Officer Report

Application No.: 16/01131/REM Applicant: J M Project Management Limited Proposal: Reserved Matters details of the construction of seven dwellings with associated drainage, landscaping, access, lighting, pedestrian crossing and parking relating to PA 15/00775/A Site Address: Field 320653 Main Road Crosby Isle of Man Case Officer : Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 20.09.2017 Site Visit: 20.09.2017 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 06.11.2017 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The development hereby approved must be commenced before 29th June, 2020.

Reason: To comply with Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented approvals and also to accord with the approval in principle granted under 15/00775/A.

• C 2. Once the development can be connected to the public sewage treatment works, it must be and the stand alone temporary works hereby approved including any associated pipework which then becomes redundant, must be removed from site and the ground made good within 6 months of the connection of the site to the public system.

Reason: To remove any unwarranted structures or apparatus to enable the land to be used for its authorised purpose (currently open space).

• C 3. Landscaping, (including mitigation tree planting) and post planting maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with drawing 1060/C200F, in the first planting and seeding season following completion or occupation of any part of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants (including those retained as part of the development) which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development are removed, or, in the opinion of the Department, become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure that the landscaping which is an integral part of the development, is implemented and maintained.

Note: For clarification, standard trees are 2.5 - 3m tall and extra heavy standards have a circumference of 14-16cm.

• C 4. There must be no disturbance to the bed or margins of the south eastern stream including disturbance due to in-channel works or entry to the watercourse by machinery and to ensure this, details of any proposed works to the north western bank profile of the stream running along the south eastern side of the site together with a construction method statement must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department prior to the start of the construction of the path and the culvert and any embankment works: the method statement shall outline a suitable construction approach to reduce the possibility of disturbance of fish within the stream and the works must be carried out in accordance with these details and this statement all to avoid disturbance or injury to fish and protection of the aquatic and bankside habitat. Reason: To accord with Environment Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan and the Wildlife Act 1990.
• C 5. No development may commence until such times as protective fencing has been erected in positions approved by the Department to protect those existing trees which are to be retained, during construction. The approved fencing must be retained during the course of construction.

Reason: To ensure that the landscaping is effected in accordance with the approved plans and in the interests of the amenities of the area.

• C 6. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the garage, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.

Plans/Drawings/Information: This approval relates to the following drawings and information: 0800/C203, 0700/PL104, 0700/PL105, 0700/PL106, 1060/R010 and "Construction of bus lay-by Construction Method Statement" received on 26th October, 2016 P1639161102-01P, 1060/T01, "Construction of highway, drainage and housing Construction Method Statement" and Street Lighting specification prepared by Professional Lighting Design, dated 1st November, 2016, all received on 4th November, 2016 16/2576/01A received on 9th November, 2016 "Flood Risk Assessment" dated January 2017 and received on 24th January, 2017 16/2576/02B, 16/2567/03B, 16/2576/16A, 16/2576/17A, 16/2576/19B, 16/2576/23B, 16/2576/25B, 16/2576/31A, 1060/C201A all received on 22nd May, 2017 Landscaping maintenance and aftercare schedule dated 12th May, 2017 and received on 22nd May 2017 1060/C200F received on 26th June, 2017 1060/C200F received on 26th June, 2017 and 16/2576/15F and 16/2576/26B both received on 5th October, 2017. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

It is recommended that the following Government Departments should be given Interested Person Status on the basis that they have made written submissions relating to planning considerations:

Manx Utilities

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

The residents of 1 and 6, Eyremont Terrace both of whom live opposite the site and who were both afforded interested person status in respect of the approval in principle

_____________________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE AND ALSO AS THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL WHERE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION

Preliminaries

When the application was initially submitted in September, 2016, it proposed only the design and houses proposed on plots 1-7. No details were provided of the landscaping, drainage, ecological issues, access, flood risk or lighting information required in the approval in principle. All of this information was requested and provided in November, 2016 and the description of the application was changed to include not only the reserved matters details of the seven houses proposed but also the details required by condition of the approval in principle, PA

• 15/00775/A upon which this current application relies, in respect of drainage, landscaping, access, lighting, pedestrian crossing and parking. The omission of these details was correctly noted by a local resident and the local authority, both noted below. The application is therefore not simply for the details of the seven dwellings, but for them and all of the matters reserved from the approval in principle to be provided as part of the reserved matters application and required as part of the overall development. A contemporaneous application is seeking approval for the reserved matters for the rest of the development which was approved in principle - ie the shop and remaining 21 dwellings (16/01314/REM).

In addition to the above, during the consideration of the current application within the Planning Office in September, 2017 it was noticed that the proposed works included development - the proposed sewage treatment system and associated pipework - outwith the red line shown in both the application in principle and the applications for approval of the reserved matters. The Department is not in a position where it could determine an application either which included development outwith the red line of either application or which omitted the details of the proposed drainage. The scheme has thus been amended to include a drainage system within the red line area.

This current application was submitted within 2 years of the approval being granted in principle under 15/00775/A in accordance with condition 3 of that approval.

A number of conditions were attached to that approval, including a requirement for an ecological survey of lampreys in the stream and bats in and around the site to be submitted to the Department. This was undertaken and approved in December, 2016, following discussion with DEFA's Senior Biodiversity Officer and Inland Fisheries Officer. Conditions were also attached which require the installation of the access and protection of trees has been implemented and none of the buildings may be occupied until such times as the bus layby and pedestrian crossing have been implemented and are available for use. None of these conditions requires to be reiterated in any approval issued in respect of the applications for reserved matters.

Also of relevance, Cabinet Office has embarked upon the preparation of an Area Plan for the East of the Island which includes Crosby as well as the wider parish of Marown and the parishes of Braddan, Santon, the administrative area of Garff, the district and parish of Onchan and the Borough of Douglas. The application site and the land to the west has been proposed by the owners for consideration for development - the application site for residential and the wider area to the west for mixed use - housing, recreation and leisure, residential care/nursing home, retirement bungalows, cafe and car parking.

The Area Plan Process includes two main phases of public consultation - preliminary publicity (to determine the scope and key issues) and the draft plan stage. The Preliminary Publicity stage of the Area Plan for the East was completed on 26th May 2017.

In order to identify Potential Development Sites, a Call for Sites was carried out in 2016, and the Cabinet Office has also proactively identified a number of additional sites which should be considered. A Site Assessment Framework, against which Potential Development Sites can be considered, has been published with four stages. The first two stages (preliminary screening and critical constraints) sought to remove sites from further consideration which are in clear conflict with the Strategic Plan due to their location or characteristics (respectively). The third stage is to carry out detailed consideration of various issues (with no pass/fail) and the final stage considers developability.

The draft site assessments were published for comment as part of the Preliminary Publicity (and submissions for new/additional sites were also invited). The consultation documentation clarified that no decisions had been made and not all sites included in the consultation will be allocated in the final plan. It also noted that Existing Site Allocations will not automatically be rolled forward. Instead, exiting Site Allocations and sites with unimplemented Planning Approval being considered as Potential Development Sites.

A draft site assessment was published for this site (ref. MH021), which due to its status as draft and due to the relatively early stage of the process, can be given very limited weight in the determination of planning applications. Nevertheless it is noted that the site passed the first two stages of the assessment process (i.e. it is adjoining the draft existing settlement boundary of a settlement named in the Strategic Plan Settlement Hierarchy and no critical constraints have been identified). The draft assessment also concludes that the site is developable (this conclusion being made at least partly due to the existing planning permission).

The majority of the application site is an existing allocation (in the 1982 Development Plan) and has an extant planning approval. The Area Plan for the East is at a relatively early stage and the draft assessment for the site does not rule it out. It is therefore not considered that the application is premature - i.e. it would not undermine the proper process for the preparation of the Area Plan.

THE SITE

1.1 The site is that of a development which has been approved in principle for residential use PA 15/00775/A. The site lies on the south western corner of the crossroads in the heart of Crosby village and rises from the stream which abuts the children's play area, Marown Parish Commissioners offices and Hall Caine Pavilion, BMX track and sports pitches. To the south west of the site is a field through which a proposed pedestrian link will be created to join the long distance footpath referred to as the Heritage Trail which follows the route of a former railway line. To the north west is another agricultural field as well as the remainder of the agricultural field part of which is the development site. - 1.2 Mature trees line the A1 across the frontage of the site and abut the site on its south eastern boundary.

THE PROPOSAL

• 2.1.1 15/00775/A approved the principle of the residential development of the site together with the provision of a new access off the A1 and the provision of a pedestrian footpath onto the Heritage Trail. The approval required that any application for the reserved matters provide also details of the landscaping of the site, a flood risk assessment, drainage of its foul and surface water, a Construction Method Statement including working hours, drawings demonstrating that visibility splays of 2.4m by 70m can be provided, lighting and details of the pedestrian crossing, bus lay by and associated highway drainage. The current application seeks permission for the details of these matters along with those of seven affordable dwellings which are sited at the northern end of the site alongside the entrance and will be the first properties within the estate as one enters from the A1.
• 2.1.2 This approval contained conditions which would control the timing of certain elements of the development, for example, the commencement which must be before 29th June, 2020 or within two years of the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters (if this were relating to this current application, two years of the date of final approval of that). The reserved matters applications had to be submitted prior to 29th June 2018 (which they were). No building works may commence until such times as the access into the site from the A1, together with the visibility splays as approved, has been provided in accordance with the approved plans and retained as such thereafter. The bus lay-by and pedestrian crossing must be installed in accordance with a timetable to be submitted and approved by the Department (which is included as part of this current application). None of the dwellings or retail space may be occupied until the bus lay-by and pedestrian crossing are in place and available for use. No work may be commenced until protective fences are installed in accordance with a drawing to be approved. These conditions apply equally to the reserved matters applications and need not be repeated. Similarly, the legal agreement in respect of the delivery of the affordable housing applies to the reserved matters and need not be repeated.

- 2.2 THE DWELLINGS

• 2.2.1 The dwellings are terraced, two storey properties which have their main ridges running north east to south west but with the two end properties having their ride running at right angles with a gable fronting the terrace. The two end dwellings are three bed units and the others two and each has at least one at least 6m long parking space in front of the plot with the remainder of the frontage dedicated to garden and the remaining six spaces provided in a communal area to the north west alongside the estate entrance. These spaces are slightly less than the generally accepted length of at least 5m but there is ample space in front to allow for slightly longer spaces whilst maintaining the 6m separation required for manoeuvring. One of the properties (number 1) has two on-site spaces.
• 2.2.2 The dwellings will be finished in plain painted render with white or grey uPVC framed windows and dark coloured interlocking roof tiles. The north facing elevation of the house on plot 1 will have a feature projection in the middle and two vertical features with ground and first floor windows, providing interest in an otherwise blank gable.
• 2.3 DRAINAGE

• 2.3.1 The site will be drained of its foul water via pipes which will link to a new Biodisc situated at the south western end of the site, within the proposed access which stops at the south western boundary of the site. This will accept the foul sewage from the development until such times as the main sewage works have been upgraded sufficiently to accept additional load. Once this has happened, the sewage will be pumped up to a new connection to the main sewer, located in the north eastern corner of the site. Whilst pipework is not usually the subject of planning applications, in this case the pipework is shown to pass very close to where there are tree roots of trees to be retained and as such, a condition should be imposed if the application is approved, to seek the details of how this pipework will be installed without harming the roots of these trees. The treatment works will remain in the control and

• responsibility of the management company responsible for those parts of the site which are not privately owned or tenanted until such times as the development is connected to the mains system.
• 2.3.2 Prior to their formal comments on this application, Manx Utilities have advised that no adoption will be considered whilst a temporary works are in operation but that once the Crosby Treatment Works have been replaced, the site can be connected into the mains system and the temporary works decommissioned. It is important that any infrastructure is then also removed and this should be required by condition.

- 2.4 LANDSCAPING

• 2.4.1 The landscaping scheme is comprehensive and covers the whole of the site. This involves the introduction of birch and alder alternating along the frontage from the proposed access south westwards to replace the existing ash which are to be removed to make way for the visibility splays and one tree which is shown but not annotated alongside the proposed pedestrian access from the site to the new pedestrian crossing. One of the proposed trees is very close to the path, possibly unfeasibly so.
• 2.4.2 The majority of the dwellings, other than the affordable units, will have a cherry tree introduced into the front garden and ash, birch, rowan and hazel are to be introduced around the perimeter of the site. Public open space will be a mix of grass, native shrub mix, planted hedges and feature shrubs (hebe, fuchsia, tufted hair grass, sea pink, Mexican feathergrass, lavender, stonecrop, pittosporum and sea holly).

CONSTRUCTION

2.5 Information has been provided on the construction process, describing portable toilets and offices but no indication of where these will be. All deliveries, storage and access will be into the main site. A temporary footpath order is referred to, "where required" along with the fencing of the work area within the site and the setting out of the position of the road and houses with the taking of initial progress photographs and the removal of approved trees. There is provision within the Temporary Uses Permitted Development Order to allow the use of adjacent land for construction uses, subject to conditions. LIGHTING - 2.6 The applicant has provided details of Twilight street lighting - 5m high which a direct and narrow illumination pattern and Wow which are also 5m high, together with an illumination map which illustrates that most of the lighting will be within the estate road and that 6 Twilight standards will be positioned alongside the woodland to the south east. None is alongside the A1. The area of lighting closest to the stream is opposite the bowling club where there are floodlights approved, subject to time constraints on their operation, reflecting concerns about bat activity. ACCESS AND BUS LAY BY - 2.7.1 The construction process will involve the gaining of a temporary road closure order, the fencing off of appropriate areas, the setting out of the position of the layby on site and the undertaking of an underground utility survey and marking out on site with initial photographs. Trees approved to be removed will be so and any street furniture will be disconnected and repositioned along with the overhead electricity lines. The layby has been amended following concerns raised by various parties and now meets with the approval of the Highway Services Division. This now involves the creation of a toucan crossing with tactile paving on each kerb and the appropriate road signage, all of which can be done by or on behalf of the Department of Infrastructure, under the terms of the Permitted Development Order. The layby for buses sits to the north west of the crossing allowing an unobstructed parking area of 2.6m wide and 12.2m long (enough to accommodate a bus) with associated space for access and egress. This will provide a bus stop. A new footway will run along the front boundary of the site which will be formed by a sod hedge no higher than 1.05m and trees planted behind it.

• 2.7.2 Once marked out the layby will be set out, areas dug and identified for layby and associated footpaths and drainage installed with kerbing, the surface tarmacadam finished and road markings added. The existing footway which goes part way down Old Church Road and curves around the corner onto the A1 will be extended along the front of the site, stepping in by up to 2.6m to provide space for the bus to pull in. 24m to the south east of the parked bus will be the toucan crossing, with pedestrian prompted traffic lights where there will be one pole on each side of the road and appropriate road markings prohibiting parking and overtaking on the approach to the north west for around 13m and 11m in the other direction. Tactile paving will be introduced at each edge.
• 2.7.3 The surface of the footpath link to the Heritage Trail is to be crushed stone and free draining. FLOOD RISK

• 2.8.1 The applicant has submitted a flood risk assessment. This describes the southern edge of the site flooding during high flow events where the stream is overtopped which causes flooding to the adjacent areas of the site despite none of the site being within published flood mapped areas. The stream serves a catchment area of around 2.80 sq km with the water entering the stream through a culvert under the highway under the A1. A ditch runs along the north eastern boundary of the site and discharges into the watercourse. This overflows due to cross sections of low flow capacity and poor maintenance and isolated flooding from overtopping occurs in the application site. The south eastern bank of the watercourse, which is not within the application site, is prone to overtopping with resultant flooding of the adjacent playing fields.
• 2.8.2 The application proposes to increase the capacity of the stream by re-profiling it and the existing ditch at the north eastern side of the site is diverted or culverted to prevent localised flooding. Subject to this being undertaken, the applicant's consultants' report that there is no risk of flooding to or from the proposed development. The proposal involves the culverting of the ditch which runs alongside the A1 with a new 450mm diameter pipe which will then discharge into the stream which runs down the south eastern boundary of the site.
• 2.8.3 The means of preventing flooding from this point southwards will involve re-profiling the western bank of the watercourse, where there are no trees. The exact works have not been shown and will not be known until further work has been undertaken. No works are proposed to the stream bed, just the western bank which may affect the precise location of the proposed footpath running along this edge of the site.

PLANNING POLICY

3.1 The principle of the development of this land has already been approved and what is for consideration is only the details which were reserved from 15/00775/A for further approval. However, for clarification, it may be helpful to reiterate the comments and conclusions made in respect of the earlier application in respect of the principle of development of this land. 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 The inspector commenting on the approval in principle comments as follows in respect of the land use designation:

"The size of the area on the south west side of Main Road, designated for residential development in the 1982 Plan is difficult to measure accurately because of the plan's 1:25,000 scale. The 1991 Western Sector Plan describes it as being 1.75 acres but, unhelpfully, there is no accompanying plan. The size of the appeal site is 3.88 acres. Even if the site were 1.75 acres, its development would still have a noticeable visual impact. There would be buildings and roads where currently there is a green field. The increase in size to 3.88 acres, as proposed by the applicant, would make more of a visual impact but, in my view, it would not render the proposal unacceptably harmful in terms of the character and appearance of the village. Indeed, I consider that the enlarged size has some advantages; for example, it enables generous landscaping and the provision of a footpath link to the Heritage Trail. (her paragraph 71)

3.3 She goes on, "I have balanced the material considerations described above against the undeniable fact that part of the site is designated as residential in the 1982 Plan, an adopted plan that forms part of the Development Plan. In my view, the weight that can be given to the material considerations is not enough to outweigh the site's residential designation. The principle of the proposed development is therefore acceptable" (paragraph 72). - 3.4 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:

• b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space 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;

• 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 adverse 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."

3.5 It is also relevant to consider the status of Crosby within the Strategic Plan:

• Spatial Policy 4: In the remaining villages development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities. These villages are:

Bride, Glen Maye, Sulby, Dalby, Ballaugh, Ballafesson, Glen Mona, Colby, Baldrine, Ballabeg, Crosby, Newtown, Glen Vine, Strang.

Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such settlements so as to maintain their existing character.

• Spatial Policy 5: New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.

3.6 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.

• Recreation Policy 3: Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan.
• Recreation Policy 4: Open Space must be provided on site or conveniently close to the development which it is intended to serve, and should be easily accessible by foot and public transport.

3.5 Guidance on retail developments is provided as follows:

• Business Policy 9 states: "The Department will support new retail provision in existing retail areas at a scale appropriate to the existing area and which will not have an adverse effect of adjacent retail areas. Major retail development proposals will require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment". Major development is defined as those over 500 sq m measured externally)."
• Business Policy 10 states: "Retail development will be permitted only in established town and village centres, with the exceptions of neighbourhood shops in large residential areas and those instances identified in Business Policy 5."

3.7 Other relevant policies referred to previously in the approval in principle are as follows:

• Strategic Policy 1 which states: "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".
• Strategic Policy 2: "New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3".
• Strategic Policy 3: "Proposals for development must ensure that the individual character of our towns and villages is protected or enhanced by:

• (a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and

• (b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character."

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:

• a) minimise journeys, especially by private car;
• b) make best use of public transport;
• c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and
• d) encourage pedestrian movement."

• Recreation Policy 3: "Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan."
• Recreation Policy 4: "Open Space must be provided on site or conveniently close to the development which it is intended to serve, and should be easily accessible by foot and public transport".
• Recreation Policy 5: "Area Plans will identify areas where improvements to informal access to the countryside can be made and to the public footpath network. Existing public rights of way should be retained and any development which affects these will be permitted only if it provides diversions which are no less direct or attractive than existing routes."

• Transport Policy 1: "New development should, where possible, be located close to existing public transport facilities and routes, including pedestrian, cycle and rail routes."
• Transport Policy 2: "The layout of development should, where appropriate, make provision for new bus, pedestrian and cycle routes, including linking into existing systems."

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."

PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The site has been the subject of two previous applications 06/00055/B 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 The most recent and relevant application for the site is 15/00775/A which established the principle of the development of the site for 28 dwellings together with retail facilities, drainage, access, landscaping and a footpath link to the Heritage Trail.

4.3 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. This application was refused and is the subject of an appeal which has yet to be heard. - 4.4 16/01314/REM proposes the details of the remainder of the built development on this site which was approved under 15/00775/A along with a reiteration of the infrastructure and associated works also shown in the current application. - 4.5 17/00852/B was submitted to try to address the issue of the drainage works being installed outwith the red line area and proposed the development as is proposed here but with the sewage treatment works and associated pipework outwith the red line as originally defined. This was considered and deferred by the Planning Committee at its meeting of 2nd October, 2017.

REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 DEFA Forestry Division indicate that they would have expected an application of this nature to include details of the landscaping proposed including a schedule of aftercare and includes information on such, and requests that this is provided prior to a decision being taken (12.10.16). Further information has been provided in this respect and the Arboricultural Officer's final advice is that most of his concerns have been addressed and that the landscaping scheme provides sufficient detail for the application to be considered. He advises that: "Landscaping, (including mitigation tree planting) and post planting maintenance shall be

• carried out in accordance with drawing 1060/C200E submitted in support of the application, in the first planting and seeding season following completion or occupation of any part of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants (including those retained as part of the development) which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development are removed, or, in the opinion of the Department, become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation."

5.2 He points out some discrepancies in the tree specification table which refers to standard trees being 2.5 - 3m tall and only extra heavy standards having a circumference of 14-16cm (12.06.17).

• 5.3.1 Marown Parish Commissioners are dismayed that the application as submitted did not contain the information required to comply with the conditions of the approval in principle. They also note that the applicant has not been in discussion with them about the provision of play facilities and have declined a meeting with the Marown Memorial Playing Fields Committee in respect of funding play facilities on that site in lieu of facilities on the application site (20.10.16).
• 5.3.2 They later submit further concerns pointing out that there are discrepancies between the drawing which shows the test holes and that for the site layout, the reference to the houses being referred to as "social housing" and "first time buyer houses" which are not the same thing. They consider that the bus lay-by is not deep enough and the CBR plan has two pelican crossings shown and should be re-issued for clarity. They express concern that the detailed plan for the toucan crossing shows the eastbound bus stop being within the zigzag lines. The construction method statement does not include hours of working and is deficient and they have concerns about the consistency of the street lighting compared with the rest of the parish, even though the applicant indicated at the appeal that the street lighting would not be maintained at public expense. Finally they comment that they have formed no view on the style of the houses but are disappointed that the development will create a hard edge to the village. They request that the Committee refuse the application for these reasons (08.12.16).

• They confirm their discontent with the application in various updates, the latest being 22.06.17.
• 5.3.3 They submit further comments on 19th October, 2017, relating to the amended plans which show the drainage included within the red line area, suggesting that the development is premature pending the conclusion of the Area Plan for the East where this land, together with land in the vicinity, is proposed for development and all of the areas are interdependent. They consider that the site does not comply with Strategic c Policy 10 and comparisons with other settlements are not valid. They are of the view that the development fails all of the requirements of General Policy 2 except for the impact on any view of the sea. They are opposed to the use of a Biodisc due to previous experience of such facilities where the nearest houses are not capable of being occupied due to smell nuisance. Whilst they are aware that a temporary discharge licence has been granted to discharge the Biodisc into the adjacent watercourse, they objected to this and are not sure what "temporary" means in this instance. They are concerned that a lamprey survey was not undertaken at the right time. If the application is approved, the Commissioners recommend conditions to require the maintenance of the areas of Public Open Space in perpetuity, that details of street lighting, their maintenance and operation times is agreed (to be consistent with the rest of the village) and that the days and times of construction work should be controlled - no earlier than 0800hrs and no later than 1900s Monday to Friday with a later start and lunch time finish on Saturdays although this is not to be encouraged. No work should be undertaken on Sundays or on public holidays.
• 5.4 The owner of 6, Eyremont Terrace points out a number of errors in the application form and notes that many of the matters on which details were reserved for further consideration in the approval in principle have not been provided (28.10.16). He later objects to the application on the basis that the approval in principle did not make provision for two separate applications which this now is with 16/01314/REM for the 21 dwellings and the retail unit (09.12.16). He submits further comments on 07.07.17, expressing concern at the amount of correspondence and plans which have been submitted and how difficult it is for the public to know which item is which as they are not helpfully annotated online. He casts doubt on the capability of the developer to create a development which will be robust and safe and financially sound and queries some of the statements made about the status of the applicant company. He notes that DEFA require a method statement relating to the re-profiling of the stream and creation of the path alongside and suggest that this should be provided now, not later. He also points out that the planting schedule does not specify when the dormant season which is referred to will be. He considers that the approval in principle was for 28 houses and a shop and the way in which the proposal has been split into two is unhelpful and should not be permitted.
• 5.5 The owners of 1, Eyremont Terrace observe that much of the information required at the approval in principle stage has not been provided, the bat survey not having been carried out at the right time of year, the tree survey has not been carried out correctly, the proposed method statement does not provide adequate protection against soil run off into the river and the flood risk assessment does not take into account the National Strategy for Sea Defences, Flooding and Coastal erosion. They also point out that Japanese Knotweed may be present in the area (undated letter received on 06.12.16). They submit further views on 26.02.17 and 19.06.17, reiterating these concerns, adding that no work should be allowed to be undertaken in the bird nesting season and that the applicant must have a licence to discharge into the watercourse before any decision is taken. They suggest that a condition must be attached preventing any expansion of the site and query the accuracy of the tree report which suggested that some trees are dying and yet appear to be in leaf and suggest that a further tree survey should be carried and the appropriate size and type of tree should be planted in mitigation, regardless of where it is brought from .Further undated correspondence notes that the applicant has failed to meet the conditions of the approval in principle in respect of the construction method statement, lamprey survey and potential pollution to the watercourse, the bat surveys, which is flawed and flood risk. The retail unit is now within the flood risk area. The

• office space is at a height to intrude on the privacy of those opposite. He considers that a retail impact assessment now needs to be undertaken and recommends a series of conditions relating to control of light pollution, external lighting, no trading outside of the building, no combining of the two units to make one, no additional equipment to be placed on or around the building, no advertising displayed, delivery restriction times, reversing sirens to be switched off, a banksman to be employed at all times when deliveries are undertaken, opening times and no alcohol to be served. He raises concerns about the disposal of sewage and potential expansion of the development. He queries the accuracy of the tree survey which cites trees as dead or dying which appear to be in leaf.
• 5.6 DEFA Senior Biodiversity Officer has considered the report from the Manx Wildlife Trust and the second report from the Manx Bat Group and is happy to discount further bat issues in relation to lighting. He, however, notes mention of montbretia in the report on the north and east boundaries, which is a Schedule 8 species and must be destroyed or otherwise dealt with in an appropriate manner, prior to development commencing (09.12.16). He submits further correspondence dated 07.06.17, 29.06.17 raising concerns about the proposed pipework and ditches proposed between the proposed buildings and the Heritage Trail to discharge the surface and foul water from the site, expressing less concern at the proposed ditch to carry surface water from the Heritage Trail to the river which will not be particularly deep (300mm across and 450mm deep) but wonders why the route of the foul water will run through the land between the footpath and the river, which is of ecological interest rather than under the Heritage Trail. The applicant has advised that this is not available to them as they do not own the land and advises that Dr. Selman was advised of this and was content on the basis that the drainage material for the bedding of the pipe would be bedded in a poorly draining material such as fine sand of similar substitute. He confirms he is happy with a condition which requires the final route of the pipework to be agreed with DEFA prior to its installation to link the site to the mains via Old Church Road.
• 5.7 DEFA Inland Fisheries comment, responding to the application and the various amendments and additional information (29.06.17). Their concern relates to alterations to the stream bed, which were proposed previously, but which are no longer proposed and any impact which would affect the quality of the stream water. They recommend a number of conditions to ensure that there is no disturbance to the bed or margins of the south eastern stream including disturbance due to in-channel works or entry to the watercourse by machinery. Also, a construction method statement should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department prior to the start of the construction of the path and the culvert and any embankment works: the method statement shall outline a suitable construction approach to reduce the possibility of disturbance of fish within the stream and the works must be carried out in accordance with this statement all to avoid disturbance or injury to fish and protection of the aquatic and bankside habitat.
• 5.8 Manx Utilities (MU) confirm that the information provided demonstrates that the site can be satisfactorily drained, subject to the appropriate licences and permissions from DEFA regarding discharges and confirm that they will not adopt the proposed temporary works and if there is an intention to do that, then a Section 8 adoption agreement would be required. Once the Crosby treatment works have been replaced then the development may be connected to that and the existing plant decommissioned. They advise the applicant to meet with them regarding construction and inspections (07.06.17). In addition, they were consulted on the 25.10.17 to confirm that they have no comments or concerns in relation to flood risk, requesting any comments to be made by the 06.11.17. At the time of drafting, no response has been received and it is therefore assumed that MU have no comments to make in relation to flooding. However, if any comments are received a verbal update will be provided to Planning Committee.
• 5.9 Highway Services comment on 12.07.2017: "I am now in receipt of revised plans showing all the necessary reserved matters being complied with. Given the detail on the drawings and

the fact that the lay-by, pedestrian crossing facilities and estate road will all be covered under the Highways Act, the proposals are considered acceptable. Please attach the following conditions to any future consent:

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

• 1.05m thereafter. Reason: In the interest of highway safety
• 2. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the garage, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter. Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety."

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The principle of this number of dwellings, roughly in the positions shown, with access where it is proposed and with associated landscaping and infrastructure together with a requirement for the provision of a pedestrian crossing and bus lay-by have all been approved. With this principle come a number of inevitable consequences: the removal of the roadside trees to make provision for the bus lay by and visibility splays and the change in the visual impact of the site. The issues that remain are the visual impact of the type and size of the houses proposed, whether the proposed landscaping is satisfactory in relation to the principle of the development already approved, whether the flood risk has been satisfactorily dealt with and whether the provisions for the protection of the environment - trees, wildlife and watercourses - is acceptable.

The proposed buildings

6.2 Only seven dwellings are proposed in this application and are described in paragraphs 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 above. No objections or even comments have been made about these dwellings other than that they will form a hard edge to the village. The position of these dwellings was approved in the approval in principle so their position and impact resulting from this position cannot now properly be challenged. In any event, the only place from where these houses will be seen is from the south as existing roadside trees will generally screen them from view from the north west. From the south they will appear as a terrace, parallel with the field boundary further away but mitigated by the introduction of groups of trees and a new Manx sod bank as a rear boundary whose position replicates the orientation of the adjacent boundary. They are modest and appropriately set out with adequate levels of parking and amenity space and as such no objection is raised to this aspect of the application. Whilst the rear elevations are disappointingly bland, they are compact and not dissimilar to the older terraces of properties within the village. The proposed dwellings are not considered objectionable. The landscaping

6.3 The purpose of a landscaping scheme is to enhance the development visually as well as in terms of the ecology of the area and where possible to protect existing landscape features of interest and value. What is proposed is considered to retain those features of interest and value where this is practicable and does not conflict with the need to provide a safe and convenience access to the development. The annotation on the planting scheme needs to be modified to take account of the inaccuracies pointed out by the Arboricultural Officer. Flood risk - 6.4 There is a risk, acknowledged in the application in principle, that the introduction of hard standings and the change in the nature of discharge to the watercourse could result in flooding to adjacent land and attention has been drawn to the playing fields which have experienced flooding in the past. The applicant's flood risk assessment identifies a method of dealing with this by the culverting of the ditch which runs parallel with the A1 and the re-profiling of the banks of the stream which runs along the south eastern edge of the side such that this

watercourse has greater capacity to accommodate both the existing water which flows down it, as well as that resulting from the proposed development.

The environment

6.5 The impact of the development on the environment has to some extent, already been determined through the approval of this number of dwellings and commercial development on this site with the ensuing about of built development, access, impact on trees, traffic and lighting. It is also the case that environmental damage can occur through how a development is undertaken and almost irrespective of what is actually being created and indeed, some of the objections relate to this as much as to what is being proposed in this application (16/01314/REM has generated other, additional concerns). To some extent, some of this is outwith planning control but there are conditions and practices which can be put in place to minimise damage including the requirement for method statements regarding the installation of ditches and the foul connection running across the land between the Heritage Trail and the river Dhoo to Old Church Road. Also, conditions can and should be attached regarding the implementation of the approved footpath close to the south eastern boundary of the site and the re-profiling works to the western bank of this watercourse. Whilst it would have been useful to have some or all of this information now, before a determination is made on the current applications, to some extent, some of that can only be provided after additional work has been done and this may only be reasonable to be required after the detailed layout has been approved. The critical issue is whether the proposed works are capable of being carried out without adverse impact on the environment and the professional advice appears to be that it can, subject to conditions and it is important that conditions are only attached where they are capable of being implemented without affecting the materiality of what is being approved. It is believed that this can be achieved. Access - 6.6 The means of access into the site was accepted at the approval in principle stage and this current application includes the details of how this will be achieved. The details also include the provision of a bus layby and pedestrian crossing, all of which are accepted by the Department of Infrastructure. - 6.7 The Commissioners have noted that the drawing which illustrates the location of the test holes shows the pedestrian crossing in a place different to that on the proposed site plan. Whilst this is correct, the purpose of this plan is simply to identify the location of the test holes and does not propose the crossing or the bus lay-by which are shown in much more detail in other plans. Similarly, whilst there is annotation on the same drawing of two pelican crossings, one is printed across housing and is clearly erroneous and, in any case, outwith the site and the public highway so incapable of being implemented as part of this application. The reference to affordable housing in various different ways is similarly not a material concern as the delivery of the affordable housing is through a legal agreement which has already been signed: annotation on a drawing does not affect this. In respect of proposed hours of construction, this would be something that should properly have been attached to an approval in principle rather than the reserved matters application(s). In any case, the impact of construction is dealt with through the Public Health Act 1990 and it is not usual for developments to be subject to particular and additional constraints in terms of hours of working in this respect. Given that the site is separated from residential property by public highways, it is not considered that additional control is required in this case. - 6.8 Whilst conditions can often be attached to developments controlling the timing of opening hours and what is sold, in this case, the intended use of the shop is as a convenience store whose opening hours will be later and earlier than perhaps other shops may be to. The development is some distance from existing properties and those who choose to live close to the development will do so in the knowledge that this may be the case and it is not proposed to introduce any restrictive operational hours to the shop or office. The items for sale would not normally be controlled and if alcohol is to be sold then the appropriate licence would need

to be acquired before this can occur with the relevant tests being applied. It is not considered the remit of the planning authority to interfere with safety procedures relating to vehicles coming and going, and indeed, it is not believed that any of these controls apply to the public house in the village, nor that issues have arisen in this respect. Advertising matter is controlled by separate legislation (the Advertisements Regulations 2013).

CONCLUSION

7.1 It is perfectly understandable that those with an interest in this application and

16/01314/REM have found it difficult to process the considerable amount of information which has been produced throughout the consideration of this application but also understandable, given the complex issues involved, that some or all of them may take time and modifications to resolve satisfactorily. What is proposed now is considered to address the requirements of the approval in principle and to propose a development which is acceptable in those terms as well as with the general standards of development set out in the Strategic Plan and as such, the application is recommended for approval.

PARTY STATUS

8.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (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) Highway Services Division of Department of Infrastructure and
• (e) The local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated.

8.2 The decision-maker must determine:

• * whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• * whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 6(4) who should be given Interested Person Status.

8.3 The Department of Environment Food and Agriculture is responsible for the determination of planning applications. As a result, where officers within the Department make comments in a professional capacity they cannot be given Interested Person Status.

I confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to it under the appropriate delegated authority.

Decision Made : Permitted Committee Meeting Date: 13.11.2017

Signed : S Corlett Presenting Officer

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

Signatory to delete as appropriate YES/NO See below

Planning Committee Decision 13.11.2017

Application No. : 16/01131/REM Applicant : J M Project Management Limited Proposal : Reserved Matters details of the construction of seven dwellings

with associated drainage, landscaping, access, lighting, pedestrian crossing and parking relating to PA 15/00775/A Site Address : Field 320653 Main Road Crosby Isle of Man Presenting Officer : Miss S E Corlett Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee accepted the Planning Officer's recommendation and approved the application subject to additional conditions which control the hours of working on site and to require additional information on the construction of the pipework which goes close to existing trees, to demonstrate that the works would not adversely affect the health of the trees which are shown to be retained.

Conditions of Approval

• C 1. The development hereby approved must be commenced before 29th June, 2020.

Reason: To comply with Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented approvals and also to accord with the approval in principle granted under 15/00775/A.

• C 2. Once the development can be connected to the public sewage treatment works, it must be and the stand alone temporary works hereby approved including any associated pipework which then becomes redundant, must be removed from site and the ground made good within

6 months of the connection of the site to the public system. Reason: To remove any unwarranted structures or apparatus to enable the land to be used for its authorised purpose (currently open space).

• C 3. Landscaping, (including mitigation tree planting) and post planting maintenance shall be

• carried out in accordance with drawing 1060/C200F, in the first planting and seeding season following completion or occupation of any part of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants (including those retained as part of the development) which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development are removed, or, in the opinion of the Department, become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To ensure that the landscaping which is an integral part of the development, is implemented and maintained.

Note: For clarification, standard trees are 2.5 - 3m tall and extra heavy standards have a circumference of 14-16cm.

• C 4. There must be no disturbance to the bed or margins of the south eastern stream including disturbance due to in-channel works or entry to the watercourse by machinery and to ensure this, details of any proposed works to the north western bank profile of the stream running along the south eastern side of the site together with a construction method statement must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department prior to the start of the construction of the path and the culvert and any embankment works: the method statement shall outline a suitable construction approach to reduce the possibility of disturbance of fish within the stream and the works must be carried out in accordance with these details and this statement all to avoid disturbance or injury to fish and protection of the aquatic and bankside habitat. Reason: To accord with Environment Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan and the Wildlife Act 1990.
• C 5. No development may commence until such times as protective fencing has been erected in positions approved by the Department to protect those existing trees which are to be retained, during construction. The approved fencing must be retained during the course of construction.

Reason: To ensure that the landscaping is effected in accordance with the approved plans and in the interests of the amenities of the area.

• C 6. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling the garage, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided and remain free from obstruction thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the strategic plan car parking standards are met in the interest of highway safety.

• C 7. No construction work may be undertaken on the site other than between 0800 and 1900hrs Monday to Saturday inclusive.

Reason: To ensure that the living conditions of those living near the site are not adversely affected.

• C 8. Prior to the installation of any pipework between the proposed commercial unit and the A1/Church Road, the applicant must have approved by the Department, a method statement demonstrating how the pipework will be installed without interfering with the roots of existing trees.

Reason: The pipework is shown to pass very close to where there are tree roots of trees to be retained and as such, a condition should be imposed if the application is approved, to seek the details of how this pipework will be installed without harming the roots of these trees.

Plans/Drawings/Information: This approval relates to the following drawings and information: 0800/C203, 0700/PL104, 0700/PL105, 0700/PL106, 1060/R010 and "Construction of bus lay-by Construction Method Statement" received on 26th October, 2016 P1639161102-01P, 1060/T01, "Construction of highway, drainage and housing Construction Method Statement" and Street Lighting specification prepared by Professional Lighting Design, dated 1st November, 2016, all received on 4th November, 2016

16/2576/01A received on 9th November, 2016 "Flood Risk Assessment" dated January 2017 and received on 24th January, 2017 16/2576/02B, 16/2567/03B, 16/2576/16A, 16/2576/17A, 16/2576/19B, 16/2576/23B, 16/2576/25B, 16/2576/31A, 1060/C201A all received on 22nd May, 2017 Landscaping maintenance and aftercare schedule dated 12th May, 2017 and received on 22nd May 2017 1060/C200F received on 26th June, 2017 1060/C200F received on 26th June, 2017 and 16/2576/15F and 16/2576/26B both received on 5th October, 2017.

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.