Loading document...
Application No.: 15/00775/A Applicant: JM Project Management Ltd Proposal: Approval in principle for the construction of 28 dwellings and provision of retail space addressing siting and means of access Site Address: Fields 320653 & 324324 Part Of Ballaglonney Farm Crosby Isle Of Man Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 05.11.2015 Site Visit: 05.11.2015 Expected Decision Level: Officer Delegation
THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE NUMBER OF CORRESPONDENTS WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A VIEW ON THE PROPOSAL
THE PLANNING COMMITTEE CONSIDERED THE APPLICATION ON 16TH NOVEMBER, 2015 AND DEFERRED TAKING A DECISION PENDING A SITE VISIT. THE FOLLOWING REPORT HAS BEEN AMENDED AT PARAGRAPH 2.1 TO ADDRESS A POINT RAISED BY THE PUBLIC SPEAKER IN RESPECT OF THE POSITION OF THE EXISTING BUS STOP (PARAGRAPH 2.1) AND FURTHER CLARIFICATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SITE COMPARED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1991 SECTOR PLAN (PARAGRAPH 10.6)
1.1 The site is a piece of land of 1.5 hectares (nearly 3.8 acres) which lies on the south western side of the A1 Main Road through Crosby. To the south east of the site is a watercourse which separates the site from the play area, bowling green, sports pitches and Hall Caine Pavilion which lie to the south east and all abutting Old Church Road. The site has a frontage to the A1 of 155m and stretches back by about the same amount. The site also includes a strip of land which runs from the main part of the site to the south west to join the former railway line/Heritage Trail public footpath. One of these will provide a footpath link thereto. - 1.2 The site slopes downward from north east to south west and has a tree lined boundary to the A1 Main Road on top of what is mostly a low, grassed hedge. The trees are mostly heavily covered in ivy, although the trees get less ivy covered and the bank becomes higher the further north the boundary goes. THE PROPOSAL
2.1 Proposed is the principle of the development of the land to accommodate 28 houses, a building accommodating shops, a car parking area for 38 vehicles and associated roads, access from the A1 and landscaping together with a footpath link to the main road, a layby to provide a bus pulling in area and bus stop (passengers currently get on and off the bus on the southern side of the road outside the former Crosby Wholesalers site where there is a bus layby) a pedestrian access through the land to the south to provide access to the Heritage Trail footpath. A pedestrian crossing is shown outside of the site from the bus stop layby across to the northern side of the road. A drawing has been submitted to demonstrate how this could be achieved and the application proposes that the means of access and the siting of the buildings are considered at this point and not reserved for
2.6 The site will be drained by way of a new BioDisc system pending the upgrading of the public system which they understand is due to occur within the next two years. Surface water will be drained to the River Dhoo directly avoiding the stream which runs along the eastern boundary of the site. - 2.7 In respect of the provision of Public Open Space as is required by Recreation Policy 3, the applicant indicates that the development proposed provides 3149 sq m which compares to a requirement for 2688 sq m in accordance with Appendix Six of the Strategic Plan. This public open space is provided in two main parts - a roughly rectangular piece of land between the bus layby and the proposed shop(s) and another which runs down the eastern boundary to the Heritage Trail. PLANNING POLICY AND STATUS
3.1 There is a piece of land in this position shown on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Proposed Predominantly Residential. Due to the scale of the Plan (1:25,000), the quality of the base mapping and the thickness of the lines demarcating the roadways it is not possible to be precise about the boundaries of the proposed residential area. What seems to be clear by a comparison of the Order with the Digital Mapping is that the area comprises a frontage to the A1 of around 105m and it then extends back by around 132m. The north western boundary of the site as shown in the application appears to be at a slightly different angle to what is shown in the Order but takes its reference from the existing field boundary to the west which is formed by a post and wire fence. The western boundary of the development is also an informal curved line incorporating groups of trees rather than a straight edge. - 3.2 As the development is on land which is if not all, then mostly, designated for development, the general standards of development as set out in General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan are considered applicable here:
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:
3.3 It is also relevant to consider the status of Crosby within the Strategic Plan:
These villages are: Bride, Glen Maye, Sulby, Dalby, Ballaugh, Ballafesson, Glen Mona, Colby, Baldrine, Ballabeg, Crosby, Newtown, Glen Vine, Strang.
Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such settlements so as to maintain their existing character.
3.4 Where development is proposed, provision must be made for affordable housing and public open space in accordance with the following provisions:
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.
3.5 Guidance on retail developments is provided as follows:
3.6 Other policies referred to by the applicant are as follows:
Strategic Policy 5: "New development including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases, the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies."
Strategic Policy 10: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:
Transport Policy 6: "In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users."
Transport Policy 8: "The Department will require all applications for major development to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment."
4.1 The site has only been the subject of one previous application, that being PA 06/0055 for the provision of temporary drainage infrastructure to serve approved residential development to the north of the Crosby Hotel. This was approved. Ballaglonney Farm of which the application site forms part was also the subject of recent applications but these are not considered relevant to the current proposal. - 4.2 There is a concurrent application for residential development which is awaiting consideration. PA 15/01156/A proposes development on the eastern side of Old Church Road. This land is not designated for development on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 and is of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on that Plan.
REPRESENTATIONS Statutory Consultees and Divisions of Government
5.1 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Forestry Division indicates that the removal of the roadside trees will detract from the visual amenity provision for the village. Should approval be granted, all trees to be retained must be adequately protected to the specification given in BS5837:2012 Trees in Relation to Design, Demolition and Construction (16.07.15). - 5.2 Marown Parish Commissioners indicate that they have no objection to the development in principle but do have concerns about the proposed access, particularly bearing in mind the proposed provision of a bus layby, which itself is welcome. They consider the emergency access to be "a nonsense" and would oppose any use of the Heritage Trail for vehicular traffic and believe that it is not actually possible for vehicles to progress beyond the existing closed gate and note that other developments in the village, such as Reayrt ny Crink, have no such alternative access. They are concerned about the proposals for the discharge of surface water and would like to see the water discharged into the River Dhoo well downstream of the site. Finally, they are aware of the need for low cost housing in the village, not just for first time buyers but also for those wishing to down-size (16.07.15 and 20.08.15). - 5.3 They submit a further response on 07.10.15 which indicates that they have no objection to the principle of the development of the site but note that the site is larger than the area shown in the development plan and are opposed to this aspect of the plan. They also have concerns about the position of the access particularly in relation to the bus layby and visibility when the bus is parked in the layby. They consider that waiting restrictions should be applied opposite and adjacent to the proposed estate. They welcome the removal of the emergency vehicular access to the Heritage Trail
but remain concerned at the provisions for drainage with or without a hydro brake. They would like to see the surface water drained from the site well downstream of the development site. Finally, they would like to see low cost as well as first time buyers' housing and do not consider that the proposed development will achieve this.
5.4 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services raise no objection subject to the application for the reserved matters providing full details of visibility splays (clarified verbally as being 2.4m by 70m in each direction), parking in accordance with the Strategic Plan and turning facilities such that vehicles can enter and exit the site in a forward gear, the surface treatment of any roadways and those parts of the site not built upon, highway drainage, pedestrian access, the bus lay-by and the puffin crossing as these matters require detailed consideration by the Department (29.10.15).
5.5 Manx Utilities (Flood Risk Management) advise that the applicant has provided contour information on the site which indicates that the site is unlikely to be affected by flooding. They will expect a Flood Risk Assessment at the detailed stage and is therefore satisfied with the level of information provided (05.10.15). They confirm that they are content from the information provided that the development will not increase flood risk of other property which will be confirmed at the detailed stage: surface water run-off should be attenuated to equivalent agricultural run-off and discharged to the river (30.10.15). Manx Utilities also advise that if there are issues with foul and surface water disposal these will be dealt with at the detailed stage and a Flood Risk Assessment should be prepared for (03.09.15). - 5.6 Manx National Heritage is not opposed to the development in principle as it is designated for development on the 1982 Plan. However, they recommend careful consideration of the visual impact from the south. Whilst they appreciate the benefit of a pedestrian link to the Heritage Trail, they are opposed to the use of this for vehicles and which would urbanise the character of the railway line. Provisions should be in place to protect the river from sedimentation and pollution and to protect the semi-natural habitats along the heritage Trail from impacts from flooding or drainage mitigation measures (14.08.15). They welcome the removal of the vehicular emergency access
5.7 Isle of Man Constabulary through their Architectural Liaison Officer expresses concern at the proposed emergency vehicular access to the Heritage Trail although a pedestrian link is welcomed. They recommend the use of spiny and thorny vegetation as the rear boundaries of property backing onto the field in order to prevent or deter unauthorised access (05.08.15). - 5.8 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Wildlife indicate that the field across which the proposed emergency access is to go is marshy and accommodates frogs which are protected under the Wildlife Act 1990. The Heritage trail verges are also identified as of conservation interest and impact on the trail verges should be minimised. The trees around the perimeter of the site are known to support bats (commuting and foraging) and the re-planting further back of the roadside trees will mitigate the loss. Care should be taken in the installation of lighting which could affect bats (07.08.15). - 5.9 Department of Infrastructure Housing consider that the site is well placed to cater for the demand in the east of the Island for affordable housing - first time buyers and public sector homes and as such the usual contribution of 25% of the overall number of dwellings proposed, to be provided as affordable units (7 dwellings) (26.07.15). - 5.10 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Fisheries do not object to the application in principle but have concerns about the impact of the development on fish populations in nearby watercourses from the site and potential sewage treatment plant. They are aware that some nearby streams have limited flows and as such would not always be able to dilute potentially dangerous substances. There are brown trout in the stream which would be vulnerable to changes in habitat or water quality. Works which affect the river - the watercourse or its banks - should be undertaken between July - September to protect the eggs and young fry which are particularly sensitive to disturbance. Should the development be approved the developer would be required to complete a form relating to Development within 9m of a watercourse (30.07.15).
REPRESENTATIONS Local groups or representatives
6.1 Captain of the Parish of Marown who lives at Ballafreer House, some 2.25km from the site, expresses concern at the impact of the development on the village in terms of traffic flow and the safety of the junction of Eyreton Road, the A1 and Old School Road. He also expresses concern at the lack of clarify on how foul water is to be disposed of and states that there is no opportunity for vehicular use of the old railway line at the southern end of the playing fields as this belongs to the Marown Memorial Playing Fields Limited (30.07.15).
6.2 Marown Parish Community Care, represented by an occupant of Ballafreer House, supports the scheme and sees benefit to the village from the proposed bus lay-by and shop/post office
(30.07.15).
6.3 The Marown Memorial Playing Fields Ltd indicate that they have no objection to the development but are opposed to the proposed emergency access which would result in vehicles driving across land that they own and consider that this would also be detrimental to the use of the footpath and the playing facilities. They are also concerned at how and when the existing sewerage facilities will be upgraded and how surface water will be disposed of. They are concerned at the location of the area for deliveries to the shop being in close proximity to the children's play area and are also concerned about the impact on traffic at the junction of Old Church Road and Eyreton Road and the A1. They also note that the playing fields are used for cricket and football and stray balls may end up causing issues for the potential residents (27.07.15).
REPRESENTATIONS Those objecting to the application
7.1 The resident of 18, Woodlea Villas which lies 180m to the south east of the site, objects to the application on the basis that the proposal will have a major impact on traffic flows in the village, making it more difficult for motorists to get off the various junctions with the A1. Whilst the pedestrian crossing may make traffic slower it will also restrict traffic flow on this main road. There was a previous application for a smaller shop which was refused for reasons including that which indicated that the development would make the locality a little less rural. She considers that the emergency access road is not necessary and lastly the field already has trouble draining and the addition of more hard surfacing is not going to make this any better (23.07.15). - 7.2 The owner of 5, Eyremont Terrace which is directly opposite the site, objects strongly to the application and recommends that the development is considered very carefully in order than it does not overwhelm the village and its structure. She considers that the location of the development is illconsidered given the strain on existing infrastructure and that whilst the land was designated for development in 1982 this was before Reayrt ny Crink was built which has brought additional traffic, and school children to attend the local school. She considers that she will be personally affected by the lights of vehicles coming and going from the site at all times of the day and night. The construction period will involve muck being brought out onto the highway and which will also cause a hazard for local children who walk to school and cyclists using the road. She does not believe that there will be sufficient passing traffic to make the shop viable and worries that one of the units may become a take away. She doesn't believe that the existing sewage treatment works is effective and it can smell and adding to this cannot make things any better. Additional traffic will make it more difficult for motorists trying to get off the various junctions in the village and the proposed access is opposite a private entrance which is surely not safe. She understands that Marown Primary School is already over capacity and there are presently a lot of properties for sale, suggesting that there is no need for further dwellings here and that there are already enough affordable housing in the west. Finally she believes that the development will undermine the privacy of those in her house (24.07.15). She writes in again on 07.08.15 adding to her objection on the basis that the Western Sector Plan "shows 1.75 acres of land being zoned for building" however the application site is much larger than this. The Plan also goes on to recommend that this area is removed from development proposals due to flooding and access problems. She considers the emergency access road to be unsafe for those, including children who use the playing fields and facilities there and the operation of a shop together with the required deliveries will exacerbate the impact on highway safety. She compares this with the other application by Marown Parish Commissioners for a shop which was refused for reasons including the impact on the countryside. She feels that relations and communication are poor between the villagers and the applicant's agent. (07.10.15). She also feels that her human right to respect for their private and family light [it should be life], home and correspondence" will be breached along with their right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by general principles of international law (23.10.15).
7.3 The owner of 8, Eyreton Terrace which lies some 88m to the south east of the site, objects to the application as they believe that the creation of a bus layby will increase congestion in the village and think that the bus stop should be in front of the Simply Store site as it was until relatively recently. They don't believe that surface water can be dealt with satisfactorily and the removal of existing trees will spoil the appearance and character of the village, particularly as viewed from the playing fields. They don't consider there is a need for further housing as so many houses are already for sale and question whether the existing school can accommodation further pupils (19.07.15). - 7.4 The owner of 2, Eyremont Terrace which is directly opposite the site objects to the proposal as she considers that the additional traffic, people and connections to the sewerage system will be unacceptable (23.07.15). - 7.5 Another resident of 5, Eyremont Terrace which lies opposite the site has no objection to the principle of the development but objects to the location of the access directly opposite his property which he considers will be dangerous considering the amount of traffic which will be generated from the proposed housing and shops and this additional traffic will also lead to congestion and disruption to the traffic flow through the village. The position of the access will lead to light pollution of their property. He considers that the access should possibly be closer to or at the crossroads (23.07.15). His son, also resident at the property writes in concerned about road safety, noise and disruption during construction and from the proposed shop and potential smell from the sewage treatment provisions (23.10.15). - 7.6 The owner of 3, Eyremont Terrace objects to the application on a similar basis to the objection at 5.14, relating to additional traffic and the impact this will have on traffic flows and the safety of pedestrians and motorists in the village. She does not believe that there is a need or local desire for commercial facilities in the village and she certainly does not think a take away would be appropriate. She considers the emergency access is inappropriate and finally, if the development does go ahead she hopes that tall trees will not be planted right in front of her property (23.07.15). - 7.7 The owner of 6, Eyremont Terrace, directly opposite the site, has written a number of letters objecting to the application and pointing out what he considers to be a number of inaccuracies in the application (missing postcode, approximation of the size of the site, lack of a specific drainage route, spelling mistakes) and that the notice was not displayed correctly (26.07.15, 02.08.15). He expresses concern that the owner of the land has written in in support of the application and questions the legitimacy of this (07.10.15 and 09.10.15). He submits a further letter on 09.10.15 identifying the difference between what is designated on the 1982 Plan and the area for development and expressing concern about sewage treatment works capacity, the principle of having a new access out onto a strategic route, and has concerns about the accuracy and relevance of the information provided in the transport assessment provided by the applicant. He does not believe that there will be a doctor's surgery or pharmacy due to the size of the catchment area and feels that if some of those who have supported the application were aware that there may not be a pharmacy and doctor's surgery then perhaps they may not still be supportive of the scheme. He is concerned about the impact of the development on wildlife (bats, trout and newts) and reiterates his concern about errors in the application. He remains concerned about pedestrian safety, the capacity of Marown School, potential flooding of adjacent land, the character of the proposed development and the size of the proposed shop and what he considers is overdevelopment of the site. The residential designation, in his view does not support a shop (09.10.15). He submits a further view querying the accuracy of the tree protection measures and whether they address the concerns and recommendations raised by Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (13.10.15). He expresses concern that members of the family who own the site may have written in severally without acknowledging their relationship with the application site. He also expresses concern that the impact of low level evening sunlight on the proposed pelican crossing may render it unsafe to use (13.10.15). They query the status and capability of the Manx Bat Group to undertake the required survey for bats (22.10.15).
7.8 The owner of 7, Kermode Road, Eyreton Road which lies 220m to the south west does not object to the principle of the development of this land but suggests that the scheme would be improved by removing the emergency access road which he considers is not necessary, the containment of any sewage treatment works within the site not next to the playing fields, the introduction of traffic lights at the crossroads or move the proposed access up to the junction with Reayrt ny Crink and have traffic lights there. He also suggests that more trees could be retained if the bus layby actually came into the site and out again and if would be better to swap plots 1-7 with the proposed shop site so that goods vehicles would have less distance to travel and would be further from the playground. Finally, he suggests that there should be a footpath link to the existing playground and an upgrade of the public toilets there (30.07.15). He adds to this on 07.010.15 by expressing concern at the extent of land designated for development compared with what is shown in the planning application for development and the reference in the 1991 Sector Plan which suggests that the site should be removed from development designation. He expresses concern about infrastructure, the proportions of the local shop and previous inaccuracies pointed out by other residents. - 7.9 Another resident of Ballafreer House who is also a member of the Marown Memorial Playing Fields organisation expresses concern over the proposed emergency access road which she considers is not feasible nor safe in respect of those using the playing fields and cycle facilities, and also the means and efficacy of the proposed means of disposal of foul sewage (03.08.15). - 7.10 The owner of 1, Ballaquinnea Cottages which is 1.3km from the site is extremely concerned at the proposed emergency access would be detrimental to the use of the Heritage Trail by walkers, cyclists and horse riders and the impact of the discharge of foul and surface water ultimately into the adjacent water courses (08.08.15). - 7.11 The owner of Close Jairg, Old Church Road considers that the use of the proposed pelican crossing will result in tail backs down Old Church Road as well as the main road and for that reason they oppose the development and consider that they are sufficiently affected to warrant being afforded interested person status (11.08.15). - 7.12 The owner of 1, Eyreton Cottages which lies around 800m to the north east of the site objects to the application on the basis that she considers it excessive and inappropriately located. She is also concerned about the impact of the development on the existing infrastructure - the roads, school, drainage and sewerage. People already use Eyreton Road as an alternative route into and from Douglas and this road is not suitable for additional traffic due to its narrowness and the junction with the main road is considered a dangerous bottleneck. The area surrounding the site is prone to flooding and it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development will not exacerbate that. The existing sewerage system is not working effectively and adding to this will not help. She considers that Marown Primary School together with its car parking and access are "at breaking point" and meetings to try to alleviate current problems have not arrived at any solution. There are inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the application form and there is a concern that the actual land designated for development is "considerably less" than the area of the application. She considers the development to be high density and the need for retail facilities has not been demonstrated, considering the earlier application for the shop further to the east. The shop in this location will have a much greater impact. The character of the village will not be enhanced by the proposal (10.08.15). - 7.13 The owner of 5A, Eyremont Terrace objects to the application on the basis of the access which will be directly opposite the proposed entrance to the site and has car parking to the front of the site. She already finds it difficult to access onto the Main Road due to traffic volumes and the proposed development will make this even more difficult and will add to congestion in the village. Children, amongst other pedestrians use this area and increased traffic will detrimentally affect highway safety (10.08.15).
7.14 The owner of 16, Brewery Wharf in Castletown which is a significant distance from the application site, objects to the proposal for an emergency access onto the Heritage Trail which would adversely affect the amenities and character of the footpath and would be used other than just for emergencies - possibly for 4 weeks of the year on a routine basis. The Heritage Trail and surrounding area is also of ecological interest. If the access onto the Heritage Trail is refused then residents of the new estate will have to find alternative parking in the immediate area which is not considered suitable for additional parked vehicles. The development will also increase traffic congestion in the village, he considers the size of the retail facility to be excessive and the visual impact of a modern estate within an area which has a variety of buildings and styles would be unacceptable (11.08.15). - 7.15 The owner of The Nest on Main Road which sits on the corner of the junction of the Eyreton Road and the Main Road objects to the application on the basis of the size of the development, the increase in traffic and the nuisance which this would create. She believes that the development area is greater than that proposed in the 1982 Plan and notes that the Western Sector Plan recommends that this land should be removed for development purposes. She provides photographs of flooding on the southern side of the playing fields which occurred in 2012. Vehicles already struggle to access onto the A1 from Old Church Road and Eyreton Road and pedestrians have difficulty safely crossing the road. She is strongly opposed to the proposed emergency access and believes that things have changed significantly since the land was designated for development and is no longer suitable for development (10.08.15). - 7.16 The owner of 10, Woodlea Villas which lies around 110m to the south east of the site, objects to the application and acknowledges that whilst the Strategic Plan requires development to make the best use of existing facilities and infrastructure in this case, the existing infrastructure cannot cope with what is proposed and struggles to accommodate the existing loads. She considers that the development will not accord with Strategic Policy 3 which requires development to complement existing settlements nor transport Policy 3 which protects former rail routes. She sees parallels with the application for the shop to the east of the site which was refused and considers that the application would adversely affect the enjoyment of the Manx countryside (12.08.15). - 7.17 The owner of 1, Eyreton Terrace objects strongly to the development as the development would add to the existing congestion for those living alongside the A1 and generally for traffic motorised and other - moving through the village. He also considers that another estate is not visually complementary to the village. Considering the traffic and congestion which the Union Mills shop generates, the development will exacerbate traffic congestion. He considers that Marown Primary School cannot accommodate further pupils. There are many for sale signs in the vicinity and he considers that there is no need for further dwellings (12.08.15). - 7.18 The owners of 3, Richmond Terrace object to the application. They consider that the proposed development area is in excess of the area shown in the 1982 Plan and the Western Sector Plan suggests that the site is unsuitable for development. They are concerned about a new entrance onto a strategic route, the impact on congestion in the village and the impact of a vehicular access onto the Heritage Trail. They are concerned about how sewage will be adequately dealt with and are concerned that the shop will not be viable. They also provide photographs of recent flooding in the area (the same photographs as were submitted from the owners of The Nest) (13.08.15). She submits a traffic count undertaken on 10.09.15 between 0730hrs and 0930hrs which indicated that
2,158 cars travelled past the entrance.
7.19 The owners of 1, Eyremont Terrace object to the application on the basis that the application site does not accord with the 1982 Plan area for development and the impact on trees is not precise or accurate and that taking away so many trees will be contrary to Strategic Policy 4(b). The draft Landscape Character Appraisal identifies the site as Broad Lowland Valley and the advice to avoid development which would be prominent on the visually sensitive valley sides and floor has not been satisfied as the development and the emergency access will be visible and the development will not be integrated into the landscape. They refer to the planning application for the shop at
7.21 The owner of 4, Eyremont Terrace objects to the application as they believe that all of the site is not designated for development and believe that the residential area does not fall any west of Kissack's Lane. They believe that the development will adversely affect highway safety and the efficiency of the flow of traffic through the village and think that any shop should be on the northern side of the road so that not so many people will have to cross the road. They believe that the playing fields flood and the development will be highly visible (12.08.15). - 7.22 The owner of Langdale House, Lower Duke's Road objects to the development as she believes the school is already at capacity, there have been significant developments in the village and the capacity of the existing infrastructure is already stretched by existing development. If a shop is needed, why was planning approval not granted to the one which was proposed opposite the Church? (07.07.15) - 7.23 The owner of 22, Park Close, Glen Vine objects to the application. As a rate payer of the parish he is concerned that the additional development will place pressure on the existing sewage treatment works which he believes is not capable of the additional loading. There is no confirmation in the application that the MUA accepts these proposals. He is concerned that there is insufficient land available to accommodate an attenuation pond if such is required and if this is to be in the adjacent field then this is expanding the development into undesignated land. The site was suggested to be removed from having a residential designation in the 1991 Sector Plan and in any case the site which is suggested is larger than that prescribed in the 1982 Plan and a mixture of residential and commercial was not part of the original zoning. There is no evidence that a doctor or dentist's surgery would be forthcoming. Whilst there may be benefit to the addition of a road crossing, this need not depend upon a residential development to come about. He does not accept that the Heritage Trail is an acceptable means for children to get to school as it is unlit. He believes that QEII School and Marown Primary School are already pushed to capacity and neither has funds available for expansion. The originally proposed emergency access is not acceptable nor needed. Finally, he considers that the development would spoil the character and appearance of the village
7.24 The owners of 1, Eyreton Terrace object to the application consider another "Dandara style" development would spoil the village and the additional traffic would have an adverse impact on highway safety, particularly for pedestrians. She considers that the development area is twice the size of that identified on the development plan and that Marown School cannot cope with any additional population. (14.08.15). - 7.25 The owner of 2, Richmond Terrace which lies opposite the site, behind Eyreton Terrace, objects to the application on the basis that the area proposed is larger than that shown in the development plan and the land designation goes back 33 years, before the village had expanded and the infrastructure been placed under additional strain. The emergency access is not considered acceptable and queries whether the land required for the development is actually within the applicant's ownership. There are concerns about existing and potential flooding of the adjacent area and the ability of the sewage treatment works and local schools to accommodate the additional load. She queries whether a shop will be viable and considers that the bus layby is unnecessary and inappropriate. The traffic levels using the Main Road are already considerable and it is not appropriate to add more as would be the result of the proposed development (13.08.15).
7.26 The owners of 4, Crosby Terrace which lies opposite the site to the north, object to the application on the basis that the land is not all designated for development on the 1982 Plan and is poorly placed in terms of the resultant visual impact, loss of trees and would diminish the view from the playing fields and the residential and commercial properties on the other side of the road. They consider that a modern housing estate is not compatible with the character of the village and in any case there is currently no need for additional housing as there are many properties available for purchase. They do accept that there is perhaps a need for sheltered housing and first time buyers' dwellings. Any proposal to introduce vehicles to the Heritage Trail is unsafe and inappropriate. They have concerns that the local infrastructure will not be able to cope with the additional demands and highway safety will be worsened by the additional vehicles generated by the proposal. There is concern about the type of trees to be introduced to replace those to be lost and the site is within an area designated on the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance which is incompatible with a housing estate on this site
7.27 The owner of Two Acres in Glen Vine objects to any use of the Heritage Trail for vehicles
7.28 The owner of 9, Woodlea Villas objects to the development as she believes that traffic safety will be compromised and there must be in place adequate provisions for sewage and surface water disposal. She is concerned about flooding and does not believe that the doctor's surgery will happen nor that there is a need for a local shop. Finally she considers that the loss of trees is unacceptable (08.10.15). - 7.29 The owner of East Lodge objects to the development which will spoil what is currently a pleasant rural village (24.08.15). - 7.30 The owners of 1, Crosby Terrace object to the application which they consider would affect them directly particularly the access and pedestrian crossing. They do not believe that there is a need for additional housing and their access would be affected by the proposal (21.08.15). - 7.31 The owner of 98, Ballagarey Road objects to the application on the basis of additional traffic
7.32 The owner of 3, Crosby Terrace objects to the application on the basis that there is already significant traffic in the village and the addition of the traffic from the residences and the shop will exacerbate that. She is of the view that the infrastructure cannot cope with the additional load and is concerned with the resulting noise, disturbance and how the development will look and change the character and appearance of the village particularly in respect of the loss of trees (05.10.15). - 7.33 The owners of 11, Reayrt ny Crink object to the application on the basis that Marown Primary School will be overcrowded and the highway network is already heavily used. She is concerned about sewage and surface water disposal and the potential for flooding as this has occurred in the past in and around the former railway line. She is concerned that there is no need for a doctor's surgery in the village and that the 1982 Plan identifies the area around the site as of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance (undated letter). - 7.34 The owner of 7, Reayrt ny Crink objects to the application on the basis of traffic flows, pedestrian and highway safety, the removal of trees - both in terms of the visual impact and that of wind which will then pass straight into the village from the north. She is also concerned with the capacity of the sewage treatment system and its ability to accommodate additional loading
7.35 The owner of 1, Richmond Terrace objects to the application on the basis of the increase in traffic and pedestrians, the access on the southern side of the road which she believes was not
7.39 The owner of 24, King Orry Road expresses concern at the area to be developed and considers that the 1991 Sector Plan constitutes a rezoning of the land. He is concerned at the density of development and queries whether a shop is relevant bearing in mind that a more central and in his view more convenient location for a shop was recently refused. He doubts that a doctor's surgery will be established due to the limited scale of catchment area (09.10.15). - 7.40 The owner of 12, Crosby Mews, Eyreton objects to the application. She considers that the site is the core of the village and the impacts on trees and wildlife are unacceptable and has concerns about the impact on infrastructure. She considers that any further development of the village would be a serious mistake. The village accommodates a significant amount of traffic and additional access will be unsafe and there may be implications for flooding and the ability of the sewerage system, which already struggles, to accommodate additional loading (received on 14.10.15 and 27.10.15). - 7.41 The owners of 27, Woodlea Villas object to the application, considering the site to be unacceptable in terms of traffic and are of the view that the existing infrastructure cannot accommodate additional loading. They consider that there are much better areas to consider for development (09.10.15).
REPRESENTATIONS Those in support of the application
8.1 The owner of 19, Eyreton Park which lies some 100m to the north of the site behind other existing dwellings, supports the scheme, considering that the site is designated for development and there is a need for houses and shops. She also believes that the local shop will save time and money for local people (she currently pays £11 one way for a taxi ride from Douglas) and additional population will support local services such as the public house (22.07.15 and 22.09.15). - 8.2 The owner of Oaken Lodge which lies around 80m to the north of the site, fully supports the principle of housing, a shop, post office and doctor's surgery and dispensing chemist all of which are needed in the village. He suggests that Crosby Crossroads should be subject to traffic light control, particularly as there was a fatal accident there between a tractor and motorcycle and that the bus lay-by should be further west and a footbridge connecting the development site to the playground would add to the safety and benefit of the development (23.07.15 and 01.08.15).
8.3 The owner of 13, Eyreton Park which lies around 100m to the north of the site supports the development and comments that she finds it difficult to walk to the bus stop and taxis can be expensive (24.07.15). - 8.4 The owner of 6, Eyreton Park, around 100m to the north, supports the development (27.07.15). - 8.5 The owner of 18, Eyreton Park, around 100m to the north, supports the development and considers that the mix of houses and shops is ideal for the location and would be even more convenient if there were vehicular access to Old Church Road particularly in closed roads periods
(23.07.15).
8.6 The owner of 15, Eyreton Park which lies around 100m to the north, supports the development as the nearest shop is too far away to walk (31.07.15). - 8.7 The owner of 7, Eyreton Park supports the application (29.07.15). - 8.8 The owner of 53, Ballagarey Road, Glen Vine supports the development, considering that new first time buyers' housing will be of considerable benefit to the village and appreciated that the developer asked the local population what type of housing was considered to be needed, before submitting the application. She considers that a chemist and local shop on the same side of the road as the play facilities, would be of great benefit. She believes that the pedestrian crossing will improve highway safety for pedestrians using the main road (13.08.15). - 8.9 The owners of Thie Darragh, Main Road in Glen Vine fully supports the application and considers that the bus lay-by will prevent buses stopping the traffic and the pelican crossing is a very good idea to help people get to the shop and bus stop (17.08.15). - 8.10 The owner of Apartment 7 in Fuchsia Road, Peel supports the development which he considers will bring first time buyers' housing for the village. He has worked in Crosby for 6 years and considers a shop would be very desirable and would create local employment. The provisions for crossing the road are welcome and the addition of more homes will boost the local economy with the amenities needed by the new residents in easy distance. He lives within a modern estate in Peel which he considers has a great community spirit which could be achieved in the proposed development which he considers would provide a lovely place to live and in which to raise a family without any drastic impact on the landscape (08.10.15). - 8.11 The owner of 8, The Crofts, Glen Vine is in support of the development which she considers will improve the village and will be in character with the area. She considers that the emergency access is a good idea (19.08.15). - 8.12 The owners of Cooilingel Farm supports the application (he is the owner of the site) and believes that the houses will be very well designed and pleasing to the eye and the bus layby and crossing point can only be of benefit to the village (07.10.15, 09.10.15 and 09.10.15). - 8.13 The owner of Greeba View, Crosby supports the application and feel the crossing is long overdue and the removal of the hedge will increase visibility at the crossroads. He considers the village has been in need of a shop for some time (09.10.15). - 8.14 The owner of Glenlough Farm in Glen Vine supports the application and considers the lack of facilities in Crosby make it difficult for older people and families to live there. A crossing point has been requested for many years as has a shop. There is also a lack of affordable housing for young people to get onto the property ladder (09.10.15). - 8.15 The owner of The Park, Clough Whilley, Tosaby Road, The Eairy supports the application as it will be an asset to the area and bring life to the area (07.10.15).
8.16 The owner of Ballaglonney Cottage, Main Road supports the application, having farmed the field for 50 years he says he has never known it to flood. He feels that a local shop will benefit the community and a pelican crossing in the village has been requested for years. First time buyers' housing will be welcome (09.10.12). - 8.17 The owner of Ballachrink Farm, The Eairy supports the application and considers that the development will enhance the village with the proposed access and crossing points being well considered and the pedestrian link to the Heritage Trail a benefit. He considers that this would give a tremendous boost to Crosby and give it something it is crying out for and give it some life
8.18 The owner of 22, Tynwald Close, St. John's supports the application as he considers that it will provide opportunities for people who would like to live in Crosby to do so with the provision of first time buyers' housing, particularly with the easy access to the new shop, crossing and playing fields 09.10.15) - 8.19 The owner of Lower Gleneedle, Patrick is in support of the application as he would like somewhere affordable to live, but on a farm worker's wage cannot afford current market prices. Crosby, he considers is not within a densely built up area and is well placed in terms of public transport and amenities (09.10.15). - 8.20 The owner of a property in London, someone who lived in the area for 20 years and still has family in the area and would like to come back to the Island, fully supports the application, considering that it opens up the village to new residents and improving it for existing residents. He does not consider that the size of the development is overly large and would not substantially change the character of the area. It is well served by a public house, playing fields but is in need of a shop. He has never known the site to flood ad would expect that attenuation measures would be relatively easy to implement: he does not see any issues with surface water run-off. The pedestrian crossing will be a benefit and the bus lay by welcome. Overall he considers that the proposals are well considered and meet the needs of the population and the wider strategic housing needs
REPRESENTATIONS Those making observations
9.1 The owner of 6, Elm Bank, Glen Vine considers that the village is in need of basic local services, a local shop and opportunities for older people to downsize. He accepts that the site is designated for development and may one day be suitable for a mix of house types. He considers that a site on the southern side of the road will not be attractive for shoppers and there are also issues of the flooding of the Memorial Playing Fields, the need for planting, visibility and traffic issues. The growing volume of traffic through the village represents, in his view, a material change since the land was designated for development in 1982 (09.10.15). ASSESSMENT - 10. The issues in this case are:
10.1 Setting aside the physical size and dimensions of the site compared with the provisions of the 1982 Development Plan, there are suggestions that the site is not suitable for development and even given that the site is identified in some for on the 1982 Plan as Proposed Residential, such time has passed since then and the adjacent village has changed and grown together with the increase in demand for the infrastructure which serves the village that the designation is no longer relevant or appropriate.
10.2 In order for a planning system to be robust and dependable, there must be some reliance upon the designations in an adopted document. Without this reliance, there can be no reasonable reliability upon the same system to resist development in areas which are not so designated. In this case, whilst thirty three years have elapsed since the designation of a portion of field 320653 for residential development, time itself cannot result in designations being rendered inappropriate without some evidence that the time has brought with it some change in circumstances. Whilst the village of Crosby has continued to develop since 1982, this has been largely in line with the other land use designations provided for in that same plan. The exception to this and perhaps not foreseen in 1982 was the conversion and development of Eyreton Farm for around 9 additional dwellings. There is no evidence which demonstrates that this additional amount of development, over and above what was envisaged in 1982 has led to a demand on local infrastructure which cannot be adequately met.
10.3 It is also the case that infrastructure is generally expected to be programmed to keep pace with development rather than the other way around. Rarely is it the case that infrastructure, particularly sewerage, schools and roads are built to a significantly greater capacity than that which is envisaged at the present time or in association with the development with which it is proposed to be installed. The inspector reporting on PA 13/91289/B for the development of 144 dwellings in Peel commented as follows in respect of objections received in respect of a perceived inability of the existing infrastructure to accommodate the additional dwellings proposed:
10.4 The Department produced a series of Sector Plans in 1991 which were adopted by the Department but not pursued to adoption by Tynwald. These documents have a stated life of 5 years:
"This area should now be removed from development purposes due to access and flooding problems and this should be addressed in the Crosby Local Plan."
10.8 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 where it states:
"Existing Planning Circulars (excluding "Sector Plan" Circulars) will continue to have effect except insofar as they are inconsistent with the Development Plan."
10.9 As such, considering that the Sector Plans were not pursued to adoption by Tynwald and in any event had a stated, finite life which has since expired, and are stated in the Strategic Plan, a plan adopted by Tynwald, as having no effect, it is not considered that the reference in this plan of 1991, should result in the land being considered in principle to be unsuitable for development. In addition to the above, 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. There is also no evidence either in the Sector Plan itself or currently, that there are access or flooding problems with or from the site and it is not clarified in the Sector Plan exactly what these problems are and whether they are surmountable. - 10.10 The Residential Land Availability Studies have not included this site in their calculations of housing availability. Consultation with the Planning Policy Division of Department of Infrastructure indicates that there is no reason for this and that it has been erroneously rather than deliberately omitted.
10.11 It is therefore considered that the land use designation of 1982 is still applicable and that as a starting point, the land should be considered suitable for development.
10.12 There would appear to be a difference between the area shown on the 1982 Plan and that shown as the development site in the application, even considering the scale at which the Plan was prepared and any reasonable interpretation of that. It is also the case that the site as defined in the 1982 Plan is relatively arbitrary and not associated with any fixed boundary or feature. The difference lies not in the length of frontage onto the A1 (taking into consideration the additional frontage included in order to provide adequate visibility splays for the new entrance). The site would appear to be slightly longer (north east to south west) by around 15m and as the angle of the north western boundary is now parallel with the field boundary to the north west, the site is consequently wider at the lower part. - 10.13 The applicant indicates that in preparation of the application, as well as taking advice from the planning office (which is always subject to the proviso that "Any views expressed in this email are those of the officer only and are without prejudice to any formal decision made under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and any relevant secondary legislation") he struggled to ascertain precisely where the extent of the designated land was due to the scale at which the 1982 Plan was prepared, and aligned the boundaries to the general course of the stream. The western boundary, they indicate has been deliberately softened and is not in a straight line to minimise its impact. The inclusion of the bus layby has resulted in less land being available for development within the identified area and as such the site was lengthened, also to make provision for public footpaths. The parking facilities were increased to help congestion on Old Church Road. They therefore consider that any additional land which is not within the identified area on the 1982 Plan is justified for including within the development site. - 10.14 It is important that a development is properly serviced and provided for in terms of public open space and has an acceptable visual impact. Whilst it may be possible to accommodate 28 dwellings on the site without encroaching beyond a stricter interpretation of the provisions of the 1982 Plan, it is considered to be more important, provided that there is no significant harm in using additional land, that the development contributes to the village community and that it can be accessed and serviced acceptably. The inclusion of the additional land will enable the provision of a bus lay-by, which could be argued is not strictly justified from the proposed development but would not be possible or likely without it, a potentially softer edge to the site at the outer edges, a pedestrian link to the Heritage Trail, providing a safe route to leisure and recreation facilities for residents of the estate and others within the village and the provision of community facilities such
10.15 There has been no evidence to suggest that there is harm from an extension to the residential area identified in the 1982 Plan, only that it would not accord with that designation. There are no physical features which would be affected by or which would affect the extent of development, other than perhaps the adjacent field boundaries and in that respect, it is perhaps more appropriate that the eastern boundary is parallel with the nearby hedge from a visual perspective. For the above reasons, it is considered that the site as shown in the application is acceptable for development purposes as shown.
10.16 The commercial unit(s) is/are shown to have an overall footprint of 15m by 30m. This compares to 7m by 6m at Strang Stores and 10m by 17m at the Spar Shop in Union Mills. The application refers to a convenience shop and possible other uses and some of those in support of the scheme refer to a doctor's surgery or possible health facilities. The provision of certain services, including doctors and post offices is subject to other controls as well as market demand and as such, it could not be guaranteed that any services such as these which are subject to other control would be forthcoming. It is clear from policy that there is no presumption against the provision of retail developments within towns and villages. The land is designated (in the main) as Proposed Predominantly Residential, with the Predominantly intending to include "a group of land uses which would not be detrimental to the amenities of a residential area...such as incidental open space, play areas, playing fields, amenity tree planting as well as differing but compatible land uses such as education, tourist accommodation, private garaging, storage, clinics, shops and light industry" [Circular 1/79 Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Provisional Order 1979 Explanatory Memorandum, which is the only definition of the land uses to accompany the 1982 Order which the 1979 Provisional Order ultimately became). As such, it is considered wholly acceptable, and even desirable for the proposal to include provision for retail floorspace. Such provision was made within the development proposal which has become Ballagarey in Glen Vine only for the site within the estate to become housing once the developer had demonstrated satisfactorily that a retail unit in that location was unviable (PA 01/00410). - 10.17 The size of a retail unit can be an issue if this could be seen to contribute to the demise of established retail centres in towns and villages. This is set out in Business Policy 9 where it expresses caution when dealing with developments of 500 sq m or greater. What is shown is 450 sq m gross so does not fall within this. In any case, there are no adjacent retail areas which could be seen to suffer from the development of a retail facility here - the nearest shop being at Union Mills, some 3.3 km away to the east. As such, it is not considered that the proposed retail unit, either as shown or at all, is unacceptable. The applicant has indicated that the area shown will accommodate more than one shop, each with 70 - 80 sq m with a potential convenience store taking two units. He also advises that they have had a number of expressions of interest in the units. It is considered that the inclusion of retail units are acceptable as shown in the application.
10.18 The applicant has provided a transport statement and there is no objection to the application from the highway authority subject to appropriate conditions. The proposed access and bus lay by will result in the loss of roadside trees which will have a significant impact on the appearance of the village at this point and is objected to by DEFA's Forestry Division. At present, the existing trees provide a screen preventing a view into the site. The trees themselves are constrained by ivy growth which is unmanaged and which has limited the growth and canopy spread of the trees. The development proposes to introduce semi-mature trees further back into the site which will not overhang the highway. Their inclusion within an area of public open space should ensure their management and in time will provide a more attractive, more effective screen than do the existing. It should be noted that the opening up of the view towards the south west is arguably of public benefit, even if this would result in the proposed buildings being visible in the foreground, but the trees will provide visual and aural relief to those existing residents on the other side of the Main Road and also to those within the development, from the noise of passing traffic on the main road. It is considered that the site can be accessed safely and in an environmentally acceptable manner.
10.19 The development will have a visual impact in terms of both the modifications to the roadside frontage including the removal of the existing trees and also in respect of the change in character of the field from an open area with trees bordering it, to one of a number of dwellings and the associated managed planted space, roads and parked vehicles. As the site is identified for proposed
10.24 The impact on ecology manifests itself particularly in respect of the impact of the introduction of buildings and lighting and the removal of trees and principally on bats which may roost in and feed around the established trees within and around the site, some of which are to be removed as part of the proposals. The applicant has provided a bat survey which indicates that proposed lighting will be designed not to point skyward and minimising street clutter by introducing lighting on buildings rather than stand alone standards. A precise standard of illumination will be applied to lighting proposed in areas close to wildlife sensitive places. A further report was provided in respect of general bat activity in the area which revealed that bats do use the eastern hedgeline to travel along and crossing the road at the crossroads and also along the southern side of the main road only the common pipistrelle was recorded at the time of the survey, other species may be identified
10.25 The impact on bats will depend upon the design and details of the lighting close to the treed areas, which can be controlled by condition and details of this required as part of the application for the reserved matters. There is also concern that whilst the bat survey indicated that pipistrelles are present, there may be other species of bat which may be present on site at other times of the year. If this is the case then it may be that other measures may be required to ensure that the wildlife corridor of trees around the site, particularly alongside the river are not adversely affected but it is considered that this could be adequately dealt with by condition rather than it warranting refusal of the application.
10.26 The development gives rise to a requirement for 1512 sq m of formal play space, 504 sq of children's play space and 672 sq m of amenity space. The development provides an area of around 1400 sq m of space in front of the proposed shops, around 1700 sq m of space running along the eastern boundary of the site and proposed footpath which more than provides for these two elements of children's play and amenity space. Appendix 6 of the Strategic Plan advises that "Generally speaking, developments over 20 houses would have to provide children's play space onsite as well as an appropriate level of amenity open space on-site." (paragraph A.6.6.3) The Plan also advises that in the assessment of the application of the standards, consideration will be given to the proximity and availability of existing Open Space, including the foreshore, public glens and parks and school fields which may be available for public use outside of school hours." In this case the site is adjacent to existing recreational facilities and children's play facilities which will be accessible to those living in the proposed development by virtue of a proposed pedestrian link to the Heritage Trail footpath which runs alongside the recreational facilities. If appropriate, a commuted sum could be requested of the applicant if it could be demonstrated that the development will result in the need for expenditure on the existing facilities: no such information has been received either from the local authority or the management of the playing fields or children's play facilities.
10.27 MUA has indicated that it is content to require a Flood Risk Assessment at the time of the application for reserved matters as the evidence provided indicates that the site itself and adjacent land would be no more subject to flooding as a result of the development than it currently is.
10.29 Human Rights have been raised and it is suggested that the development would adversely affect the Human Rights of people living close to the site. The planning system, due to it involving public consultation and a right of appeal through an independent party, in itself accords with human rights expectations and any "right" must be assessed in respect of not only the difference between existing and proposed situations but also whether there is any exception in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by general principles of international law. The site is designated (in the main) for residential development, this designation coming about after a process which involved public consultation. The Government has a duty to make provisions in development plans and through the exercise of their statutory functions for accommodation of its population which leads to land being designated in development plans. It is therefore in the public interest that there is sufficient land allocated for development to accommodate the Island's population. The site is also across a principal traffic route from existing dwellings, a route which is busy and which generates noise and disturbance to these residents and which provides a distance of 15m from the front of the Eyremont Terrace properties to the edge of the site, the proposed buildings being further back than this. The infringement of Human Rights is also subject to the conditions of law and in this respect, how and whether the existing properties would be affected would be considered in the light of the established policies and principles set out in the adopted Strategic Plan, that is, General Policy 2. If the development is considered to accord with the provisions of General Policy 2 then the Human Rights provisions should not introduce additional levels of control on top of this. General Policy 2
10.30 It is important that the development also accords with general good standards of development which are set out in General Policy 2 (see paragraph 3.2 above). It is considered that the development complies with these in terms of the standards within the development itself distances between dwellings, provisions for car parking and access although the design and size of the buildings will have an impact on how the development sits within the village (GP 2b and c) and those matters cannot be determined at this stage. General Policy 2 will be applied to any application for the reserved matters in this respect. In terms of the impact of the development on existing dwellings, the development is some distance from existing dwellings, and largely on the other side of a very busy main road. From the properties on Eyremont Terrace the closest building will be 35m away which is in itself a satisfactory distance to prevent inter-visibility and it should be noted that this proposed property has its gable towards the road and there is also landscaping between the existing and proposed dwellings. As such, it is not considered that the proposed buildings will adversely affect the living conditions of those in nearby existing dwellings such as to warrant refusal of the application. The Eyremont Terrace properties, apart from number 5, are slightly elevated above the level of the main road, 5A and number 6 slightly more elevated that number 5 but less than the rest of the terrace. - 10.31 The development will provide a new access onto the Main Road which is directly in front of a number of existing dwellings - notably 5, 5A, and 6, Eyremont Terrace. There is no vehicular access directly opposite the proposed entrance into the development but 5, Eyremont Terrace has a car parking area in front of the house which is just slightly offset from the proposed access. There is also a garage and parking space to the south east of number 6 accessing directly onto the main road, alongside Kissacks Lane which does the same. Whilst these existing accesses are in close proximity, and both existing parking areas involve either reversing in or out of the space (good driving practice would demand that vehicles are reversed in not out of the spaces), there is no indication from the highway authority that this is not acceptable in highway safety terms. - 10.32 There is no evidence that the development cannot otherwise be satisfactorily serviced.
Conclusions
11.1 Whilst the prospect of development close to existing properties will inevitably be disappointing to those most directly affected, the development plan process sets out where development will and will not possibly take place and involves not only public consultation but is also publicly available so that the public can take these future proposals into account when making decisions on their own current or future property. As mentioned previously, if the planning system is to be robust and dependable in terms of discouraging development where the land is not designated for development, the reverse must be true - ie that where land is designated for development, there should be a general presumption in favour of development there as there has been elsewhere in the village (Reayrt ny Crink, Kermode Close for example).
11.2 The planning status of the land is a little confused in that the 1991 Sector Plan does not include it on the map but does include it in the text and indicates that this land should not be considered suitable for development due to problems of flooding and access. No further plans were produced to confirm this rescinding of the land use designation and that plan had a stated life of five years. This is further confused by the absence of the site in the Planning Policy's assessment of residential land availability. Similarly, as there is no statement of the rescinding of the development status of the land, a formal adopted policy cannot be rescinded by omission and consultation with Planning Policy indicates that this was not deliberate. As such, whilst not completely clear-cut, it is considered that there are no over-riding reasons why the provisions of The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 should not remain applicable to this site.
11.3 Whilst the area on the application is larger than what seems to be shown in the 1982 Plan, the Plan is prepared at a scale that renders a precise definition in accordance with what the author had in mind, impracticable. However, what is shown is larger than that area shown on the Plan and a slightly different shape and it may be that the decision-maker considers any departure from the adopted plan to be unacceptable and the application is refused for that reason. However,
considering in more detail what the implications are of any departure from the adopted plan, it is clear that the frontage is roughly the same (with an area added to provide adequate visibility splays) as is the general depth of the site. The impact of this is that slightly more of the site will be visible, this impact mainly being appreciable from the former railway line and from the higher view from the south. It is relevant that the development does not propose building on all of the available land and that the north western boundary includes land for the creation of a softer edge to the development - something which would probably not be provided if the development area accorded with the very straight edge shown in the 1982 Plan. It is also relevant that the development area will be reduced by the provision of a roadside bus layby - something which will assist road safety for users of public transport and highway efficiency as the bus can pull completely off the highway for its passengers to get on and off as well as a new controlled crossing point to assist pedestrians safely across the road which is not currently available.
11.4 As such, it is considered that the area of land proposed to be developed and generally in the form shown in the application is acceptable. In terms of the inclusion of a retail unit, it is considered that the residential designation does not preclude such a use and indeed that it would be beneficial to the village to have its own shop or shops in accordance with its status defined in the Strategic Plan as a village which should have an appropriate level of housing and employment opportunities. The scale of unit(s) is not considered unacceptable and the scale of operations will be determined by the demand for the service. Whilst concern was expressed in terms of the other application by the local authority for a shop, about the size of the unit, that site was on land not designated for development and as such, the size of such a unit was a material consideration. What is shown here is less than the size which would trigger the need for a retail impact assessment and as such is considered to be acceptable.
11.5 In terms of the infrastructure - the drainage system, highway network and education facilities, it is not considered that there has been any evidence which would warrant refusal of the application on any of these bases. Whilst the development will change the appearance of the village at this point, the starting point is to consider the land use designation which establishes that the development of the site is acceptable in principle, along with the resulting visual impact. Whilst there are concerns about the loss of trees, these trees are limited in terms of their growth potential due to them overhanging the road and are clearly not maintained as many are covered in ivy and have a vertical orientation, certainly on the road side rather than a more natural outward spread of the branches and leaves. The new trees set back would be less constrained.
11.6 It is considered that the development is acceptable in principle and is recommended for approval subject to conditions regarding the information to be provided in the application(s) for reserved matters relating to flooding, affordable housing, lighting, access, landscaping and planting.
PARTY STATUS 7.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, the following persons are automatically interested persons:
Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Forestry, Wildlife, Fisheries and Forestry Divisions are part of the same Department as the Planning Authority and as such should not be afforded interested person status.
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.
In this instance, it is recommended that the owners of the following properties have sufficient interest and should be awarded the status of an Interested Person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13 as they are generally within the village of Crosby:
Ballaglonney Cottage
7, Kermode Road Close Jiarg, Old Church Road Greeba View Cooilingel Farm 12, Crosby Mews East Lodge 7 and 11, Reayrt ny Crink Laurel Cottage 1, Eyreton Cottages The Nest
In this instance, it is recommended that the following persons do not have sufficient interest to be awarded the status of an Interested person in accordance with Government Circular 0046/13 as they are associated with property outwith Crosby
6, Elm Bank, Glen Vine A property in London Lower Gleneedle
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.
Recommendation Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement Date of Recommendation: 09.11.2015
Conditions and Notes for Approval: C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions
Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013.
Reason: To comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013.
REASON: the landscaping of the site is an integral part of the scheme and must be implemented as approved.
This decision relates to drawings 1060/PL01A, 1060/PL02 A, 1060/PL03 and 1060/PL04 all received on 14th September, 2015.
I can confirm that this decision has been made by the Director of Planning and Building Control in accordance with the authority afforded to that Officer by the appropriate DEFA Delegation.
Decision Made : Approve subject to Legal Agreement Date : 05.02.2016 Determining officer
Signed : M GALLAGHER Michael Gallagher Director of Planning and Building Control
Copyright in submitted documents remains with their authors. Request removal
