby providing some nominal benefit." - 6.39 There is a clear level difference when visiting the site (and on plans) of the front section of the site and the rear section of the site. The front section generally has a level difference of between 6.50 and 6.80s, with the odd areas slightly higher (raised planters). The southern section of the site generally has a level difference of between 6.90s and 7.20s, again with some dips and raises. Essentially, there are two fairly level areas, with the rear part being stepped up. For information the road level adjacent to new access point is 6.99 and the footpath level is 7.22. Therefore for reference the lowest part of the site (footpath around existing dwelling) is 720mm below the public footpath and 490mm below road level. - 6.40 The proposed ground levels generally are to increase slightly throughout the site (although some section do decrease) to a general level of approximately between 6.70 and
7.00 which gives a more level site throughout. The finished floor level for each dwelling would be 7.60.
6.41 The 1 in 100 year flood event with 30% added to possible climate change, the level in the site is 7.02. This figure is critical to understand in the determination of this application. Again for reference the Glen Road level adjacent to the site ground level is around 7.00. It is also important to note that the flood wall constructed by the DOI and owners of Rosedene cottage is 7.94. Accordingly, the applicants conclude that given this flood wall is approximately
applicants comment that the development causes no increase on the flood levels to others adjacent to the site and furthermore it would appear that Rosedene Cottage is protected to a standard well above the 1 in 100 year, by virtue of the protection measures /DOI wall. These views are shared by Manx Utilities.
Lowering ground level at new access onto Glen Road/kerb level
6.42 The application also proposes to lower the ground level slightly (appx 0.2m) at the point of the new vehicular access onto Glen Road. The applicant's state: "We would add that at the entrance to the proposed development the kerb is being lowered, to form a vehicular access, by approximately 100mm from 7.20 to 7.10m AOD. This will, in effect, provide a nominal benefit to surface eater flood risk from Glen Road by enabling overland flow to enter low lying ground within the development site at a lower level." - 6.43 Concern has been raised that such works would encourage more water into the site and increase flooding to Rosedene Cottage. This issue was raised with the applicants, who provided the following response: "Because the predicted 1 in 100 year plus 30% Climate Change flood level in the site is 7.02 AOD see Flood Risk report attached, this is lower than the level of the road so the flood water is trapped in the site and Rosedene is protected from site by the DOI wall which has a height of 7.78 to 7.9 AOD well above the flood level on the site. This dealt with in the JBA letter dated 14th Feb 2020 attached where it says "….furthermore it would appear that Rosedene Cottages is protected to a standard well above the 1 in 100 year + 30% climate change by virtue of the protection measures/DOI wall." - 6.44 The submission indicated that the applicants are deliberately allowing the flow of water in and through the site, namely from the rear of the Commissioners Houses and the Glen Road. They explain that there is no net loss of floodplain storage and that the central area of the site is to be a porous gravel and grid reinforcement system which allows rainwater to permeate through. Further, while this is extremely concerning to the occupants of Rosedene Cottages, the applicant's comments believe that the flood boundary wall is at a height (appx 0.78m above flood level) which would prevent water from the site into Rosedene Cottage. Manx Utilities have no objection to this conclusion to this matter. LIDAR data inaccurate - 6.45 As outlined previously concern has been raised of the accuracy of the Lidar data especially in relation to the site levels to the rear of the application site which is shown not to flood. The Department sought comment from the applicants on this matter where they commented that the topographic survey which was undertaken (Aug 2017) showed this part of the site being lower (0.2m to 0.3m) compared to the LIDAR survey undertaken by Manx Utilities. They comment since this 2017 survey the raised area (believed to be soil spoil created by building of flood wall) has been spread locally and it is now understood the actual average level of the rear portion of the land is now approximately 7.30. They comment that the lowest level on the LIDAR cross section provided by Manx Utilities of approximately 7.25. However, they conclude by stating that this rear portion of the development is above the flood level both in terms of actual levels and LIDAR levels and hence amending the hydraulic model for the latest topographical information would give the same output as this area is above the flood risk area. Manx Utilities response to this information is within paragraph 5.3.6 of this report and following additional information provide further concluding comments in paragraph 5.3.7. Accordingly, Manx Utilities do not disagree with the conclusion of the applicants on this matter. Flooding of existing surface water drain - 6.46 Currently the existing surface water drains runs from the rear of the Commissioners Houses through the centre of the site to the front door of 2 Rosedene Cottage (manhole) and then runs to the Glen Road. Previous flooding has resulted in flood water coming up the manhole within 2 Rosedene Cottage. There is obvious concern that the development which is
may well be in a high risk flood zone which goes against the application when considering it. However, there may be significant benefits (i.e. job creation/economy/national need) in favour of the development and there may be no other suitable sites. Accordingly, it may be considered acceptable in the balance of material considerations, subject perhaps to mitigation to protect the site and others as much as possible from flood events, although accepting it may still flood. However, this is not the case for this application site. While the land is designated for development and has also gained previous approval for dwellings on the site (now expired and not the same degree of flood consideration as now); there is currently still land available in the East of the Island. Further, an perhaps significantly is the Modified Area Plan for the East has passed through the Public Inquiry Stage and to nearing the end of the process and potentially going before Tynwald this year for final approval. This area plan designates significant amount of land to provide approximately 1400 dwellings in the east of the Island (Laxey falls within this) and a further 1000 dwellings as reserved sites. Accordingly, there is a very reasonable argument to have whether the demand of housing in the East of the island is so great that it outweighs the concerns of flooding, namely to occupants of the future dwelling. In this case it is not considered there is such housing demand to overcome the concerns raised.
6.59 In terms of the potential impacts the owner of 1 & 2 Rosedene Cottages, Nr 10 Glen Road Terrace, Lewins Cottage and Brookside are the properties most affected by this development. It should be noted a planning officer of the Department visited each of these properties (with the exception of Nr 10). The Residential Design Guide is helpful in the determination of the potential impacts upon neighbouring properties.
6.60 This property has a total of 3 windows which have direct view of the site. All three rooms are habitable rooms (bedrooms/study). These windows have direct views towards the front elevation of dwelling on plot 1. Currently the views are of the gable of the existing property. Therefore the general outlook is different given the new dwelling being taller and wider from such window views; However, given the rooms are not primary habitable windows; the distant the new dwelling would be from these windows (approx. 14m); and existing views would not be significantly different to the existing situation (i.e. existing built development rather than open expansive views); it is consider the impacts would not be so adverse to refuse the application.
6.61 This property has a total of five windows & glazed front door which directly face towards the application site. The main issue is whether there is any significant loss of light and/or overbearing impact upon outlooks. Plots 2 & 3 are likely to have the greatest impacts these are positioned in line with Nr 2. Of the five windows & door which face the site, all but two serve either habitable (bedroom) or non-habitable rooms (porch/bathroom), therefore the impacts upon these rooms is lessened give their use. Further, the distance, siting of these dwellings would be between 10 and 20m away which again for the rooms they serve is considered appropriate. In terms of the remainder two windows these serve a lounge, which is a primary habitable room which seeks most protection. The position of the lounge and the side projection of the bedroom extension (flat roofed) is such that views of the dwelling on plot 2 (closest dwelling to Nr 2) from these windows would be obscure, given this side flat roofed extension. Direct views would be seen towards the dwelling on plot 3; however, given the distance between the properties (approximately 19 to 20m) it is not considered the impact would be so significant to warrant a refusal. Some sun light may be lost during winter periods, albeit the light lost would be for a limited period during sunset. Sun orientation is east to west and the dwellings on plots 2 & 3 are northwest of lounge windows. Nr 10 Glen Road Terrace
6.62 Plot 3 would have the greatest impacts upon the occupants of Nr 10. Impacts of this dwelling are namely overbearing impacts upon outlook, especially from the rear garden. Plot 3 would be located 9.5m to the northeast for the rear elevation of Nr 10 and be located 1.5m to the shared boundary with Nr 10 running parallel with the side boundary/garden. There would clearly be a major change in the outlook from the rear garden, essentially have a two storey gable walling facing towards the garden. However, the gardens are fairly deep with open views and while the character of the eastern boundary would alter by the development; it is not considered the impact would be so significant to warrant a refusal. No direct sun light would be lost given plot 3 is to the northeast of the dwelling Nr 10. Lewins Cottage - 6.63 This property is on the opposite side of the Glen Road to the application site, and would be opposite the proposed vehicular access to the site and the gable end of the new dwelling on plot 1. This property has five windows (two at first floor and three at first floor) which directly view towards the site. The main issue is whether the development would have an overbearing impact upon the outlooks of Lewins Cottage. The site is to the south so no loss of light would occur. Further, no directly facing windows are proposed, so no overlooking would occur and arguable this proposal results in a reduction given the 90degree change in the orientation of the new dwelling and the existing, which currently directly faces towards Lewis Cottage and Brookside. The main impacts are to the two ground floor windows of the property. The first serves an open plan kitchen/diner/living room. The window in question, whilst servicing a primary habitable room, it is not the primary window in terms of outlook and light, given there are a total of three windows/patio door within the side and rear elevations which serve this room. The lounge to the property has a single window which has direct view towards the site. This room is also served by the front door to the property which has glazed window at the upper section which also opens inwards (stable like door) to provide more of an outlook. This room would be most impacted, as it is only served by these windows and as the dwelling on plot 1 would be closer (approximately 7m) than the existing dwelling which is approximately 13
m away. This could cause a concern sufficient to warrant a refusal. However, again it should be noted that current outlook is of the existing dwelling, so again the outlook from the front windows of this property are not open and expansive views, but of the existing dwelling on the site. Further the amount of built development, while closer is arguable less, given the orientation change between the existing (had a width of 13.8m) and proposed (with a width of 7.5m). Accordingly, while there will be an impact upon these ground floor lounge windows, it is considered the impact would be negligible give the reasons stated above.
Brookside
6.64 The impacts upon this property are very similar to those of Lewins Cottage in terms of the lounge windows. Again Brookside has a similar arrangement with a single window and glazed stable like door to its front elevation which serve its primary habitable room (lounge). Again the same reasoning in terms of development being closer, but the amount of directly facing development being reduced. In this case, the outlook of Brookside is likely to be improved and given more open outlooks (between plot 1 and Nr 10 Glen Road Terrace) given these reasons. Accordingly, it is not considered the development would adverse impact the amenities of this property.
7.0 CONCLUSION - 7.1 In terms of the principle of residential development on this site; the principle of the demolition of Cranleigh Ville; visual impact on the streetscene; potential impact on highway safety for access/parking provision; and the potential impact on the neighbouring residents living conditions (overlooking, loss of light and over bearing impact) all have been found to be acceptable for the reasons stated within this report earlier. - 7.2 The outstanding issue relates to potential impact of flooding, both in terms of on-site and off-site. In terms of the material planning considerations there are considered to be
8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:
8.2 The decision maker must determine:
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area and impacts upon flooding.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area and impacts upon flooding.
Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area and impacts upon flooding.
Reason: In the interest of flood protection both on-site and off-site and as the application and associated Flood Risk Assessment and Flood Flow Plan has been considered with these ground levels only.
Reason: In the interested of neighbouring amenities in terms of flooding form surface water drain.
Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development and impacts upon flooding.
9.1 Approved Drawings: This approval relates to the submitted documents and drawings reference numbers:
4th March 2019
23rd May 2019 P05
12th July 2019 Bat Survey prepared by Manx Bat Group
23rd December 2019 Email from McGarrigle Architects Ltd including Figure 1 (flood flow plan) & Figure 2 (comparison of levels of the site and surrounding areas)
22nd October 2019 JBA Consulting letter dated 18th October 2019
20th February 2020 JBA Consulting letter dated 14th February 2020
I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.
Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 27.07.2020
Signed : S CORLETT Presenting Officer
Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason was required (included as supplemental paragraph to the officerreport).
Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
