Officer Report

Application No.: 15/00752/B Applicant: Dandara Homes Limited Proposal: Erection of eight dwellings with public open space Site Address: Land Between Reayrt Ny Glionney Development And Existing Dwellings On Croit E Quill Road Laxey Isle of Man IM4 7LG Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 03.02.2016 Site Visit: 03.02.2016 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE GIVEN THE LEVEL OF OBJECTIONS REQUIRED AND AS A SECTION 13 LEGAL AGREEMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED SHOULD THE APPLICATION BE APPROVED

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the land between Reayrt Ny Glionney Development and the existing dwellings on the Croit E Quill Road within Laxey. The parcel of land has an approximately area of

3.2 acres (1.3 ha) and is located to the north and east of the Reayrt Ny Glionney estate road and west of the Croit E Quill Road. The majority of the site which is located to the eastern side of the Reayrt Ny Glionney estate road which is sloping in nature due to the topography of the area (i.e. on a hillside), and therefore the ground slopes downwards from the estates road to the rear of the neighbouring properties to the east which run along the Croit E Quill Road. The site also slopes downwards to the northern part of the site. The site is made up of scrub vegetation (grasses/ferns etc).

1.2 The site shares the existing access road which serves the Reayrt Ny Glionney development and which runs along the majority of the western side of the estate road and concludes with a turning head adjacent to the northern part of the application site. There can also be found a lane/path which already (albeit fenced off when visiting the site) exits and access onto the Croit E Quill Road.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 Approval is sought for the erection of eight dwellings (Plots 27 to 34) with public open space. The proposed dwellings on plots 27 to 28 are located at the end of the turning head and are two storey in height, detached, having a similar appearance, finish (brick/painted render with brown or black concrete roof tiles) and design of the existing neighbouring dwellings which run along the western side of the Reayrt Ny Glionney estate road. Plot 29 is also located at the end of the turning head; however, due to the topography of the land, the property is single storey when viewed from the estate road, but two storeys to the rear. The design, finish and appearance also differs from that of Plots 27 and 28 and the existing properties along the Reayrt Ny Glionney estate road. The dwelling is proposed to be finished in a mixture of white painted render with a stone clad system and a black tile. From the front elevation the dwelling appears as a single storey dwelling, whilst the rear is two storey, but with a more contemporary approach with larger amounts of glazing and a single first floor balcony. The size, design and finish of this plot (Plot 29) is also continued with the remaining five proposed dwellings (Plots 30 to 34) which run along the eastern side of the estate road. It should be noted that whilst the size, height and design remains the same for Plots 29 to

• 34, the elevational finishes do differ with each dwelling having differing section of painted white render and stone cladding, which in turn does give each dwelling a different appearance.
• 2.2 It should also be noted that there are two options (A & B) in terms of the housing design for plots 29 to 34. The two options are identical, with the exception of the rear upper floor lounge window which is either square in shape or again square in shape but with a continuous triangular section of glazing above.
• 2.3 All dwelling would include integral off street parking spaces in the form of double garages,

• as well as separate driveways which provide further parking spaces and turning provisions.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The site has been the subject of a number of planning applications; and the following are considered of material relevance to the determination of the current application: - 3.2 Erection of 25 no. dwellings (amended house types from those approved under PA 07/02153/B) - 10/00354/B - APPROVED - 3.3 Residential development comprising 29 dwellings and associated roads plots and sewers 07/02153/B - APPROVED. - 3.4 Residential development comprising 49 dwellings, Commissioners Office and associated roads and sewers - 06/01068/B - REFUSED at Appeal - 3.5 An application to the south of the existing application was also made which is considered relevant in the determination of this current application: - 3.6 Residential development comprising 43 dwellings, roads, plots and sewers - 00/01342/B - As this previous planning application was made by DLGE it was the subject of a public inquiry and consideration by the Governor in Council. The Governor in Council accepted the recommendation of the appointed Planning Inspector and approved the planning application on the 30th July 2001.

- 4.0 PLANNING POLICY

4.1 In terms of local plan policy, the application site is designated as 'Proposed Predominately Residential' use and identified as 'Area 17' all under the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005. The site is not within a Conservation Area. - 4.2 In terms of strategic plan policy, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 which was adopted by Tynwald in 2007 and forms Government Policy contains a number of policies considered specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application: - 4.3 Strategic Policy 1 states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:

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

4.4 Strategic Policy 2 states: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3." - 4.5 Spatial Policy 3 states: "The following villages are identified as Service Villages:

• o Laxey

• o Jurby
• o Andreas
• o Kirk Michael
• o St Johns
• o Foxdale
• o Port St Mary
• o Ballasalla
• o Union Mills 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."

4.6 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:

• (a) is in accordance with the design brief in the Area Plan where there is such a brief;
• (b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the spaces around them;
• (c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
• (d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;
• (e) does not affect adversely public views of the sea;
• (f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
• (g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
• (h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
• (i) does not have an unacceptable effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
• (j) can be provided with all necessary services;
• (k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
• (l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;
• (m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
• (n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

4.7 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: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances: (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10;

• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11; and (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14."

4.8 Housing Policy 5 states: "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." - 4.9 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."

4.10 The relevant local plan document for the application site is the Laxey and Lonan Area Plan Order 2005. This document was approved by Tynwald on the 20th October 2005 and came into effect on the 1st November 2005. Under map no. 2 of the document the application site is zoned as proposed predominantly residential use and is specifically referred to as area 17 and he following policy was included which states: - 4.11 L/RES/PR/12 - Land adjacent to Ballacannel - Area 17 states: "Residential development may be permitted on this site where this complies with the following development brief:

• 1. development must include a mixture of house types and densities with the density of development decreasing and space between dwellings increasing as one proceeds towards the north eastern end of the site to result in a density and style of housing adjacent to "Langdale" similar to these existing dwellings to the north of the development site. Development may include high density, starter homes. The houses to be built on the site must be designed so as to have variety and interest with a range of designs, materials and finishes and should avoid the use of light coloured dash, brick or render so as to minimise the impact of the development as viewed from further afield.
• 2. the detailed submission must include a landscaping scheme which makes provision for the breaking up of the buildings and the softening of the edge of the development on its western side. This must be complemented by a layout which does not present a regimented line of buildings along the western boundary.
• 3. detailed proposals must include full details of the connection of the new development to the main sewer.
• 4. the layout must include useful parcels of properly located open space which may be used for children's play.
• 5. at least 20m must be maintained between the fronts and/or rears of new dwellings proposed within this site and the rear of existing property where these are directly alongside each other taking into account future proposals for conservatories and garages. The layout and landscaping proposals must take account of the proximity of existing properties and as most of these will be lower than the proposed dwellings, car must be taken to avoid overlooking or diminution of the privacy or amenities of the existing adjacent dwellings.
• 6. no vehicular access may be provided to service the site directly onto Croit-e-Quill Road due to the narrow nature of this highway and the proximity of existing properties to both the road and the laneways leading to the development site."

- 5.0 REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Highway Services do not oppose (received on 26.01.2016). - 5.2 Lonan Parish Commissioners recommend the planning application be approved (received on 15.07.2015). - 5.3 Manx Utilities Authority - Electricity make no comments to the merits of the application but ask for an informative note relating to underground cables/overhead lines present in the area be attached to any approval (received on 20.07.2015). - 5.4 Manx Utilities Authority - DRAINAGE have asked for details of how the discharge from surface water to a soak away would be undertaken (received on 07.01.2015). Further information provided by the applicant to the Manx Utilities has been provided and they no longer have a concern with the proposal (received on 25.02.2015). - 5.5 The owner/occupier of Blue Horizon, Croit-e-Quill Road, Lonan (received on 28th July 2015) has objected to the application which can be summarised as; concerns of additional traffic generated onto the middle to lower end of Croit-e-Quill Road as the road at this point is one way, single car lane with no footpath and sparse lighting; and concerns about the junction of Church

Road onto Croit-e-Quill Road, again the amount of cars parked there is can be tricky and Church Road is in its self in parts reduced to a single lane due to parked cars and can only be made worse by adding more properties to the area.

5.5 The owner/occupier of Marine Mount, Croit-e-Quill Road, Lonan (received on 30th July 2015 has objected to the application which can be summarised as; structural integrity of the back bank of Marine Mount due to the works proposed on plot 34 and as a Manx stone wall 43 metres in height could be damaged; loss of privacy through overlooking; and increased stress on local infrastructure. - 5.6 The owners/occupiers of Fairdale, Croit-e-Quill Road, Laxey (received on 30th July 2015) have objected to the application which can be summarised as; plots 31 and 32 are located to the rear of our property, and given the land levels concern of overlooking from the proposed dwellings and loss of light; concerns of how 1.2 metre high boundary fence would be consistently installed, and suggests a continuous stone wall be more appropriate and in keeping; concerns of proposed footpath providing direct access on to Croit-e-Quill Road as the entrance is concealed onto the road raising highway safety concerns; development will result in noise, dust and general inconvenience and the development should be completed within a minimum time possible. - 5.7 The owners/occupiers of Tara, Croit E Quill Road, Laxey (received on 27th & 29th July and 13th August 2015) have objected to the application which can be summarised as; already been affected by the noise of earth moving equipment , dust, water pours down towards us during heavy rains; refers to previous Inspector report who raised concerns of living condition of present and future occupants of the dwellings, the density of dwellings was reduces but even so, the traffic use

at saturation point and, of course , the sewerage outlet problem has never been resolved; concerns of footpath exiting onto Croit E Quill Road is unsafe; plots 30 to 34 would have an adverse impact on the existing dwellings on Croit E Quill Road due to the proximity and domination created but the different levels, this particular applies to 'Tara' where the nearest windows of the proposed house on plot 30 are only about 25 metres from the bedroom windows in 'Tara and direct overlooking would occur; concerns of loss of light during late afternoon and evening due to level difference and height of new houses; rear boundary wall should be constructed of a dry stone wall; loss of wildlife which is within the site; proposal contrary to Strategic Policy 5 as it would have an adverse effect on the locality in terms of the high density of the housing for a rural area; reliance on the already overstretched existing essential services; contrary to General Policy 2; construction of further roadways/drives and the foundations would impede the drainage of water down the hill within the land; fails to comply with Transport Policy 4; highway safety concerns due to additional traffic generated by the development due to parked vehicles along Church Road; Croit E Quill Road is uses as a 'rat run' for rush hour traffic form Douglas, hoping to gain time by avoiding the mains roads north, this road was intended purely for access to properties along this road; the essentially rural character of the locality has already been adversely affected by the additional houses which have been built over the last fifteen years to twenty years any further in-fill of building would turn the area into an urban sprawl.;

5.8 The owner/occupier of 2 Sunhill Cottages, Croit E Quill Road, Laxey (received on 29th July

2015) has objected to the application which can be summarised as; plot 29 is behind my property and higher up the hillside it will dwarf our house and garden, taking our privacy, light and evening sun; over the last 10 years or more have already been affected by various building works suffering flooding, noise and general local of concern by anybody in the building process; at no time before any of the building commenced did we suffer from flooding as the field behind our garden has a gentle slope; huge mound of earth was left behind by the builders several years ago which has significantly impact on the run-off of rain water; Croit E Quill Road has now become a busy and dangerous road due to speed of traffic; and permission in the past was refused for three dwellings to the field to the rear of our property on the grounds that no skyline development would be allowed to spoil the beauty of the Island, there is now very little of this hillside which has now been left underdeveloped.

5.9 The owner/occupier 1 Sunhill Cottages, Croit E Quill Road, Laxey (received on 31st July

2015) has objected to the application which can be summarised as; my home has been repeatedly flooded from water flowing down form the building site, never having any flooding issue before (lived in property since 1985) the building works commenced; concerns of volume of traffic along the Croit E Quill Road as it has increased dramatically with each stage of the building and I feel this, together with the speed, is an accident waiting to happen, and concerns of loss of light of the evening sun by proposed development.

5.10 The owner/occupier 3 Reayrt Ny Glionney Chase, Laxey (received on 29th July 2015) has objected to the application which can be summarised as; original approval allowed three dwellings together with some open space, it was on this basis we agreed to purchase our property; concerns of traffic flow in area; highway safety concerns; seeks full height specification for the new dwellings prior to a decision on this planning application; and has concerns of the density of the application. - 5.11 The Member for Garff Mr S Rodan writes to support constituents in their objection to this proposal (received on 22nd September 2015), especially concerning the impact of the development (plots 30 to 34) upon the properties along the Croit E Quill Road due to the proposed height levels and proximity to 'Tara' and concludes that the proposal would have a highly intrusive and overbearing impact on the privacy and outlook of the occupants of Tara and other properties. - 5.12 The owner/occupier 3 Reayrt Ny Glionney Drive, Laxey (received on 29th July 2015) has objected to the application which can be summarised as; when I purchased my property it was approved a single property would be built adjacent my property, a key factor and also question Dandara if it was proposed to change the site layout which they relied 'no'; the proposal with a higher roof line than originally designed will impact on my vista from downstairs and the volume of natural light; and loss of value to property. - 5.13 The owner/occupier 1 Reayrt Ny Glionney Chase, Laxey (received on 20th July 2015) has objected to the application which can be summarised as; highways safety concerns due to the additional five properties; provision of an open space and fenced play area for children is unnecessary, two infrequently used open spaces already exist which are situated within half a mile of this development; and concerns of limited lack of detailed measurements in the elevation drawings particularly in regard to the finished building height.

- 6.0 ASSESSMENT

6.1 Given the land-use designation and the type of development the following elements are relevant to consideration in the determination of this application; (a) principle of development; (b) potential impact upon neighbouring amenities; (c) potential impact upon the visual amenities of the area; (d) potential impact upon highway safety; (e) affordable housing provision; and (f) potential drainage/flooding concerns. PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT - 6.2 As indicated within the 'Planning Policy' section of this report, the site is designated as 'Proposed Predominately Residential'; therefore it is considered that the principle of residential development is acceptable. It is also noted that permission was granted for three dwellings originally which utilised land proposed for plots 27 to 31. - 6.3 It should be highlighted that the original approval (PA 07/002153/B) did not include all the land which is currently forms the application site. The currently proposed Plots 30 to 34 which now form a 'rectangular' shape, where originally in two ownerships and this currently 'rectangle' plot was split into two 'triangular' shaped plots. The original section of the 'triangular' plot within the ownership of the development of All Saints Park had approval for a single dwelling and other 'triangular' shaped plot has never had any planning permissions for any development.

6.4 A matter which has previously been considered is the number of properties being allowed to be built on 'Area 17'. Within paragraph 4.68 of the Laxey and Lonan Local Plan it indicates that Area 17 will likely to yield around 70 dwellings. If this current application is approved this will result in a total of 77 units within Area 17, five more than what currently has approval. It is considered the number indicate "around 70 dwellings" is not a prescriptive figure, but a guide and the acceptability, or not, of the proposed eight dwellings currently under consideration, will be determined within this report in terms of material planning matters as indicated in paragraph 6.1, which will determine if the proposal is an appropriate level of development of the site/area. - 6.5 Further consideration is given to the Isle of Man Strategic Plan which includes Strategic Policy 1 which states that 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. Paragraph 1.4.4 of the Strategic Plan also indicates that; "In the case of any inconsistency between the provisions of the Strategic Plan and the provisions of an Area Plan, whichever came into force later will prevail." The Area Plan was adopted in 2005, whereas the Strategic Plan was adopted by Tynwald in 2007. Accordingly Strategic Plan prevails in relation to this matter.

6.4 Overall, it is considered the principle of developing the site for residential development is acceptable; however, further material planning matters as indicated previously need to be considered, to determine if the principle of an eight dwellings on the site is appropriate. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES - 6.5 Generally when considering potential impacts of a development upon neighbouring amenities the key considerations are loss of light, overbearing impacts upon outlooks and/or overlooking resulting in a loss of privacy. These are considered the main aspects for consideration with regard to this application. - 6.6 The properties most likely to be affected by the development are the properties located along the Croit E Quill Road, which are to the east of the proposed dwellings and due to the topography of the area (i.e. on a hillside) there ground levels are set below that of the application site. - 6.7 Considering the application plans and visiting the site/area/neighbouring properties, it is judged whilst there will be an impact of the development upon all of the neighbouring properties surrounding the site, the properties mostly likely to be affected are Nrs 1 & 2 Sunhill Cottages, 'Tara' and 'Fairdale'. Accordingly, if it is considered the development would not have a significant adverse impact upon the occupants of these dwellings, then it is also considered to not significant affect the remaining properties in the area. Therefore this report will concentrate on the properties listed in paragraph 6.7. - 6.8 In relation to Nrs 1 & 2 Sunhill Cottages, the proposed dwelling located on Plot 29 would result potentially in the greatest impact upon the occupants of these properties. The proposed dwelling would be part single, part two storeys in height, albeit when viewed from Nrs 1 & 2 the dwelling would appear as two storey dwelling. The rear elevation of Plot 29 would face directly towards Nr 1 Sunhill Cottages. - 6.9 Within the rear elevation of Plot 29 there are a total of seven windows, three at the upper floor and four at the lower ground floor (one of these within a door). The upper floor windows are likely to raise the potential for the greatest opportunity for overlooking serving a lounge and a kitchen/diner. An upper floor balcony is also proposed which would be accessed from the dining area and the lounge. The lounge window (as indicated in paragraph 2.2 of this report has two design options) would be the closest window to Nrs 1 & 2 as it is located within a projecting gable.

• It would be located approximately 29 metres from the rear elevation of Nr 1 and approximately 26 metres to the rear conservatory of Nr 2, albeit views towards Nr 2 are angled views and not direct. As a generally guide the Planning Department seeks for a 20 metre gap being retained between existing the proposed dwelling. This is also indicated with paragraph 5 of Policy L/RES/PR/12 of the Laxey and Lonan Plan.
• 6.10 Visiting the application site, it was noted a mature hedgerow approximately 1.5m in height and a number of taller semi-mature trees/bushes all existing along the rears of Nrs 1 & 2 Sunhill Cottages and the eastern boundary of Plot 29. Accordingly, when on site viewing from the approximate location of where the dwelling would be sited within Plot 29, the majority of the neighbouring dwellings (rear elevations) were well screened, the exception being only the roofs of these properties were particularly noticeable. It was noted in the rear of Nr 1 was a single, small window only. The rear elevation of Nr 2 had windows within the rear conservatory which faced towards the site, albeit the principle views from this conservatory is to the north, rather than west windows which looks directly at a gorse bush which is taller than the conservatory windows.
• 6.11 Consideration should also be taken of what currently has approval on this plot. Under application 07/002153/B approval was granted for a larger dwelling than what is currently proposed. This was also a split level property, although again viewed from Nrs 1 & 2 would have appeared as a full two storey dwelling. This property had a total of 21 windows within its rear elevation, in a similar orientation to the current proposal. The majority of the current proposed dwelling does not project closer to the neighbouring properties than the original approved dwelling; the exception to this is the projecting two store gable end which accommodates the upper floor lounge window which is 5 metres closer to the neighbouring properties. The previously approved dwelling had an approximate width of 27 metres and a height of 8.9 metres, compared to the dwelling on Plot 29 which has a width of 13.7 metres and a height of 8.2 metres (measurements taken from rear elevation).
• 6.12 From the submitted sectional drawing which shows the proposed dwelling (Plot 29) and Nr 1 Sunhill Cottages, it appears that there would be an approximately 4.8 metre ground level difference between the ground floor level of Plot 29 and the ground level to the rears of Nrs 1 & 2.
• 6.13 A useful guide to determine if either an extension and/or new building would impact upon neighbouring properties is to undertake the '25 degree rule' test. This is measured from a point 2 metres above ground level at the centre of a window and then a line is drawn the at a 25 degrees to the horizontal. If the proposed building cuts this line then it is likely to interfere with the diffuse skylight enjoyed by the existing building. Undertaking this guide for the two neighbouring properties (small rear window & conservatory window), neither of the lines drawn from their windows was cut by the proposed dwelling on Plot 29.
• 6.14 Overall, given the siting of the proposed dwelling and the ground level differences between the site and neighbouring properties, it is understandable why the occupants of Nr 1 & 2 have raised concerns relating to overlooking and loss if light. However, for the reasons indicated within paragraphs 6.8 to 6.13 of this report; it is concluded whilst there will be an impact upon the occupants of Nrs 1 & 2 Sunhill Cottage, it is not considered the proposal would have such significant impacts to warrant a refusal. Potential impacts upon neighbouring properties 'Tara' and 'Fairdale'
• 6.15 The potential greatest impacts relates to overlooking resulting in the loss of privacy and/or the perception of being overlooked by the proposed upper floor gable windows/balcony. There is also the issue of whether there is an overbearing impact upon the outlooks of the neighbouring properties.
• 6.16 Regarding the impact upon the residential amenities of the occupants of 'Tara' and 'Fairdale'. The proposed dwellings which would potentially affect these neighbouring amenities most would be

• Plots 30 to 32. The proposed dwellings on these plots would be the same as Plot 29, being part single, part two storeys in height, albeit when viewed from the neighbouring properties of 'Tara' and 'Fairdale', the dwellings would appear as two storey dwellings. The rear elevations of these proposed dwellings on these three plots would face directly towards the neighbouring properties.
• 6.17 It is noted when visiting the site and these neighbouring properties, the submitted drawings indicated that the boundary treatment of 'Tara' and the eastern boundary of Plot 30 & 31 consist of variety of landscaping, albeit the majority being an mature hedgerow approximately between 1.8 and 2.5 metres in height. The exception to this was a section where the boundary comprised of a Manx stone wall only approximately 1 metre in height.
• 6.18 From the submitted sectional drawings which show the proposed dwelling (Plot 30) and 'Tara', it appears that there would be an approximately 3.2 metre level difference between the ground floor level of the dwelling on Plot 30 and the ground floor level of the property 'Tara'. In relation to the proposed dwelling on Plot 31 and 'Fairdale', it appears that there would be an approximately 4.5 metre level difference between the ground floor level of the dwelling on Plot 31 and the ground floor level of the property 'Fairdale'.
• 6.19 Within the rear elevation of Plots 30, 31 & 32 there are a total of seven windows, three at the upper floor and four at the lower ground floor (one of these begin within a door). The upper floor windows are likely to raise the potential for the greatest opportunity for overlooking serving a lounge and a kitchen/diner. An upper floor balcony is also proposed which would be accessed from the dining area and the lounge. The lounge windows would be the closest window to 'Tara' & 'Fairdale' as it is located within the two storey projecting gables. Plot 30 would be the closest of the three proposed dwellings to the neighbouring properties, namely 'Tara' being approximately 25.5 metres away (23.5 metres to rear conservatory). Regarding the distance of the proposed dwellings on Plots 31 & 32 in relation to 'Fairdale', both would be approximately 29 metres from the rear of the neighbouring property.
• 6.20 Consideration should also be taken of what currently has approval on this plot. Under application 07/002153/B approval was granted for a larger dwelling than what is currently proposed and was identical to the dwelling mention in paragraph 6.11. This again was a split level property, although again viewed from 'Tara' and 'Fairdale' would have appeared as a full two storey dwelling. This property had a total of 21 windows within its rear elevation (11 at first floor), in a similar orientation to the current proposal, although it directly faced and was parallel to 'Tara'. This dwelling at its closest was 30 metres from the rear conservatory of 'Tara'. The approved dwelling also had an approximate width of 27 metres and a height of 8.9 metres, compared to the dwellings on Plots 30, 31 & 32 which would have a width of 13.7 metres and a height of 8.2 metres. Again whilst the majority of the footprint of the current proposed dwelling is sited on the previously approved footprint, the exception to this being the projecting two store gable end which accommodates the upper floor lounge window. This would be approximately 4.5 metres closer than the closest aspect of the previously approved dwelling.
• 6.21 Undertaking the '25 Degree Test' in relation to the two neighbouring properties (rear windows & conservatory windows of both properties), neither of the lines drawn from their windows was cut by the proposed dwellings on Plots 30 & 31.
• 6.22 The potential impacts by the dwellings proposed on Plots 30 & 31 upon the neighbouring properties of 'Tara' and 'Fairdale' is very finely balanced. Without doubt there will be an impact and the character and outlook previously (i.e. before any development of Reayrt Ny Glionney) and currently enjoyed by the occupants of these properties will change significantly. However, this would have been the case if the previously approved dwelling as outlined in paragraph 6.19 above was built. It should be noted works on this property could start at any time, as the previously approved application has been commenced. The fact the land has been designated for residential

• development through the local plan process also gave an acceptance that in doing so, the character of the area and impacts upon neighbouring amenities would all be affected.
• 6.23 In terms of these impacts upon the occupants of 'Tara', the dwelling on Plot 30 would likely cause the greatest impact. This dwelling would be 23.5 metres to rear conservatory. Visiting this property (inside & outside) it was noted that the rooms most likely to be affected would be two bedrooms and the rear conservatory. Also visiting the application site and viewing from the approximate location of the lounge window/balcony, as well being at the same height (existing ground level of Plot 30 is very similar to proposed floor level of the upper floor of proposed dwelling), it was noted there would be elevated direct views towards the two bedrooms albeit 25.5 metres away. From this position it was also noted, that given the existing boundary hedge of 'Tara' views of the conservatory windows where obscured and therefore no overlooking was achieved. Accordingly, it is not considered an unreasonable view, that if an appropriately planted hedgerow was planted and grew to a height of approximately 2/2.5 metres or a wall/fence erected of a similar and essentially formed a continuation of the existing hedgerow of 'Tara' then views towards the two bedrooms would be mainly screened. Such arrangement would provide screening for the remainder of the garden which fronts the bedroom window as well, ensuring the privacy of the rear garden area is preserved, whilst not resulting in an overbearing impact.
• 6.24 It was also noted when visiting 'Tara' that the principle living rooms, namely the lounge, would be unaffected by the development, as this property have their principle rooms and views to the front of their properties to obtain the sea views.
• 6.25 Overall, the relationships between the proposed dwellings on 'Plot 30' and to a lesser extend 'Plot 31' and 'Tara' is very finely balanced and arguable the whole application could hinge on this matter. Material planning weight is attached to the previous approval given this allowed a wider and taller dwelling with a total of 21 windows directly facing towards 'Tara' and the 11 windows at first floor which served a total of four bedrooms, a large landing area and the garage. It could be argued that these are not primary living areas i.e. lounges/kitchens, and therefore the potential of overlooking may be less than the proposal; however, the reverse could also be applied to 'Tara', given the rooms most affect by the proposed dwelling on 'Plot 30' would be bedrooms rather than primary living areas. Further consideration is given that the previously approved dwelling and the mass and size of this dwelling and the number of windows facing towards 'Tara', which arguably had a greater chance of the perception of being overlooked and having an overbearing impact, compared to the proposed dwellings. Whilst it is accepted that the projecting two storey gable is closer, the main part of the dwelling is on a similar footprint to the original approved dwelling and is smaller in height and mass, although it is acknowledged that there are more dwellings proposed compared to the original approval. It is also accepted that the upper floor of the dwellings would be used as the primary living area, which as indicated was not the case in the original approval and therefore this aspect raises the potential of overlooking from primary living rooms to the bedrooms. In conclusion there will be impacts upon the amenities of the occupants of 'Tara'; however, given the distance, the previous planning approval, existing and proposed boundary landscaping and the rooms most affected are not be primary living spaces; on balance it is considered the proposal would not have a significant impacts to warrant a refusal.
• 6.26 Regarding the potential impacts of the occupants of 'Fairdale' the situation is different, in that the majority of land to the rear of this property has not had a previous planning approval for a dwelling/s. The last approved application this area was partly a garden area for the dwelling which would have been to the rear of 'Tara' and the other part of the land was to remain as scrub land as existing. The land to the rear of 'Fairdale' is designated for residential development and the comments made in the last two sentences of paragraph 6.22 of this report, also apply to this area and the remaining area of the application site.
• 6.27 In terms of these impacts upon the occupants of 'Fairdale', the dwelling on Plots 31 would likely cause the greatest impact. This dwelling would be 29.5 metres to rear of 'Fairdale'. Visiting

• this property (inside & outside) it was noted that the rooms most likely to be affected would be a single bedroom and the rear conservatory. There are other windows within the rear elevation of 'Fairdale'; however, these serve a dressing room, bathroom and a garage. None of these rooms are considered to be primary habitable rooms and therefore the impact on these rooms by the development is considered acceptable. Turing to the bedroom window this would be approximately opposite the balcony and/or the upper floor lounge window. Given the boundary treatment between Plot 31 and 'Fairdale' comprising of a few modest bushes; not a continuous hedgerow, there would be fairly un-obstructive views, from the proposed dwelling, albeit such views would be almost 30 metres away. This distance is considered to be more than an acceptable distance to prevent overlooking to this window as well as ensuring the dwelling would not have a significant overbearing impact. As indicated previously, the fact the bedroom is not a primary living space is also taken into account. It is considered appropriate that additional landscaping should be undertaken to reinforce the existing, along the boundaries of plots 31 & 32, which would also reduce the perception of being overlooked and provide additional privacy. The conservatory of this property would not be significantly impacted by the dwellings on Plot 31 or 32, although it is closers to the proposed dwellings, than the main dwelling house. This is due to the ground levels to the west and south of the conservatory being above the floor level of the conservatory. Currently there is a retaining wall within the neighbour's property which runs along these boundaries of the conservatory and above that are landscaped areas and a greenhouse, all of which are above the roof level of the conservatory. Essentially, the conservatory is built into the hillside. Therefore it is concluded that views into the conservatory from the dwellings on Plot 31 and 32 would be prevented. In conclusion there will be impacts upon the amenities of the occupants of 'Fairdale'; however, given the distances, existing and proposed boundary landscaping and the room most affected not be primary living spaces, again on balance it is considered the proposal would not have a significant impacts to warrant a refusal.
• 6.28 Other properties along the Croit E Quill Road, namely 'Stonehenge' & 'Marine Mount' will also be impacted by the development, essentially in the same or similar way as 'Tara' & 'Fairdale'. However, visiting the application site and judging where the proposed dwelling (Plots 32, 33 & 34) would be sited in relation to these neighbouring dwellings, the distance they would be from these properties (31.5+ metres), existing boundary landscaping and given 'Stonehenge' & 'Marine Mount' appear to utilise the external areas fronting their property (i.e. away from the development) for their garden/outdoor amenity space; it is considered the impact of the proposed development would not significantly adverse the amenities of these occupants to warrant a refusal. POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON THE VISUAL AMENITIES OF THE AREA
• 6.29 Regarding this issue there are likely two main public vantages points of the proposed development. The first is from the Reayrt Ny Glionney estate road where views of the dwellings within Plots 29 to 34, will in the main be of fairly modest single storey properties. These would have traditional forms with gable end roof running parallel and also facing the estate road, and finished in painted render and stone cladding and a black Redland Mini Stonewald tile. The dwelling on Plots 27 & 28 will be two storey dwellings and have the same design, character and appearance as the existing dwellings within the estate, mainly finished with brickwork and render. Overall when viewing the dwellings from the Reayrt Ny Glionney estate road it is considered the design, finish, design and positioning of the dwellings would be appropriate and in keeping with the area and would not have an adverse impact upon the visual amenities of the existing street scene/area.
• 6.30 The second vantage point of the site is from the Laxey to Ramsey Coast Road which is located on the opposite side of the Laxey Valley to the application site. Currently, when viewing from a number of locations in this area the site appears as a green space surrounded by built development (i.e. residential properties). The majority of the proposed development would not appear as an expansion into the countryside, given the recent development of Reayrt Ny Glionney estate which is further up the hillside compared to the application site. This proposal in most part will appear as an infill between the existing residential developments. As indicated previously the fact the land has been designated for residential development through the local plan process also

gave an acceptance that in doing so, the character of the area and countryside would all be affected, but the need for additional residential land was determined to be the overriding issue. Overall, it is considered the proposed development would result in the loss of a green area when viewed from the Coast Road; however, the site has been designated for residential development for a number of years and the dwellings proposed are considered to be of appropriate size/design and number and would not have a significant impact upon the visual amenities of the area or countryside when viewed from these more distance views.

POTENTIAL IMPACTS UPON HIGHWAY SAFETY

6.31 There are two potential areas of concern that have been raised by local residents in connection with the issue. The first is the additional traffic generated by the development and impact upon highway safety along Church Road and also along Croit-E-Quill Road as a number of local residents have indicated that since the building of the properties in the Reayrt Ny Glionney estate, this road is used by the new residents as a short cut. The second issue, again raised by local residents is the opening up of a public footpath from the Reayrt Ny Glionney development to the Croit-E-Quill Road (one-way at the location of the footpath), as concerns of pedestrian visibility from the new footpath onto the Croit-E-Quill Road and the speed of vehicles travelling along this road. It is also proposed to erect staggered barriers at the junction of the path with Croit-E-Quill Road, so as to prevent pedestrians from stepping into its carriageway before checking to see if any traffic is approaching from the right. It should be noted this proposed public footpath was also approved within the previous approved application and could be undertaken now. - 6.32 The applicant's as part of their submission have included a "Highways Statement" which has been prepared by; "Bryan G Hall Consulting Civil & Transportation Planning Engineers", which considered the impact upon the highway network by the proposed development and the inclusion of the footpath. - 6.33 The conclusion of this report states:

"The layout of the proposed development conforms with the recommendations of Manx Roads and PPG13 and therefore there is no reason relating to highways or safety matters why planning approval should not be granted as it will not be detrimental to the safety or convenience of other road users."

6.34 Highway Services have considered the application and the matters raised and have raised no objection to the application. - 6.35 Further to the matters listed above, in terms of off street parking provision, each of the dwellings would be provided with at least four off street parking spaces and the majority would also have turning provisions as well. Accordingly the proposals would comply with the parking standards of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan which requires two off road parking spaces per dwelling be provided. - 6.36 Given the previous approval for the same footpath layout and the lack of any objection from Highway Services, it is considered the proposed development would not result in a significant impact upon highway safety for all users of the highway network and therefore comply with Transport Policy 4 and General Policy 2. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROVISION - 6.37 When consideration any residential development which provides eight or more dwellings Housing Policy 5 requires consideration. This states that the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing, this can also include commuted sum payments.

6.36 In this case it could be considered given 8 dwellings are being proposed, and therefore 2 of the dwellings should be affordable housing (i.e. 25%). - 6.37 There is a further way of calculating this, give 3 of the 8 dwellings now proposed formed part of the previous approvals for 72 dwellings (29 approved under 07/02153/B & 43 under 00/01342/B), when it was agreed through Legal Agreements that 18 affordable dwellings (25% of

72) across the sites should be provided. These 18 affordable dwellings have already been provided, which of course included three of the eight dwellings now proposed in the calculation. Given this the applicants originally argued that there should be no provision for affordable housing as the new application should be on the basis of the five additional dwellings only.

6.38 There is a third way of calculating the amount of affordable and that is the current scheme is a continuation and extension to recently approved development which is also part and integral to the overall development with Area 17 (Laxey & Lonan Local Plan), and therefore this new proposal should be added to that; giving an overall total of 77 dwellings, which results in a total of 19.25 (25% of 77) affordable houses. To date a total of 18 affordable houses have been provided and therefore with the current proposal, it could be considered to be a shortfall of one affordable housing unit if the current application is approved. - 6.39 A number of discussions have been taken place over a number of months between the Planning Department, applicants and the Housing Directorate, to try to resolve this issue. The conclusion of these discussion it was accepted a commuted sum payment would be acceptable and a figure of £25,000 was considered potentially acceptable. Helpfully the Housing Directorate have provided a how this figure was concluded which indicates:

"This calculation is a bit different for all the others that we have conducted over the course of the last year, where we have had the benefit of good cost comparables and sales evidence to assess Affordable Homes viability for the purpose of Commuted Sums.

There have been no new build or sales of FTB (First Time Buyers) units in Laxey or Lonan in the last year, and what we have had to do here is to take the mean selling price of the 4 and 5 bed houses on the Reayrt Ny Glionney site, including the last remaining unit for sale, and from that mean we have calculated the selling price per square metre, which is approximately £2177 per sq m.

This sum was compared with our general selling price per sq. m of 2B and 3B first time buyer units (£1890 psm) elsewhere, resulting in a differential of £287 psm between Open Market sales figures and a notional FTB sales figure. We multiplied this by the floor area of a typical 3B FTB unit (85m2), giving a differential of £287 x 85 = £24395, rounded to £25,000.

I know this is far from ideal but without solid sales data for FTB's and smaller homes in the area, it makes assessment difficult. I believe we could have argued with the developer that a 2 or 3B Open Market sale on the site would have perhaps achieved £180k - £190k, but without any local comparable evidence it is hard to justify. The last exercise before this one was in respect of the Greenbank Bungalow commuted sum calculation, where we achieved £42,500 per unit, but this was only possible because we had recent local comparative evidence in close proximity to the site to draw on."

6.40 Accordingly, on this basis it is concluded that subject to a Section 13 Legal Agreement for a commuted payment of £25,000 is undertaken and agreed, then this proposal would be acceptable. POTENTIAL DRAINAGE/FLOODING CONCERNS - 6.41 A number of local residents have raise concerns of drainage/flooding concerns, which they have noticed in recent times since the development of the area has commenced. Their comments are understandable and the Planning Department has no evidence to disagree with their concerns of the situation currently.

6.42 This proposal tries to address this issue with the inclusion of new private storm drains and new private surface water storage chambers to provide 2.5m3 of storage for each of the properties. Additionally, new private foul drains are also proposed. Theses would run to the existing surface water and foul water sewers which currently run underneath the proposed public footpath which then runs to the existing sewers along the Croit-e-Quill Road. - 6.43 The Planning Directorate has taken advice from Manx Utilities - Drainage to whether the proposed developed would be adequately drained by the systems proposed. They have made the following comments: "I have reviewed the above application and the various comments submitted in relation to flooding and drainage and can reply as follows:-

The foul and surface water flows generated from the additional proposed properties can be accommodated within the newly installed drainage infrastructure for the development as well as the downstream public network. Surface water runoff from the hard standing from the recently completed dwellings and roadways is attenuated within a holding tank before being discharged at a controlled rate into the downstream system and subsequent watercourse as required by Manx Utilities for adoptable public drainage systems. It is proposed that a number of the new dwellings will also discharge into this attenuation system with the remaining properties connecting downstream where capacity also exists.

Any overland surface water flow from the adjacent building site should be controlled by the developer during any construction works, measures could be put in place to minimise/ control such runoff.

Manx Utilities have assessed the anticipated foul flows from the additional dwellings against its current discharge licence into Laxey Bay which is issued by DEFA under the Water Pollution Act, the additional flows will keep within the parameters as stated in the discharge consent."

6.44 For these reasons it is considered the proposed development would be adequately drained (foul, & surface water runoff) without affecting neighbouring properties or the public sewer network. It should also be noted that Building Regulations approval would also be required for this development, and this issue would be looked into at greater detail. The Planning Directorate only needs to be satisfied that the site can be drained in an adequate and acceptable manner, which from the comments made by Manx Utilities - Drainage would appear to be the case.

- 7.0 RECOMMENDATION

7.1 Overall, it is considered that the proposal would comply with the relevant planning policies of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan (20th June 2007) and the Laxey and Lonan Plan Order 2005, and for the reasons set out in this report, it is recommended that the application be approved. - 8.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 as modified by the Transfer of Planning and Building Control Functions Order 2015, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) The applicant, or if there is one, the applicant's agent;
• (b) The owner and the occupier of any land that is the subject of the application or any other person in whose interest the land becomes vested;
• (c) Any Government Department that has made written submissions relating to planning considerations with respect to the application that the Department considers material;
• (d) The Highways Division of the Department; and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

With effect from 1 June 2015, the Transfer of Planning & Building Control Functions Order 2015 amends the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 to give effect to the meaning of the word 'Department' to be the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture unless otherwise directed by that Order.

8.2 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: The Manx Utilities Authority - Drainage

The owner/occupier of Marine Mount, Croit-e-Quill Road, Lonan The owners/occupiers of Fairdale, Croit-e-Quill Road, Laxey The owners/occupiers of Tara, Croit E Quill Road, Laxey The owner/occupier of 2 Sunhill Cottages, Croit E Quill Road, Laxey The owner/occupier 1 Sunhill Cottages, Croit E Quill Road, Laxey

8.3 In line with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application: The Manx Utilities Authority - Electricity The Member for Garff Mr S Rodan

The owner/occupier of Blue Horizon, Croit-e-Quill Road, Lonan The owner/occupier 3 Reayrt Ny Glionney Chase, Laxey The owner/occupier 3 Reayrt Ny Glionney Drive, Laxey The owner/occupier 1 Reayrt Ny Glionney Chase, Laxey

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Permitted

Date of Recommendation:

05.02.2016

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval

• N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
• O : Notes attached to refusals

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

• Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
• C 2. Each dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the dwelling and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking and turning of vehicles in the interests of highway safety.

• C 3. No development shall take place until full details of both hard and soft landscaping works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning and Building Control Directorate and these works shall be carried out as approved. Details of the hard landscaping works include footpaths and hard surfacing materials. The hard landscaping works shall be completed in full accordance with the approved details prior to the first occupation of each dwelling permitted. Details of the soft landscaping works include additional planting as well as existing landscaping being retained within the site and along the northern and eastern boundary of the site, especially in relation to the boundaries of the neighbouring properties 'Tara', 'Fairdale' Stonehenge' and 'Marine Mount'. All planting shall be carried out in accordance the approved details in the first planting and seeding seasons following the first occupation of each dwelling permitted.. Any trees or shrub which within 5 years from the completion of the development dies, is removed or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with another of similar size and species unless the planning authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting to the development and to protect amenities of neighbouring amenities.

• C 4. No development shall commence until a schedule of materials and finishes and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces, including roofs, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
• C 5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no decking shall be constructed or placed within the curtilage of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
• C 6. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling(s) hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, shall be carried out, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.

• C 7. No development shall commence until a 1:200 scale plan of the proposed site plan, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development shall not be carried out unless in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and upon the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.

• C 8. The last dwelling of the development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the areas of public open space shown on drawing 102 have been turfed with grass, including the footpaths and fenced play area and all made available for recreational use. Reason: to ensure adequate Public Open Space provision is provided.

N 1. This approval is subject to a legal agreement.

This approval relates to drawings reference 100, 101, 102, 103, 104.01, 104.2, 105.1, 105.2, 106, 107.02 & ADR_500 all received on 3rd July 2015.

I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Interim Director of Planning and Building Control in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.

Decision Made : Permitted Date : 04.04.2016 Determining officer

Signed : J CHANCE Jennifer Chance Interim Director of Planning and Building Control

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.