Officer Report

Application No.: 15/01156/A Applicant: Estate of Amy Kissack Deceased Per James Cowell Proposal: Approval in principle for the residential development of thirty six dwellings addressing siting and means of access Site Address: Part Of Grounds Associated With Close Jairg Beg And Field's 324318, 320912 & 324316 Old Church Road Crosby Isle of Man Case Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Photo Taken: 28.10.2015 Site Visit: 28.10.2015 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL, THE FACT IT IS CONTRARY TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND BECAUSE IT WOULD, IF APPROVED, REQUIRE A LEGAL AGREEMENT.

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The site is a piece of land of 2.3 hectares (nearly 5.7 acres) which lies on the southwestern side of the A1 Peel Road through Crosby. The land is at present partly in use as garden land associated with the dwelling known as Close Jairg Beg, but primarily is in agricultural use. - 1.2 To the immediate south of the site is the Douglas-Peel Heritage Trail, while to the southeast is the dwelling and associated garden of Cedar Lodge. To the west of the site lies a depot used by the Motorsafe vehicle recovery company, as well as playing fields beyond the north-south running Church Road which provides the frontage to Close Jairg Beg and also the dwelling known as Close Jairg, which lies to its north and immediately between Close Jairg Beg and the Motorsafe depot. Beyond the site to the northeast lie the semi-detached dwellings lining Peel Road. Close Jairg Beg and a field south of the railway line are shown edged in blue on the submitted plan. - 1.3 The site is lined with a number of trees and hedging to Peel Road, while two other hedgerows interspersed with mature trees, along with Manx sod banks and ditches, are present further into the site, which falls away topographically by as much as 8 metres at the maximum, when compared with the highway level. There is an initial, fairly dramatic drop in height from the roadside which then gives way to a gentler sloping downwards further into the site.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Approval in Principle is sought for the erection of 36 dwellings on the site. The application seeks approval only for the means of access and siting of those 36 units. The application has been submitted with a Design Statement, a topographical survey, four section drawings across the site, a proposed estate layout and a comprehensive Transport Assessment. - 2.2 The access would be provided via the existing access for Close Jairg Beg, which would also be accessed off this new access road. Close Jairg Beg would also lose much of its garden, with six dwelling shown thereon and a further 30 shown on the remainder of the site. Of these 36 dwellings, Plots 11-19 would be affordable units. Each of these nine dwellings is one of a pair of semi-detached dwellings, with all but Plot 19 sharing a boundary with another affordable unit.

2.3 The Design Statement indicates that the dwellings would be a mixture of 3- and 4-bedrooms in size, and all would be two storeys in height. Only detached and semi-detached dwellings are shown. - 2.4 Turning to the natural environment, the Design Statement is clear that all trees and landscape features lining the site's boundaries, as well as the hedgerows, trees, sod banks and drainage ditches within the site, will be retained. - 2.5 The dwellings are arranged in and around the existing criss-crossing hedging / banking without necessarily following those lines specifically. There is a central 'loop' around and within which the majority of the dwellings are shown, and where some public open space is also shown and this is further interspersed throughout the site in different-sized parcels. This would appear to be 'informal' public open space, and no size is shown for this. No formal open space appears to be shown. Footpaths and connections to the highway and Heritage Trail outside the site are shown.

3.0 PLANNING POLICY AND STATUS - 3.1 The site is located within an area of High Landscape Value that is not zoned for any particular purpose on the 1982 Development Plan. Close Jairg Beg and Close Jairg appear to be in an area zoned as Woodland on the same Plan, while the Motorsafe premises is zoned as Residential. - 3.2 With this in mind, the application should be assessed against the following policies of the Strategic Plan: o Strategic Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by:

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

o Spatial Policy 4: "In the remaining villages [that is, those villages NOT defined as a Service Village or Main Centre] development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities.

"These villages are: Bride, Glen Maye, Sulby, Dalby, Ballaugh, Ballafesson, Glen Mona, Colby, Baldrine, Ballabeg, Crosby, Newtown, Glen Vine, Strang."

o Spatial Policy 5: "New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3."
o General Policy 3: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

(a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
(b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
(c) previously developed land which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
(d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
(e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
(f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;

(g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
(h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage.

o Environment Policy 1: "The countryside and its ecology will be protected for its own sake. For the purposes of this policy, the countryside comprises all land which is outside the settlements defined in Appendix 3 at A.3.6 or which is not designated for future development on an Area Plan. Development which would adversely affect the countryside will not be permitted unless there is an
over-riding national need in land use planning terms which outweighs the requirement to protect these areas and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative."
o Environment Policy 2: "The present system of landscape classification of Areas of High Landscape or Coastal Value and Scenic Significance (AHLVs) as shown on the 1982 Development Plan and subsequent Local and Area Plans will be used as a basis for development control until such time as it is superseded by a landscape classification which will introduce different categories of landscape and policies and guidance for control therein. Within these areas the protection of the character of the landscape will be the most important consideration unless it can be shown that:

(a) the development would not harm the character and quality of the landscape; or
(b) the location for the development is essential."

o Environment Policy 3: "Development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas, especially ancient, natural and semi-natural woodlands, which have public amenity or conservation value."
o Housing Policy 5: "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more."
o Recreation Policy 3: "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan."

In this respect, Appendix 6 sets out standards expected in terms of dwelling occupancy. It is not possible to be certain about the overall bedrooms that would be provided on the site. The Design Statement submitted with the application has offered a calculation of the requirement on the basis that each of the 36 dwellings would have three bedrooms, amounting to an overall requirement of 3,456sqm within the site, comprised of 1,944sqm of formal open space, 864sqm of amenity space and a further 648sqm of play space.

o Recreation Policy 4: "Open Space must be provided on site or conveniently close to the development which it is intended to serve, and should be easily accessible by foot and public transport."
o Transport Policy 3: "New development on or around existing and former rail routes should not compromise their attraction as a tourism and leisure facility or their potential as public transport routes, or cycle / leisure footpath routes."

3.3 General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan does not apply in this instance. As the land is not zoned for development, and GP2 sets out the general development considerations on land so zoned, it cannot be said to apply here. While the principles set out in that policy are useful to bear in mind in such circumstances, it is considered that the nature of the proposal is such that GP2 would be inappropriate to apply in the instance of the current application.

3.4 It is perhaps also worth noting the existence of the Western Sector Plan, and also clarifying the material weight that should be applied to its provisions in decision-making. The Department produced a series of Sector Plans in 1991 that were adopted by the Department but not pursued to adoption by Tynwald. - 3.5 Paragraph 1.12 of the Western Sector Plan, Planning Circular 8/91 states: "This plan will have a lifetime of 5 years. During the period of the Plan, continuous monitoring and re-appraisal will be necessary in order to identify changing circumstances and previously unforeseen issues. Amendments or additions to the plan may therefore be necessary during the 5 year period." - 3.6 The Sector Plan was not subject to any formal change or monitoring during that time and neither additions nor amendments were made. Reayrt ny Crink was approved in the mid-2000s and Kermode Close and associated housing in 1997. - 3.7 The Sector Plans were intended to give greater clarity to the 1982 Plan designations. However, the Plans did not exactly replicate those - for example in the case of Foxdale, Figure 3 shows an area of land which is annotated "Res" but which is significantly larger than that shown in the 1982 Plan. This is described in Appendix 7 of the Plan as accommodating approximately 14 acres whereas what is shown on the plan is closer to 23 acres: the unbuilt area on the 1982 Plan was around 16 acres. The application site field is referred to in Appendix 7 but is not shown at all on the large plan or on Figure 8. - 3.8 As the application site was not zoned for any particular purpose in the 1982 Development Plan, it does not appear to have been given any additional attention. No specific policies apply to it, and nor are there any general policies in the "environmental issues" section that could be said to apply either. In any case, the Strategic Plan very clearly sets out the material considerations to which regard should be had during the consideration of planning applications; at paragraph 1.5.2 it states:

"Existing Planning Circulars (excluding "Sector Plan" Circulars) will continue to have effect except insofar as they are inconsistent with the Development Plan."

3.9 As such, considering that the Sector Plans had a stated, finite life which has since expired, and are stated in the Strategic Plan (adopted by Tynwald) as having no effect, and moreover considering that there are no policies of direct relevance to the site in any case, it is concluded that the Western Sector Plan should be given no material weight in the assessment of the current application. In addition, the Plans clearly contain inaccuracies and omissions and therefore are not considered to be reliable planning documents on which current decisions can be robustly based. - 3.10 It is therefore considered that the land use designation of 1982 remains the most appropriate against which to assess the principle of residential development on this site.

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 4.1 The dwelling now known as Close Jairg Beg was approved under applications submitted in 1987 and 1988; a garden shed was subsequently approved there under an application in 1989. This comprises the planning history on the site since the adoption of the 1982 Development Plan. - 4.2 Of more direct relevance is the application submitted just along the Peel Road to the northwest and adjacent the playing fields. This is a slightly smaller parcel of land, on which Approval in Principle was sought for the erection of 28 dwellings under PA 15/00775/A, and for which approval was granted following an appeal hearing. That application site primarily comprised land zoned for residential development - along with a small area of land not zoned for development

on the 1982 Plan.

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Highway Services of the Department of Infrastructure initially sought a deferral on the application on 10th November 2015, but on receipt of additional plans offered no objection to the application on 27th September 2016. Their comments, in full, are as follows:

"The proposal is for a new residential development of 36 houses in a field with access being shared with an adjacent dwelling. Vehicular access is onto Old Church Road; Pedestrian access is to be via Old Church Road with additional footpaths leading to Peel Road and the public footpath network at the south of the site.

"The application has demonstrated that the required visibility splays can be provided and that the site is of sufficient size to accommodate the road network required to serve the proposed number of dwellings. The development will generate additional traffic movements, particularly at the junction of Peel Road and Old Church Road; the transport assessment has shown that the additional traffic can be accommodated at this junction without significant delays to existing traffic.

"Highways Services does not oppose this application subject to the following condition:

"1. Prior to any construction the access shown on drawing to be approved by the planning authority shall be constructed and the visibility splays shall remain unobstructed at a height of 1.05m thereafter.

"Reason: In the interest of highway safety."

5.2 The Housing Division within the Department of Infrastructure, in a memorandum dated 30th August 2016, requesting that the Planning Committee include a requirement in respect of any approval granted for 25% of the dwellings on the site (that is, 9 units) be affordable. This is based on their records, which indicate that there are 55 persons on the active first-time buyer list in the Eastern area, a further 205 on the first-time buyers register, while across the Island there are 734 persons on the general affordable homes for rent waiting list, of whom 510 are seeking public sector housing in the Eastern area. - 5.3 The Fisheries Directorate within the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture offered no objection in principle to the development (comments received 30th October 2015), but noted that the applicant would be required to submit a 'Development within 9m of the Watercourse' form should the application be approved. - 5.4 The Arboricultural Officer within the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture objected to the application on 13th September 2016. There had, on 4th November 2015, been a request for a Tree Protection Plan made of the developer by the then-Arboricultural Officer, along with a number of concerns raised about the application - these comments more or less foreshadow those of the now-Arboricultural Officer and, for the sake of brevity, the most recent concerns are summarised here: (1) Some amendments have been made that address some of the concerns, but the planned density of housing and its proposed layout within the site will not achieve a harmonious relationship between the trees and structures that could be maintained for the long-term. There are many areas on the site (notably Plots 1 to 4 inc., Plots 12 and 13, Plot 17 and Plots 24 and 25) where issues such as shade, the perception of risk, the overbearing nature of the large mature trees and nuisance issues - for example, leaf litter, honeydew, birds, etc. - would lead to future pressure to remove trees; (2) none of the five areas identified as 'groups' in the tree survey are represented on the amended layout - does this mean they are to be removed?, and (3) the application still does not include a Tree Protection Plan. It is important to demonstrate how construction activity would / could be excluded from the root protection areas that a number of Plots are shown to be near. While the application is only made in Principle, the acceptability of the development should rely on the reassurance that the trees proposed to be retained can be so retained. While an Arboricultural Method Statement could be sought via condition, it would not be appropriate to deal with a Tree Protection Plan in this way.

5.5.1 On 11th November 2015, the Senior Biodiversity Officer requested the preparation of a general wildlife survey, which would: "include habitats of wildlife interest, areas of interest to/use by frogs (in particular spawning sites), bird records for the site, and the results of a bat survey. This would provide a better basis for consideration of the effects of this proposal".
5.5.2 In view of the comments received in various representations regarding the impact of the application on the biodiversity of the area, the Senior Biodiversity Officer was contacted for his views; he responded on 8th November 2016. The fundamental summary of his comments are that a general wildlife survey is required in order to make a formal assessment as to whether or not there are species of importance within the site, and indeed whether or not the habitat offered by the site itself is worthy of specific protection, and thereby to conclude whether or not an objection would be appropriate. He provided a map showing the prospective ASSI boundary for the 'Central Valley Curragh', and this immediately abuts the application site, although in his comments he notes that the edges of the Heritage Trail could also be included, although this would second-guess the findings of the recommended survey.
5.5.3 He continues that the Phase 2 survey of the land, conducted in 2012-13, notes that "The Central Valley Curragh is botanically important for the Island, holding many rare and notable species for the Island. The most significant of these are white sedge (Carex curta), water figwort (Scropularia nodosa), purple willow (Salix purpurea) and giant fescue (Festuca gigantica). This site holds the entire or vast majority of the Island's population of these species." [Planning Officer note: the white sedge is included on Schedule 7 of the Wildlife Act 1990 and therefore has statutory protection; the other plants are not on that list, but of course it should be noted that the site holds the vast majority of the Island's population of these species.]
5.5.4 He subsequently confirmed, on 9th November 2016, that the survey required would not take particularly long to prepare but would need to take account of differing times of the year - e.g. February / March for frogs and frogspawn, and April to September for bats. In view of how long the application has been with the Department already and the clear concern it has raised with local people, it is not considered to be appropriate for the application to be delayed yet further while the survey work is undertaken. It is moreover to be noted that the request for the general wildlife survey was made in excess of a year ago and the agent to the application has engaged on no correspondence in its respect: it is therefore reasonable to assume that no such survey will be forthcoming.

5.6 Manx Utilities Drainage Division offered no objection to the application on 10th November

2015 and, on receipt of the amended plans, confirmed this view on 19th October 2016; their earlier comments, received across a pair of emails, read as follows:

"The applicant has mentioned within his design statement that he would be willing to contribute a sum on money towards the upgrading of the Crosby sewage treatment works rather than install a bio-disc (or similar private treatment works) on the site. Manx Utilities have not yet finalised any detailed design for the Crosby works neither has any decision yet been agreed on the future programme to replace/upgrade the works. It is therefore considered that this suggestion to contribute is premature at this stage, however if the application (PA 15800156/A) is approved further discussions would be encouraged at any detailed/reserved matters application.

"It is acknowledged that the site is wet and low lying but as the application is 'in principle' no finished floor levels or ground levels have yet been set, Manx Utilities will therefore require a detailed flood risk assessment carried out to support any detailed planning application which must include the existing drainage ditches that cross the site and a full assessment of the culvert underneath the former railway line. At this stage the applicant must also provide a detailed drainage layout for the development including supporting foul and surface water discharge calculations."

"[W]e are happy that subject to various elements of civil engineering works (including a new STW albeit possibly only temporary) and worse case upsizing the existing culvert underneath the former railway track the site can be adequately drained."

5.7 The Architectural Liaison Officer within the Isle of Man Constabulary offered comments on the application, dated 25th August 2016: (1) the emergency access road that would connect to the Heritage Trail provides vehicular access for persons acting unlawfully, thereby providing a concern for security; (2) the pedestrian footpath provides a safe means of access although it is overgrown. It is recommended that it be lowered in height, providing an open and airy path for users, with an 1800mm fence with planting be installed for screening and aesthetics, and (3) the rear fencing of the dwellings facing onto the railway line should, again, be required to be 1800mm in height and no more, and the balance between security and a rural aspect could be provided by the planting of spiny or thorny shrubs to enhance perimeter security. He concludes: "The above recommendations are submitted for your consideration and have been highlighted to assist with the safety of the public". - 5.8 Marown Parish Commissioners objected to the application in comments received 6th November 2015; they re-confirmed the bases for their objection in comments received 19th August

2016 and again on 23rd September 2016, the latter letter reiterating one specific element of their first objection from 2015. The objection made can be summarised as concern with: (1) the land (with the exception of Close Jairg Beg) is not zoned for housing on the 1982 Development Plan, on which it is also zoned as land of "High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance"; (2) the fields are a natural wetland with poor or no drainage - the Ramsar convention requires that such wetlands are protected, while there must also be serious flood risk here; (3) lampreys have been found in the River Dhoo and the Commissioners believe that the construction works and biodisc proposals are likely to be harmful to these fish; (4) Old Church Road is effectively a single track on many occasions, principally when there are events on the playing fields and at the Methodist Church, while the road is also used by large vehicles in association with Ellerslie Depot; (5) "the proposed emergency access onto the Heritage Trail is opposed as a total nonsense" as it would be impossible for vehicles to use the access even if it were desirable, which it is not; (6) the application is premature as the question of zoning would be a matter for the Eastern Area Plan in terms of location / numbers in a given village. Together with a further recent planning application before the Committee, which is at least partly on unzoned land [this presumably is 15/00775/A], this would serve to increase the population of Colby unsustainably, and (7) the Commissioners are concerned that the work to create "this area" [it is unclear what "this area" is] has been completed in advance of the Planning Committee's determination of this application, and indeed continued after "the matter" [ditto] was reported to the Planning Enforcement Officer.

5.9 The Manx Wildlife Trust, in comments date-stamped as being 13th September 2016, objected to the application. Their concerns can be summarised as follows: (1) the wetland forms part of the ecological unit of the second most important Curragh site, the Central Valley Curragh, which is of ASSI quality and potentially a Ramsar site of international significance; (2) the Isle of Man Biodiversity Strategy ('Managing our Natural Wealth') states that no net loss will be pursued for semi-natural habitat species, which is currently not adequately addressed; (3) the area is of particular note as a stronghold of the purple willow, and (4) the site is part of an important wildlife corridor and is likely to be of note for bats as a protected species for commuting, feeding and potentially roosting. The Tree Survey does not include any examination of potential bat roosts and nor is a bat survey provided with the application, which the MWT see as an omission. - 5.10 Marown Memorial Playing Fields Ltd., which owns the playing fields, bowling green, children's play area, skate board park, cycle track, Millennium Hall and the Hall Caine Pavilion, all of which lie to the west of the proposed development site, objected to the application in comments received 20th November 2016. They re-confirmed their objection to the application in comments received 12th September 2016. Their comments can be summarised as concern with: (1) the increase in traffic that would occur on Old Church Road due to the siting of the proposed entrance to the estate; (2) the rise in traffic associated with 72 additional cars could especially jeopardise the

safety of children's and elderly people's clubs; (3) the majority of parents dropping children off for activities, park on the easterly side of the Old Church Road and then cross the carriageway to the Playing Fields; (4) this is also true for those people approaching the playground from the Peel Road who use the pavement on the eastern side of the road; (5) this is also true for those children using their bicycles on Old Church Road to reach the cycle track; (6) to add 72 vehicles as regular users of the junction would drastically increase the potential for accidents at the already dangerous junction of Old Church Road and Peel Road.
5.11.1 As there have been various amended plans and also additional information submitted throughout the application process, there have been a number of matters for comments to be received in respect of, and in some cases correspondents have made comments on more than one occasion. The objections received from members of the public are summarised below, with the summarised comments being in no particular order:

o The applicant is concerned to emphasise that the proposed development will not impede 'ample sunlight reaching the gardens of the houses', and it is essential that the Planning Committee should inspect the site to view that the trees should be considered as high value, both individually and as a contribution, as indicated in the Tree Report submitted with the application;
o It is not clear how the 3D model images show the shadows of the trees in relation to the houses but the model images are different to the sketch plan of the proposed development and shows a different number and location of houses;
o The modelling does not show any shading on some of the houses, which will be created;
o The modelling is therefore flawed and of little value to the Committee;
o The application is premature because the land in question is not zoned for development of the kind described in the application;
o Concerns are raised because two similar applications were submitted at a similar time within the village and how this might be to the material disadvantage of residents, while other queries are raised with respect to the name / architectural practice on the application form;
o The proposal is contrary to Transport Policy 3 because the Heritage Trail's use as an emergency access as suggested within the application would adversely affect its attractiveness as a tourism / leisure facility;
o The proposal is contrary to Transport Policy 3 because the construction of dwellings along the Heritage Trail will reduce its visual attractiveness, compromising it as an attraction for tourists, walkers and cyclists;
o The proposal is contrary to Transport Policy 3 because the placing of dwellings alongside the Heritage Trail will increase noise levels along that portion of it, which will reduce its attractiveness as a tourism / leisure facility;
o The proposal is contrary to Transport Policy 3 because the proposed access onto the Heritage Trail from the application site would increase the pedestrian and cycle use along the Heritage Trail, which will reduce its attractiveness as a tourism / leisure facility;
o Old Church Road is incapable of accommodating the extra vehicular journeys that would service the development and so it is contrary to Transport Policy 4;
o There is evidence of lampreys, brown trout and frogs / frogspawn in the River Dhoo and ditches adjacent the Heritage Trail, and the use of a biodisc before discharge of sewerage raises concern that the development may have an adverse impact on these species, contrary to Environment Policy 4;
o The addition of 36 dwellings in Crosby is not of an appropriate scale and it shall alter the character of Crosby, contrary to Spatial Policy 4;
o With the Ellerslie Depot as well as the church, playing fields or adjacent park / bowling green Old Church Road becomes dangerous and difficult to use, and it is often in use by children. There is no possibility of extra parking in the area and additional on-street parking would become a safety concern;
o This application with the addition of application 15/00775/A will put pressure on the amount
of traffic accessing the main road from the Old Church Road / Eyreton Road crossroads;
o The result of a traffic survey taking into account the amount facilities are used and carried
out at busy times will be interesting;

o The site is mainly wetland, and I would be interested to know how it can be drained sufficiently - the railway lines get saturated;
o The current hedgeline and trees provide a particularly pleasant view and the Arboriculture Officer states there is a likelihood there will be applications to remove trees in future;
o I would be interested to see the plans to conserve the trees / hedges if the application was approved;
o It is appreciated that people have the right to submit applications on any land that is available but as this has been submitted so soon after PA 15/00775/A it will be interesting to see if the same architect will make themselves available for consultation to the villagers and affected people as they did with the first application;
o The development is inappropriate in size, density and proportion;
o The visual impact of this development will fail to enhance the environment and will have a significant detrimental impact on the immediate area and its infrastructure;
o This development is neither desirable no acceptable;
o That the land is not zoned for development should prove fatal;
o There are a significant number of houses for sale in the Crosby / Glen Vine area and there is no need for the kind of houses proposed here;
o No deviation from the 1982 Development Plan should be acceptable;
o The main road through Crosby and the linking roads such as Old Church Road, Glen Vine Road and Eyreton Road cannot cope with current traffic levels - the latter two of these are used as 'rat runs' by significant numbers of vehicles, and these are narrow and unlit roads;
o The majority of road traffic incidents go unreported and it is my fear that a fatal accident will
occur;
o These roads will become unsafe for the current users, including pedestrian, horse riders, joggers and cyclists;
o Natural wetland such as this needs protecting and I am not aware that the developer has given any consideration to the biodiversity of the site - the Biodiversity Officer's views should be sought;
o That no trees will be felled is a fanciful notion when one looks at the land, the application and the density of development;
o A full tree survey should be carried out as it would appear that the applicant has not actually discussed these matters with the relevant Department before submitting the application;
o The biodisc system proposed is of unproven merit and the existing sewerage system for Crosby is under pressure such that any additional load would be undesirable;
o The application site is also prone to flooding and there does not appear to be any additional flood, drain or storm water to be accommodated in the river as proposed;
o The application does not make adequate provision for the disposal of surface or foul water
other than to discharge into the same river;
o Crosby is a characterful village, which deserves to be allowed to develop in a manner which recognises and enhances that character - it is my contention that the current application is contrary to planning policy, detrimental both visually and environmentally, and fails to acknowledge or enhance the needs of Crosby;
o Allowing development of land bustling with wildlife would be intellectually dishonest if we are committed to protecting and improving the quality of the environment and fly in the face of a number of specific objectives of the Government Plan 2002-2009;
o There is a less and less rural character of Crosby and this area of greenland is arguably the most important in the village;
o The local school is at capacity with considerable traffic congestion and parking issues;
o The potential problems are vast and considerable;
o People park on one side of the road take children across to the other side for the abovementioned facilities, and many children come to these on bicycles;
o To add a further 72 vehicles as regular users of the junction of Peel Road and Old Church Road would drastically increase the potential for accidents;
o Allowing treated sewerage from a biodisc to flow into the River Dhoo is no longer an acceptable form of disposal - in the summer this river can be very low;

o Curlew and other wetland birds and snipe, woodcock, ravens and tree-creepers are regular visitors to the site, while the trees provide a roost habitat for other birds, and this is a valuable wildlife corridor through the central valley;
o This land will effectively join up the villages of Glen Vine and Crosby;
o It is unfortunate that the village is the subject of two planning applications at the same time by the same architect; this is surely not by chance;
o The destruction of the land would be against the objective of protecting and improving the quality of the environment;
o A 'temporary' biodisc solution such as that proposed already exists at Reayrt ny Chrink and residents have complained of foul smells;
o The water system is already under great strain, the water pressure having been increased to maintain an effective water supply to the many properties nearby;
o Any additional children would seriously impact on the ability to teach them properly at the school;
o The proposed development is contrary to the commitment to retain rural landscapes;
o The land is wholly justifiably designated as being of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance, so consideration needs to be given to approving development which would destroy it;
o There are concerns about the impact on watercourses and fish populations and the protection of trees;
o The use of the Heritage Trail as an emergency access would have a detrimental effect on the free movement of users;
o If an application for a single shop (PA 14/00139/A) is refused on grounds of being contrary to Environment Policies 1 and 2 then evidently a development of 36 dwellings should surely not be permitted to proceed;
o The zoning of the land depends on the completion of the Eastern Area Plan;
o If this development is allowed it will set a precedent, allowing residential developments to litter our landscapes at the mercy of greedy developers;
o I believe that the transport survey undertaken, as a snapshot, is not reflective of the true traffic numbers and the findings may be skewed;
o Any new development should be connected to mains sewerage for treatment;
o What system will be used after the biodisc, given that Crosby will not be connected to IRIS?;
o What responsibility is there on the developer to update the sewerage once the development is complete?;
o The proposal would potentially see three biodiscs operating within 300m of the village recreational facilities;
o This pasture appears to consist predominantly of reeds and bog and is the soakaway for the Main Road;
o The storm culvert discharges pluvial flooding into the area proposed for the access;
o The land is lower lying than the Heritage Trail and is within a short distance of the river, giving rise to concerns about fluvial flooding;
o The site should be protected as a space for wildlife, including for bats and for human pleasure;
o This proposal will have a negative impact on my quality of life and my greenfield countryside
outlook;
o Why is there a need to build yet more houses in Crosby when the estate agents already have dozens if not hundreds of houses which are of the same spec and similar value if not cheaper?;
o The application proposes an unacceptable level of density and over-development;
o I do not believe it complies with General Policy 2 in that it fails to respect the site and surroundings in terms of siting, scale, form and design;
o At least one tree has been removed recently;
o There is already evidence in the village of conditions pertaining to trees being ignored with no enforcement action taken;
o The proposed road and traffic provision appears to fail the SDP Transport Policy requirement to be capable of accommodating extra journeys in an appropriate manner;

o We are disappointed by the lack of engagement with local residents by the developer, and nothing has come through our door and nor have we been invited to discuss local concerns, with all news coming from the local press and searches on your website. For a development of this scale it seems sensible and good practice to engage those likely to be most affected to get a better understanding of the concerns so as to address them;
o It is not good enough to claim that existing residents will benefit from this estate because there will be more people to sustain a local shop;
o There are only six trees unsuitable for retention! All the others have to be kept;
o Already this year PA 15/01156/A has been approved with 28 dwellings with 2.4 children per house and the local school cannot accommodate those extra children without huge government funding. I am unaware of the availability at QE2 school;
o This would not be a win-win situation but a 'win' to a select few people and a 'lose' to the next generation of Marown parishioners and the IOM government;
o How many cars will be used by the residents of this proposed housing estate as they arrive and depart along the Old Church Road?;
o What does Environmental Health have to say about odours from the sewage treatment works?;
o Even more people produce more sewage, which means than more chemicals make more
odour!;
o Old Church Road is shown to be as wide as the Heritage Trail: this is incorrect;
o Peel Road has not been included, and neither have the groups of trees numbered G1, G2, G3, G4, G5 and G6 (Tree Constraints Plan) all of which are on the boundary of the proposed site;
o Reference is made to a website called findmyshadow.com and calculations provided in respect of objects and the shadows they will cast on the shortest day of the year, which shows that Plots 1, 2, 3 and 4 will be covered by very long shadows;
o A suggested marketing description of these Plots would be: 'luxury 4 bedroom detached properties in shady location, with water gardens, no view and a haunting odour of the local area' such that I'm surprised these Plots were not designed as the compulsory 25% social housing as these are the least attractive, with the nuisance factor of site traffic and no privacy, but I'm not an architect!;
o The 3D models are both flawed and incomplete in representation, which can only lead to confusion!;
o There is confusion regarding whether or not the dwellings will be two-storey or bungalows;
o With a modicum of common sense this application must be refused;
o I'm looking forward to viewing the plans by Messrs Cowell, Pearce and Quayle to relocate the horse trams onto the disused railway line - the Heritage Trail;
o It does not appear that any of the issues raised in my original objection have been addressed.

5.11.2 Comments made in favour of the application are summarised below, in no particular order:

o It is essential that this application be allowed to success to enable full development to be gained from a Post Office and a village shop, which is vital for pensioners and all over-fifties on Eyreton Park, and for all the people of Crosby and its environments;
o This will strengthen the need for a local shop together with the future development of Ballaglonney field;
o It also strengthens the case for a crossroads traffic light system for the increased traffic flow;
o The existing tunnel underneath the road of the stream could be continued to the public toilets and the road widened with trees removed to provide a better access.

5.11.3 The summarised comments were received from people (or on behalf of people) living at the following addresses, with the dates the comments were received in brackets:

o 58 Ballachurry Avenue, Onchan (26th October 2015);
o 6 Eyremont Terrace, Crosby (23rd October 2015 and 5th November 2015);

o 'Oaken Lodge', Crosby (5th November 2015 and 5th September 2016);
o 9 Woodlea Villas, Crosby (6th November 2015 and 22nd August 2016);
o 'Close Jairg', Old Church Road (10th November 2015 and 22nd August 2016);
o 27 Woodlea Villas, Crosby (10th November 2015);
o 19 Woodlea Villas, Crosby (10th November 2015);
o 18 Woodlea Villas, Crosby (11th November 2015);
o 'The Mount', 24 Woodlea Villas, Crosby (12th November 2015);
o 'Haviland', 10 Woodlea Villas, Crosby (13th November 2015 and 16th September 2016);
o 1 Eyreton Cottages, Eyreton Road, Crosby (13th November 2015);
o 18 Stanley Road, Peel (3rd May 2016);
o 'Ballayemmy', 7 Kermode Road, Eyreton Lea, Crosby (19th November 2016);
o 'Clifton', 17 Woodlea Villas, Crosby (19th September 2016), and
o 4 King Orry Place, Glen Vine (15th September 2016).

5.12 The Member for Middle, now-Chief Minister, objected to the application in comments received 5th November 2015 and 21st August 2016. These comments can be summarised as the following: (1) the application is premature in that the land is not zoned for development; (2) even if the land in question was zoned, it should never be developed as it would feed into traffic onto a very sensitive part of Crosby - Old Church Road; (3) this road is home to the Marown Memorial Playing Fields along with a BMX track, a pre-school nursery, numerous pensioner activities and Marown Parish events, a children's play area, Crosby Chapel and Sunday School, and Ellerslie Depot, all of which use this road where traffic is often reduced to a single lane during busy times such that it is extremely dangerous to farm and HGV traffic, and (4) the additional traffic from the 36 dwellings would be a significant danger on an already dangerous road and would further affect the safety of the people of Marown. - 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 There are three fundamental issues up for consideration: firstly, the principle of residential development on the site; secondly, the acceptability or otherwise of the highway access and, thirdly, the acceptability or otherwise of the siting of the proposed dwellings. The principle of residential development on the site: the zoning of the site - 6.2 While Crosby is identified within the Strategic Plan as a village capable of accommodating appropriate levels of new development, this general principle needs to be balanced against the fact that the land in question is not only not zoned for any form of development, but it is also countryside judged to be of high landscape value. Further, it is also prominent from the recently renovated Heritage Trail. - 6.3 Environment Policy 1 is clear that the countryside is to be protected for its own sake.

Environment Policy 2 is clear that planning applications should only be approved where they are submitted on land not zoned for development where it can be demonstrated (a) there will be no impact on the character or appearance of the area, and (b) that the siting for the proposal is essential. General Policy 3 is clear that planning applications will not be approved where they are submitted on land not zoned for development, though there are a number of exceptions to that principle. These three policies together form the basis for the protection of unzoned land from unwarranted development.

6.4 The proposal fails to comply with any of these policies. - 6.5 That being said, it does need to be considered as to whether or not there are any material considerations to balance against the very strict presumption against development in this location. The agent's Design Statement has been written with a view to making this case, and much is made of the generally sustainable location. Crosby does benefit from good communication links, and some limited services along with those in nearby Glen Vine (such as a primary school and public house). It view of this, and the planned-for growth that Crosby has experienced since the adoption

of the 1982 Plan, it is therefore understandable that the village has been identified in the Strategic Plan as capable of accepting further development on a scale appropriate to reflect local housing need.
6.6 The Strategic Plan contains no targets for housebuilding in Crosby, and the application has not been submitted with any specific assessment of a defined housing need for the village. In any case, these are matters for consideration for the Area Plan for the East, and the submission of this application is considered to be premature in advance of the consideration of strategic planning for the East of the Island, and in advance of any evidence suggesting why there is a need for such a development as this in this location and at this time.
6.7 The agent indicates that the housing need defined for the East in the Strategic Plan (adopted

2007) of 2,440 dwellings for the Plan period is derived from a "Draft - Isle of Man Strategic Plan

2015 Paper 3: Future Housing document". This is evidently a misunderstanding, since Paper 3 was issued some 8 years after the adoption of the Strategic Plan 2007. While it has been used to inform the new housing numbers for the Strategic Plan 2016, and the figure of 2,440 does appear as the requirement for the East under Housing Policy 3 in the most recently adopted Plan, there is nothing in that Plan that indicates that land not zoned for development needs to be 'released' for new dwellings. There is no mechanism within the Strategic Plan for measuring over-supply or shortfall in delivery of new housing, and the simple existence of a target for new dwelling completions cannot in itself represent a reason to relax General Policy 3 or Environment Policies 1 or 2.

6.8 That said, it is worth reflecting briefly on this point even if the argument made by the agent is somewhat backwards. The Strategic Plan was under review at the time the application was submitted, and Paper 3 did identify the numbers outlined in the Design Statement. Moreover, this number has informed the updated version of Housing Policy 3. While it is important to reiterate that the numbers in Housing Paper 3 cannot - as a matter of fact - have had any input into the formulation of the Strategic Plan 2007, the findings of Housing Paper 3 are important to consider as they reflect important Policy considerations in the 2016 review of the Strategic Plan. - 6.9 The answer to the question of whether or not there is a need to release additional land for housing development could be said to rely in some part on the availability of land for that use in the East (in particular). Housing Paper 3 is clear that the estimated number of dwellings granted planning approval between 2001 and 2016 is 2,700 - or 200 higher than required to be constructed in the Strategic Plan 2007. With this in mind, and also being very clear that Housing Paper 3 is an evidence base document and not even a draft policy with regards zoning, it is considered that any argument that there is a need to release unzoned land for housing development prior to the adoption of the Area Plan for the East would be, at least for the moment, premature and not based on evidence. - 6.10 The agent also makes the argument that Crosby is a sustainable village. The Strategic Plan

2016 characterises Crosby as one of "a number of smaller settlements with little or no service provision which rely on the other centres for various services". In spite of the approved shop on another site elsewhere in the village, this phrasing remains true and accurate and does not suggest that the land the subject of the current application should be considered a sustainable option for its release from a countryside zoning to residential use.

6.11 In addition to this, the Design Statement suggests that the land is "unused / under-used" and so its development for housing would comply with Strategic Policy 1. This phrasing is considered to be applicable only to areas where land is already in a use that is not maximising the land's potential, and reflects a general principle that a better use of land may come about through intensification of its use (e.g. higher density housing than is currently the case or than was originally intended when the land was first zoned for new development) and, consequently, to reduce pressure on land not zoned for such development - such as the application site. It is not wording designed to overcome the general protection given to undeveloped land and it would be wholly inappropriate to consider it as such. Any reading of the policy wording in this way could very well

render all undeveloped land as a target for housing development and this would undermine the general sustainable development principles that the Strategic Plan was adopted by Tynwald to ensure.
6.12 The Design Statement indicates that the 'green gap' between Crosby and Glen Vine would be maintained by the development proposed. This is a planning policy phrase / policy wording not currently attached to any land on the 1982 Development Plan, and so it is not understood what is meant by this point.
6.13 The agent's claim that the proposed dwellings would "enhance" the "character and quality of the landscape" is, it must be concluded, highly confused. The character of the land is clearly defined by its undeveloped nature. While it is not denied that the built environment can be attractive, it is not at all clear from the submitted details how erecting 36 buildings on this area of wetland designated as being of high landscape value would "enhance" its character. This is especially so since no drawings of the dwellings proposed have been provided. Indeed, such a change as proposed would irremediably remove that character.
6.14 In view of the above, it is difficult to conclude that the arguments on behalf of the application represent a positive balance to the adopted policies that are design to protect the countryside for its own sake, especially given its high value character and appearance.
6.15 It is therefore concluded that the principle of residential development here would represent unwarranted development in the countryside contrary to Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3, Environment Policy 1 and Environment Policy 2.
6.16 For similar reasons, and without any emerging Area Plan to give an alternative view, the argument that the proposed development would undermine the character of the village by being out of scale with it is understood and accepted. There has recently been an approval granted for a similar number of dwellings on the west of Old Church Road and, while this was on land largely (if not wholly) zoned for such a use, it remains a proportionally large development in a village the size of Crosby. Without evidence or emerging policies to indicate that such a change would be appropriate, it is considered that the application is also contrary to Spatial Policy 4.
6.17 There are other matters of 'principle' to be addressed. These are discussed in turn below. The principle of residential development on the site: impact on biodiversity
6.18 A number of concerns have been raised with respect to the impact the proposal would have on various species of flora and fauna, with the Manx Wildlife Trust raising concern about the land's potential value as a Ramsar site. The Senior Biodiversity Officer seems clear that there is some justification in at least some of these concerns, and has sought a general wildlife survey in order to come to a view on the matter. As noted earlier in this report, that such a survey remains outstanding a year after the request was made suggests that one is unlikely to be forthcoming. In respect of the wider biodiversity concerns, it is noted that the proposal may impact on bats, which are a protected species under the Wildlife Act.
6.19 The impact on the riverine species has been considered by the Fisheries Directorate. They are content that the proposal is acceptable in principle, but require further details to ensure that the appropriate protection measures are put in place should the development go ahead. This seems an acceptable way forward, even if ideally the impact would be addressed fully now, and it cannot be confirmed that there are ways to mitigate against any harm that might arise. It is a difficult balance.
6.20 There is a lack of information regarding what species use, or could use, the site as a habitat, along with a lack of information regarding the quality or otherwise of the habitats and / or plant life on the site itself. It is concluded that the concern raised by both the Senior Biodiversity Officer as

well as the Manx Wildlife Trust cannot be addressed by way of condition and it is therefore concluded that the application must be judged as contrary to Environment Policy 4 in that it fails to provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the proposed development would not adversely impact species or habitats or international, national or local importance.

The principle of residential development on the site: flooding and sewerage

6.21 Concerns have also been raised in respect of the potential for the site to flood and also how the sewerage required would be addressed. These seem reasonable concerns, although the impact of that flooding would largely be felt by the dwellings of the estate itself rather than the topographically higher parts of the village. That being said, Manx Utilities, which is the government body responsible for both these issues, is content that the site can be drained adequately and has raised no concern over the (possibly only temporary) biodisc solution proposed. - 6.22 Even though the land can be drained, it presumably requires a very creative and potentially expensive solution. The cost is not a material consideration: it is sufficient to conclude that the site can be drained, with a view to this being addressed at the reserved matters stage should the current application be approved. It is understood that this represents a concern for local people, but equally there appears to be reason enough to conclude that this does not represent a reason to refuse the application at this stage. Should it prove too expensive or impractical to drain the site when further work on this is done at the reserved matters stage be reached, then this is for the developer to resolve in conjunction with Manx Utilities. The principle of residential development on the site: impact on surrounding highway network - 6.23 Highway Services do not object to the application. Although the comments of local people are noted, the transport assessment seems to be based on robust evidence and there is insufficient reason to query the data veracity or the findings / conclusions drawn from them. - 6.24 The concern raised in representations in respect of adding additional vehicles to Old Church Road, and in particular its junction with Peel Road, is of course noted. The transport assessment includes accident data from that junction and on Old Church Road itself, provided by the Isle of Man Constabulary, and this shows only six accidents in this immediate area over a five year period. Five of those accidents resulted in 'damage only', while the sixth resulted in 'slight injury'. Clearly, any accident is to be avoided where possible, and it must be remembered that Highway Services' role is in the protection of the health and safety of the public. With such a large-scale scheme as this it is reasonable to conclude that they have given due consideration to the safety impact arising from the proposed development. - 6.25 It is therefore concluded that the wider impacts on the highway network in the area arising from the development proposed are acceptable. The principle of residential development on the site: other matters - 6.26 Correspondence has been received in respect of the proposed 'emergency access' from the site onto the Heritage Trail, and that this could reduce the quality and character of the Heritage Trail but would also present a community safety concern. While there is reference to such an emergency access on one of the concept plans in the Design Statement, it does not appear to feature on the drawings submitted for formal consideration. In view of the concern raised from the Architectural Liaison Officer, as well as from local people and the Commissioners, it would be appropriate to include a condition preventing any vehicular access onto the Heritage Trail just for the sake of clarity. Conditions with respect to the height of fencing and hedging would also be appropriate, as would a requirement of any landscaping plan to include 'spiky' vegetation for boundaries onto the Heritage Trail.

6.27 Comments regarding the site's proximity to the Heritage Trail adversely affecting its quality / attractiveness as a tourist attraction are not fully understood. Much of the Trail has some form of built development visible from it, and part of its attractiveness is the ability for people to access it at various points along its route. The site itself is fairly well-screened from the Trail and so views of new housing here would be screened somewhat by the trees bounding the Trail. The housing estate proposed here would not represent a level of development sufficient to conclude the proposal would compromise the attractiveness of the Trail to a degree sufficient to warrant its refusal in the context of Transport Policy 3. Indeed, the concern that the additional dwellings would bring with them additional use of the Trail and thereby compromise its attractiveness as a tourist attraction seems somewhat self-defeating. The principle of residential development on the site: conclusions - 6.28 The matters of highway network impact, flooding and sewerage treatment have been found to be acceptable. These positive conclusions are entirely insufficient against which to balance the harm that would arise from the development of land not zoned for development - and moreover zoned as being of high landscape value - in terms of the sustainable principles set out in the Strategic Plan but also in terms of the impact on the character of Crosby. It has also been concluded that the lack of information regarding the impact on the site's biodiversity is a sufficient ground on which to refuse the application. - 6.29 Although it may seem counter-intuitive to assess the matters for which full planning approval is now also sought (the access and site layout), these still form a part of the application and accordingly consideration must be given to determine if they are acceptable or not. This consideration is set out below. The detailed matters: the access - 6.30 A detailed Transport Statement has been submitted with the application. Although a small sketch drawing indicates that visibility splays of 2.4m by 60m in both directions can be achieved, this was considered insufficient on which to reach a decision and the agent was advised that a formal drawing demonstrating the visibility splay that can be achieved on the site would need to be submitted; this was received and the application duly re-advertised. - 6.31 It is noted that the visibility that can be achieved from the proposed access onto Old Church Road is judged by Highway Services as acceptable. As it is sited at something of a corner, with views up the highway in both directions from here, this seems a reasonable conclusion. - 6.32 It is therefore concluded that the access proposed and the wider impacts on the highway network in the area are both acceptable. The condition recommended by Highway Services is reasonable and, should the application be approved, should be attached. The detailed matters: the siting - 6.33 It is noted that the siting of the dwellings as shown is quite low density at just over 15 dwellings per hectare. The dwellings would all have large gardens and the retention of all of the existing landscape features (even if the likelihood of this happening as a whole seems remote) will help to retain a green setting to the site. The dwellings are proposed to be sited a satisfactory distance from one another, while the required parking could clearly be achieved on the plots. The layout appears to have been almost 'overlaid' onto the existing criss-crossing hedges and banks, which does not necessarily reflect the field patterns provided by those features but equally does not seem to result in their loss. - 6.34 Against this context is the requirement of Strategic Policy 1, which requires that efficient use be made of land. The policy does not define what is meant by "efficient", but it is reasonable to conclude that the policy is guiding higher density housing development than might have been the

case in previous years. This presents further justification of the view that the proper consideration of the acceptability of this parcel of land should be considered through the Area Plan process: if housing was judged to be appropriate here, consultation with the local community would likely help determine what the appropriate kind of housing, and at what density, was needed for this site. In the absence of any such information, there is no way to determine - irrespective of the wider impact on the site's flora and fauna - whether or not the siting proposed makes "efficient" use of land. Accordingly, the application is judged to be contrary to part (b) of Strategic Policy 1.
6.35 It is appropriate to consider the landscaping as well as the level of open space to be provided at this stage as these elements form an indivisible part of the siting and overall layout. In the first place, many of the trees on the site are large, handsome specimens of varying specie and the agent's indication that all existing landscape features will be retained is laudable. This is particularly true of the prominent line of beeches (plus a pair of limes and one sycamore), which provide a very valuable and dominating landscape feature in an area characterised by its natural and treed setting. Any loss of the aesthetic quality provided by this feature is to be strongly resisted.
6.36 The complete retention of this line of trees is unrealistic; the retention of all the other trees perhaps less so but even then the significant concern raised by the Arboricultural Officer in respect of future pressure to remove those trees must carry significant weight in assessing this application. An estate road is proposed in the canopy spread of trees that appear to be growing from a Manx bank, while an existing drainage ditch is also shown as being crossed by a road. Evidently an estate road would require part of the bank to be removed and part of the ditch filled in, while the impact on some of the tree roots would also likely be so severe as to require their removal or result in their death through improper on-site care during development work. In the absence of the requested Tree Protection Plan there is no way to be certain about the level of removal that would be necessary, but in view of the valuable contribution these trees make to the character of the area and the objection of the Arboricultural Officer it has to be concluded that the application should be refused on grounds of its impact on the trees across the site.
6.37 The retention of the trees as proposed simply cannot be relied upon on the basis of the information submitted with the application. It is practicably unlikely that all would even survive the building out of the site, let alone withstand future pressure for their removal, especially due to overshadowing or the perception of risk. As such, it is concluded that the application fails to comply with Environment Policy 3, which states (in part) that "development will not be permitted where it would result in the unacceptable loss of or damage to woodland areas".
6.38 The open space proposed (2,273sqm) is deficient when measured against the Strategic Plan requirement (3,456sqm). The Design Statement notes the nearby formal open space and concludes that "the site is therefore well provided with open space and together with the existing space in close proximity provides the landscaped amenity areas…to meet the requirement of this policy".
6.39 While there is some logic to this argument, if the agent is to rely upon the nearby formal public open space in order that this application site meets its overall requirement, then there is clearly an expectation that people living in the dwellings here proposed will use that public open space. This is not an unreasonable assumption, but it remains unfortunate that no manner of otherwise addressing the shortfall has been suggested. Recreation Policy 4 is clear that "Open Space must be provided on site or conveniently close to the development which it is intended to serve". The key word in this policy is "provided": there is no mechanism within the application that indicates approval to the application will result in the provision of sufficient formal or informal public open space. Accordingly, this is considered to be sufficient reason to recommend that the application be refused.
6.40 It is reasonable to consider whether or not a commuted sum via a legal requirement under Section 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 would be appropriate to seek in respect of the additional use of the nearby formal open space, or with respect to the lower-than-required

amount of public open space to be provided. Should the Planning Committee be minded to approve the application, a discussion with the Local Authority to this end would need to be begun.
6.41 In the event that the Committee is minded to approve the application, a condition requiring the trees shown on the Proposed Estate Layout plan be retained unless otherwise agreed in advance with the Department - in view of the fact that the complete retention of all of them is impractical - would be appropriate.

- 7.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

7.1 The principle of the proposal has been found to be unacceptable. The Manx countryside is protected for its own sake, and the application has not been submitted with a sufficiently strong argument that the setting aside of the policies trying to achieve that is appropriate in this instance. This conclusion is not considered to be balanced. The proposal is in direct conflict with General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2, and is recommended for refusal on that ground accordingly. The proposal has also been judged unacceptable on grounds of its impact on the character of Crosby contrary to Spatial Policy 4. - 7.2 In addition, the layout of the dwellings as proposed fails to pay sufficient regard to the site characteristics. The likely loss of trees, and pressure to remove others should the proposed dwellings be built, is unacceptable and contrary to Environment Policy 3. Similarly, the impact of the development on the site's biodiversity has not been demonstrated to be acceptable and accordingly the application has been found contrary to Environment Policy 4. - 7.3 Moreover, the insufficiency of public open space (as required by Recreation Policy 4) and absence of information with regards the most efficient use of the site (as required by part (b) of Strategic Policy 1) both also represent reasons to refuse the application. - 7.4 In view of the above, the application carries a recommendation to refuse.

8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS 8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

o The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
o The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
o Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material, which in this case includes Manx Utilities and the Housing Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
o The Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure; and
o The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2.1 In addition to those above, article 6(3) of the Order requires the Department to decide which persons (if any) who have made representations with respect to the application, should be treated as having sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application.
8.2.2 In this instance, it is concluded that the following persons do have sufficient interest and it is recommended that they should be awarded the status of an Interested Person:

o The owner / occupier of 9 Woodlea Villas, Crosby;
o The owner / occupier of 'Close Jairg', Old Church Road;
o The owner / occupier of 27 Woodlea Villas, Crosby;
o The owner / occupier of 19 Woodlea Villas, Crosby;
o The owner / occupier of 18 Woodlea Villas, Crosby;
o The owner / occupier of 'The Mount', 24 Woodlea Villas, Crosby;

o The owner / occupier of 'Haviland', 10 Woodlea Villas, Crosby;
o The owner / occupier of 'Clifton', 17 Woodlea Villas, Crosby;
o The Architectural Liaison Officer within the Isle of Man Constabulary

8.2.3 In this instance, it is concluded that the following persons do not have sufficient interest and it is recommended that they should not be awarded the status of an Interested Person:

o The owner / occupier of 58 Ballachurry Avenue, Onchan, who lives too far from the application site to be materially affected by its development;
o The owner / occupier of 6 Eyremont Terrace, Crosby, who lives too far from the application site to be materially affected by its development;
o The owner / occupier of 'Oaken Lodge', Crosby, who lives too far from the application site to be materially affected by its development;
o The owner / occupier of 1 Eyreton Cottages, Eyreton Road, Crosby, who lives too far from the application site to be materially affected by its development;
o The owner / occupier of 'Ballayemmy', 7 Kermode Road, Eyreton Lea, Crosby, who lives too far from the application site to be materially affected by its development;
o The owner / occupier of 4 King Orry Place, Glen Vine, who lives too far from the application site to be materially affected by its development;
o 18 Stanley Road, Peel, who lives too far from the application site to be materially affected by its development;
o The Fisheries Directorate, which sits within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate;
o The Arboricultural Officer, who also sits within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate;
o The Senior Biodiversity Officer, who also sits within the same Department as the Planning & Building Control Directorate;
o The Manx Wildlife Trust;
o Marown Memorial Playing Fields Ltd., and
o The Member for Middle, now Chief Minister.

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 14.11.2016

R 1. The proposal represents unwarranted development on land not zoned for any purpose. As such, the proposal is in direct conflict with Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, which collectively protect the Manx countryside from inappropriate development.
R 2. The development proposed is of a scale inappropriate to maintain the existing settlement character of Crosby. Without any emerging policies or evidence to indicate that such a development fits with a strategic need or vision for the village, it is concluded to be contrary to Spatial Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 3. The proposed site layout, including the road layouts, would result in the loss of, and future pressure to remove, important and attractive trees that provide a highly valued landscape feature for the site and wider area in which it sits and, as such, the proposal fails to comply with

Environment Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

R 4. The application fails to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed development would not adversely impact species or habitats or international, national or local

importance. It is accordingly concluded that the application is contrary to Environment Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 5. The site layout as proposed would provide insufficient public open space, contrary to Recreation Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 6. The application provides no evidence as to why a site layout of this density should be concluded as being acceptable in this location and at this time. Accordingly, the application is contrary to part (b) of Strategic 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

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:…28.11.2016 Signed : Mr E Riley Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report was required 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.

Planning Committee Decision 28.11.2016

Application No. : 15/01156/A Applicant : Estate of Amy Kissack Deceased Per James Cowell Proposal : Approval in principle for the residential development of thirty six

dwellings addressing siting and means of access Site Address : Part of grounds associated with Close Jairg Beg And Field's 324318, 320912 & 324316 Old Church Road Crosby Isle of Man Presenting Officer : Mr Edmond Riley Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee agreed that the owner / occupier of 'Ballayemmy', 7 Kermode Road, Eyreton Lea, Crosby, who in order to join the Main Road in Crosby would have to do so via the same crossroads as would the owners / occupiers of the dwellings proposed, should also be granted Interested Person Status.

The Committee also pointed out two typographical errors in the recommended Reasons for Refusal (nos. 4 and 6), and it was agreed that these be corrected.

Reason for Refusal

R 1. The proposal represents unwarranted development on land not zoned for any purpose. As such, the proposal is in direct conflict with Spatial Policy 5, General Policy 3 and Environment Policies 1 and 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, which collectively protect the Manx countryside from inappropriate development.
R 2. The development proposed is of a scale inappropriate to maintain the existing settlement character of Crosby. Without any emerging policies or evidence to indicate that such a development fits with a strategic need or vision for the village, it is concluded to be contrary to Spatial Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 3. The proposed site layout, including the road layouts, would result in the loss of, and future pressure to remove, important and attractive trees that provide a highly valued landscape feature for the site and wider area in which it sits and, as such, the proposal fails to comply with Environment Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 4. The application fails to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the proposed development would not adversely impact species or habitats of international, national or local importance. It is accordingly concluded that the application is contrary to Environment Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 5. The site layout as proposed would provide insufficient public open space, contrary to Recreation Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
R 6. The application provides no evidence as to why a site layout of this density should be concluded as being acceptable in this location and at this time. Accordingly, the application is contrary to part (b) of Strategic Policy 1 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.

Officer Report

Source & Provenance