Officer Report

Application No.: 17/00200/B Applicant: Onchan District Commissioners Proposal: Change of use of existing tennis courts to car parking for private and/or public use, including new vehicular access Site Address: Tennis Courts Off Belgravia Road Onchan Isle of Man Case Officer : Mr Chris Balmer Photo Taken: 07.03.2017 Site Visit: 07.03.2017 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THE APPLICATION IS BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND BUILDING CONTROL DIRECTORATE

1.0 THE SITE - 1.1 The application site is the Tennis Courts located on a corner plot to the east of Belgravia Road, south of Royal Drive and south-west of Onchan Park within the settlement of Onchan. - 1.2 The site is characterised as flat tennis courts with a tarmac finish and mesh fencing around them. There are a total of five tennis courts laid out, three to the north section of the site and two, set at a slightly lower level, to the southern part of the site. Along the northern, eastern and southern boundaries of the site are tree lines. The western boundary of the site directly adjoins Belgravia Road.

2.0 THE PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for the change of use of existing tennis courts to car parking (90 spaces shown on indicative plan) for private and/or public use, including new vehicular access to the northern boundary of the site. - 2.2 The applicants (Onchan Commissioners) comment that the reasoning for the application is that their "statistical data indicates that they are underused bring minimal income to the authority". The applicants have also indicated that should the application be approved they would seek to consult with local business to utilise the new parking provision so as to reduce on-street parking concerns. They also state that depending on the outcome of these discussions, it is proposed that certain parking would be restricted to the private use of those companies, and the remainder would be for public use. - 2.3 The applicants have commented that two Manx palm trees need to be removed to create the access to the northern boundary of the site (Royal Drive) and that replacement trees would be planted at Centenary Park.

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY - 3.1 The previous application is considered relevant in the determination of this application: - 3.2 Creation of a skate board facility and kickabout area on existing tennis court, including skate board ramps, shelter and additional lighting - 03/01066/B - APPROVED.

- 4.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES

4.1 The application site is within an area zoned as "Open Space For Particular Purposes- Public Open Space" as identified on the Onchan Local Plan Order 2000. The site is not within a Conservation Area. - 4.2 Given the nature of the application it is appropriate to consider the following policies of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016: - 4.3 General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land-use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

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

4.4 General Policy 3 states: "Development will not be permitted outside of those areas which are zoned for development on the appropriate Area Plan with the exception of:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers who have to live close to their place of work; (Housing Policies 7, 8, 9 and 10);
• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings which are of architectural, historic, or social value and interest; (Housing Policy 11);
• (c) previously developed land(1) which contains a significant amount of building; where the continued use is redundant; where redevelopment would reduce the impact of the current situation on the landscape or the wider environment; and where the development proposed would result in improvements to the landscape or wider environment;
• (d) the replacement of existing rural dwellings; (Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14);
• (e) location-dependent development in connection with the working of minerals or the provision of necessary services;
• (f) building and engineering operations which are essential for the conduct of agriculture or forestry;
• (g) development recognised to be of overriding national need in land use planning terms and for which there is no reasonable and acceptable alternative; and
• (h) buildings or works required for interpretation of the countryside, its wildlife or heritage."

4.5 Recreation Policy 2 states: "Development which would adversely affect, or result in the loss of Open Space or a recreation facility that is or has the potential to be, of recreational or amenity value to the community will not be permitted except in the following circumstances:

• (a) where alternative provision of equivalent community benefit and of equivalent or better accessibility is made available; and

• (b) where there would be an overall community gain from the development, and the particular loss of the open space or recreation facility would have no significant unacceptable effect on local open space or recreation provision or on the character or amenity of the area."

4.6 Transport Policy 4 states: "The new and existing highways which serve any new development must be designed so as to be capable of accommodating the vehicle and pedestrian journeys generated by that development in a safe and appropriate manner, and in accordance with the environmental objectives of this plan." - 4.7 Environment Policy 22 states: "Development will not be permitted where it would unacceptably harm the environment and/or the amenity of nearby properties in terms of:

• i) pollution of sea, surface water or groundwater;
• ii) emissions of airborne pollutants; and
• iii) vibration, odour, noise or light pollution."

4.8 Environment Policy 42 states: "New development in existing settlements must be designed to take account of the particular character and identity, in terms of buildings and landscape features of the immediate locality. Inappropriate backland development, and the removal of open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted. Those open or green spaces which are to be preserved will be identified in Area Plans." - 4.9 Onchan Local Plan Order 2000 - O/TRT/P/5 states: "ONCHAN STADIUM, ONCHAN PARK AND THE BUILDINGS WITHIN ONCHAN PARK WILL CONTINUE TO BE DESIGNATED FOR RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE."

5.0 CONSULTATIONS - 5.1 DOI Highway Services make the following comments (28.03.2017): "The proposal is to change the use of a tennis court to a car park. No visibility splays have been indicated and without this information it is not possible to fully assess the application. The applicant should also consider the provision of pedestrian access to the car park.

The applicant is requested to provide a drawing to an appropriate scale that indicates the visibility that can be achieved over land within their control from a point 2.4m back from the edge of carriageway to the near side carriageway edge in both directions."

5.2 Isle of Man Sport, National Sports Centre, Douglas objects to the application and make the following comments (22.03.2017):

"Isle of Man Sport is a body charged with responsibility for independently advising Government on matters relating to sport. The Department of Education and Children's Strategy for Sport not only identifies sport as extremely powerful, touching the lives of the vast majority of people on the Isle of Man, whether it be as a leisure or social activity, competition and performance or volunteering and coaching - sport enhances our lives and binds our community together, but also under Chapter 6: Maintain, Develop and Improve Facilities states:

"Failure to maintain these facilities and develop them where necessary will ultimately mean the majority of the other objectives established within the strategy are impossible to achieve. Without access to facilities around the Island, participation will decrease, there will be fewer activities to do, more anti-social behaviour and generally speaking the health of the residents on the Island will deteriorate."

In light of this, we would express concern generally at the loss of any recreation or sporting facility, reflecting the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture's own Strategic Plan policy which states:

"10.3.5 In certain circumstances it may be beneficial to allow the redevelopment of areas of underused, poorly maintained or inappropriately located open space. Development on such areas will only be permitted where alternative provision can be made. However, the new open space must be easily accessible to the local community and be at least equivalent in terms of type, quantity and quality to that which is being replaced".

"Recreation Policy 2: Development which would adversely affect, or result in the loss of Open Space or a recreation facility that is or has the potential to be, of recreational or amenity value to the community will not be permitted except in the following circumstances:

• (a) where alternative provision of equivalent community benefit and of equivalent or better accessibility is made available; and
• (b) where there would be an overall community gain from the development, and the particular loss of the open space or recreation facility would have no significant unacceptable effect on local open space or recreation provision or on the character or amenity of the area".

There is clearly a need to assess whether the "community gain" resulting from the creation of parking spaces, outweighs the more general loss to the community and the Island generally, or the loss of an existing recreational facility. Without evidence of such a benefit we would respectfully suggest that the application is in conflict with both the Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture's Strategic Plan and Department of Education and Children's Strategy for Sport.

The policy also refers to facilities which have the potential to be of recreational or amenity value to the local community and we would also ask whether the applicant has considered any other form of delivery of recreation of the site to the public, for example another form of sport - BMX, skateboarding, netball, basketball. If tennis is not popular here in the form it is being delivered, perhaps another form could be and we would also ask whether the Commissioners have enquired as to why the facility is not being used. It is important that the Island has a range of recreation facilities for both competitive and leisure-based activities and not all facilities need to have changing rooms, professional standard nets and equipment and expensive surfacing. It is also worrying if delivering Public Open Space is seen to need to be financially viable when it is an amenity for public benefit, most forms of which do not and indeed could not result in any form of income or revenue.

We have noted that the tennis courts have been suggested for re-designation in the Area Plan for the East's Preliminary Publicity from Public Open Space to Residential. The Strategic Plan requires the loss of recreation facilities to be compensated for by replacement recreation facilities of at least equivalent standard: if this current application were to be approved as it stands then when the Area Plan comes to designate the land, it would be from car park to residential with no requirement to seek alternative recreation provision and the opportunity would then be lost. We also wonder that if there is a need for car parking in this area, why the proposal for the Area Plan suggests that the site should be development for Residential.

We understand that there may be a suggestion that the tennis courts, if they are needed, could be relocated to within Onchan Park however, this would lead to displacement or loss of an existing leisure or recreation facility with a nett loss of recreation space, which we oppose.

Onchan Park currently offers a range of very good recreation facilities and we would like to see the existing quantum of facilities retained rather than decreased and as such we would recommend that this application is refused.

We would also request that as a Government appointed body responsible for advising Government on matters relating to sport, we would request that we are afforded interested person status in this case."

5.3 The owners/occupiers of Dunrovin, 23 The Park, Onchan objects to the application on the following grounds (29.03.2017); application is inadequate does not show visibility splays, signage,

• boundary treatment whether fencing will be retained or replaced, no indication of lighting, hours of operation nor a traffic impact assessment; highway safety concerns due to poor condition of roads and they will not support the increased traffic if this development is permitted; the close knit residential area is not suitable for additional traffic that will be created by the development; poor access from Hague Drive that leads to and from the site; this is a residential area and proposal is not in keeping with the area; increase noise levels associated with the vehicles parking on the site during the day and night will be considerable detriment to the quality of life of the residents; the courts have an open aspect and the proposal for a large car park will have a negative visual impact on the area; already very limited facilities for outdoor tennis courts available to the public; Commissioner comment that that their statistical data indicates the courts are under used, however the Commissioners highlight in their current Consultation in relation to Onchan Park that they are unable to man the courts due to their location and therefore it is questionable as to show reliable their date actually is; we often see people playing tennis of an evening when the kiosk in the park is closed; the same Consultation indicates that the courts could be relocated into the main park, but even if this was the case, there would be a loss of some of the courts if not all; no evidence been provided in the application or the Consultation that there is any requirement due to the lack of use of the facilities to reduce the number of the courts or to do away with them completely; if courts are relocated then this would still be a reduction or a complete loss of this social and sporting amenity which is currently available; The proposal completely contradicts the Government's Policy of promoting sports; no evidence for the need of the car park have been included; surprising the Commissioners have not entered into discussions with these business before now and properly ascertained the necessity for a large car park, when they have been parking for free on the public roads in the vicinity of their place of work, who is to say they will even take up the offer to pay to park; are other car parks in the park going to be pay and display; Commissioners have submitted the site for housing (Eastern Local Plan), therefore brings into question the need for a car park; St Anthony's overflow car park or the Summerland site could accommodate the car parking.
• 5.4 The owners/occupiers of Hillcrest, Royal Drive, Onchan objects to the application on the following grounds (07.03.2017); Commissioners are reviewing the park, and perhaps this application is therefore premature; proposal contravenes the IOMSP which seeks to protect quality of life and the quality of the environment which are improved by attractive open space and by the facilities for recreation and other community purposes; the tennis courts are frequently in use when the light evenings permit; I expect the applicant is not aware of that as they probable only look at takings when the kiosk is open during the day time; loss of further recreation spaces will only increase antisocial behaviour; no objection to courts be relocated and site being used for other recreation purposes, such as a skate park; and if those large business in Onchan Head have now created such a high demand for parking in lower Onchan they should be encouraged to resolve the issue without having a detrimental impact to the local community.
• 5.5 The owners/occupiers of Shenn Thie, 2 Marion Road, Onchan objects to the application on the following grounds (09.03.2017); this is a residential area and proposal is not in keeping with the area; this is ample free parking in the area and car park will be empty for majority of the year; eyesore in a pleasant residential area; gives people somewhere to get much needed exercise; and it is unlikely that any new site will provide 6 courts as at present.
• 5.6 The owner/occupier of 59 Wybourn Grove, Onchan objects to the application on the following grounds (23.03.2017); tennis courts are in good condition in a sunny and sheltered location and should be retained; there are no courts at Nobles Park now increasing the reasons for retaining the existing courts in Onchan; and recreation facilities should be retained for obvious health reasons, rather than a car park which could be provided elsewhere around the park.
• 5.7 The owner/occupier of 29 The Park, Onchan objects to the application on the following grounds (27.03.2017); proposal not in keeping with area; Commissioners are reviewing the park, and perhaps this application is therefore a little premature; loss of recreation facility at a time when obesity and ill health is seriously impacting on the health service is regrettable; highway safety concerns due to narrow roads for two way traffic and congestion and if car park is used for

• commercial private car park this would do nothing to alleviate the car parking congestion in that area; the site is adjacent to public open space frequently used by children and dog owners for recreation use; concerns the proposal would result in double yellow lines being painted on the surrounding road to ensure residents utilise the car park, bring additional costs; the business in question which wold use the site operate 24/7 and the car parks would need to be open and floodlit throughout the evening and night for users and therefore putting a commercial car park in the midst of this residential and recreational area is not conducive to the neighbourhood; St Anthony's overflow car park or the Summerland site could accommodate the car parking for the business concerned.
• 5.8 The owner/occupier of Flat 2, 14 Belgravia Road, Onchan objects to the application on the following grounds (13.03.2017); believe the changing of the tennis courts would cause excess noise, congestion traffic, plus high levels of traffic in our road; and there are young families living here and this would also create danger for them when playing etc.
• 5.9 The owner/occupier of 5 Furman Road, Onchan objects to the application on the following grounds (03.03.2017); Commissioners are reviewing the park, and perhaps this application is therefore a little premature; Commissioners should be encouraging sports facilities for residents and tourists; and should be retained or replicated elsewhere in the park but at this stage this is no guarantee that they will be.
• 5.10 The owner/occupier of 2 Western Ave, Douglas objects to the application on the following grounds (06.03.2017); I use the tennis courts on a regular basis, why cant the car park go on the grasses area which is never used- only for car boot sales; and another recreational area taken form us.
• 5.11 The owner/occupier of Seafield, Royal Drive, Onchan objects to the application on the following grounds (22.03.2017); courts are not used in monetary value, this may be true, but the courts are used regular basis, site office to collect moneys doesn't open until 11am, they do not count the numerous people that use this facility before they open or the office closes, also they are used for many months of the year when the park is not open to the public in autumn, winter and early spring, and not just for tennis, mums and toddlers use them to play safe protected environment; Commissioners should be encouraging healthy sport activity in all people; the fact that the large employer in Lower Onchan cannot accommodate all it's employees on site is the fault of the original planning application; Commissioners are reviewing the park, and perhaps this application is therefore a little premature.
• 5.12 The owner/occupier of Tremissary House, Strathallan Road, Onchan objects to the application on the following grounds (22.03.2017); will take a special amenity for island residents as many come to play tennis and use the other park amenities on the same day.
• 5.13 The owner/occupier of Flat 1, 51 Royal Avenue West, Onchan objects to the application on the following grounds (14.03.2017); a car park on this site would be out of keeping; increase noise levels associated with the vehicles parking on the site during the day and night; highway safety concerns due to speeding traffic and number of vehicles passing through; and area is not designated for a car park.
• 5.14 The owner/occupier of Flat 3, 51 Royal Avenue West, Onchan objects to the application on the following grounds (08.03.2017); highway safety concerns of additional traffic and the roads in area being too narrow; increase noise levels associated with the vehicles parking on the site during the day and night will be considerable detriment to the quality of life of the residents of approximately 40 properties adjacent to the tennis courts; noise associated with tennis being played is of a totally different, quiet and gentle nature , and confined to the daylight hours; The Commissioners have recently launched a public consultation about the future use of Onchan Park and as such this application appears to prejudge the outcome; the Commissioners should provide sporting facilities for residents and visitors, and these tennis courts should be retained.

5.15 The owner/occupier of Flat 1, 14 Belgravia Road, Onchan objects to the application on the following grounds (13.03.2017); highway safety concerns of additional traffic and the roads in area being too narrow; entrance to site is very close to the back lane to Imperial Terrace and this will be dangerously children in are use the park and this proposal could be extremely dangerous which young people using these roads to cross; and increase noise levels will cause huge disturbance to residents in the area. - 5.16 The owner/occupier of Flat 18 Quay West, Bridge Road, Douglas objects to the application on the following grounds (13.03.2017); we should be encouraging young people to exercise not use a car park.

6.0 ASSESSMENT - 6.1 There are considered to be four main issues with the proposal; firstly, the principle of the use of the site for a car park; secondly the potential impact upon neighbouring amenities; thirdly potential highway safety matters; and fourthly, the potential visual impact upon the street scene. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE USE OF THE SITE FOR A CAR PARK - 6.2 Fundamentally, in terms of planning policy there is a long established presumption against development on land not designated for development, either within the countryside or on land not designated for development under the relevant local plan. As identified earlier within the planning policy section of this report, this presumption against is set out in three different ways.

• Firstly, the application site is not zoned for development under the Onchan Local Plan being identified as being "Public Open Space".

• o Secondly, General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan, lists a number of exceptions for development which the current proposal would not fall within.
• o Thirdly, the site is designated as being an area of public open space and as such is protected by Recreation Policy 2.

6.3 The application fails silent on Recreation Policy 2, and the two exceptions listed within it. Accordingly, the proposal must be considered on the basis that the proposal would result in a the loss of existing open space/recreation facility and therefore be clearly contrary to Recreation Policy 2 and Policy O/TRT/P/5 of the Onchan Local Plan which requires the area (Onchan Park) to continue to be designated for recreation and open space.

THE POTENTIAL IMPACT UPON NEIGHBOURING AMENITIES

6.4 The application site back onto a number of residential properties to the east of the site (Nrs 41 to 65 Royal Avenue West - made up of individual dwellings and flats). In addition, Nr 28 Belgravia Road to the south and Nr 1 Bay View Road are opposite or adjacent to the site. These properties are likely to be impacted by the proposal. The impacts would not result from traffic driving through the site, but also manoeuvring in and out of the parking spaces, which prolong the periods of engine noise compared to traffic just passing a property which can last a few seconds. Further, the number of spaces (90) is a substantial number of spaces in this area, given the proximity of residential properties in the area.. Other residential properties in the area could also be affected, but the properties listed above are those most likely to be affected by the proposal. - 6.5 It is noted by the applicants that the parking would be offered to local businesses first and it has been commented that some of these local business operate 24hrs/7days a week. Accordingly, this has the potential of resulting in persons parking throughout the day and night on the site. However, even if this was not to occur, it is considered that for the reasons set out above the proposal would result in a significant adverse impact upon neighbouring amenities and so be contrary to Environment Policy 22. POTENTIAL HIGHWAY SAFETY MATTERS

6.6 The access to the site is proposed to be created along the northern boundary of the site onto Royal Drive. Highway Services commented that no visibility splays have been provided and that without this information it is not possible to fully assess the application. Furthermore, no details of pedestrian links have been provided. Accordingly, it is considered that the application fails to demonstrate the access can adequate provide a safe means of exiting the site, and is therefore contrary to Transport Policy 4. - 6.7 A number of local residents have object to the scheme on the basis that the additional traffic generated by the development would result in highway safety concerns, given the local highway network is not adequate i.e. narrowness, condition, existing parking in the area, closeness to park and homes used by young families etc. Highway Services have not mentioned in their initial comments whether the existing highway network is capable of supporting the additional traffic to and from the site (given there objection on other grounds). If Planning Committee are not persuaded of the inadequacy of the access then this issue would need further consideration and a site visit may be appropriate. THE POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACT UPON THE STREET SCENE - 6.8 Environment Policy 42 indicate that the removal of public open or green spaces which contribute to the visual amenity and sense of place of a particular area will not be permitted . Further to this policy is General Policy 2 which considered whether a development would adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape. - 6.9 The application site forms a clear open recreation area. The proposed change to a 90 space car park would significantly change the character and appearance of the site/area to the detriment of the street scene contrary to Environment Policy 42 and General Policy 2.

7.0 RECOMMENDATION - 7.1 In conclusion, for the reasons given the proposal would be contrary with the relevant planning policies and it is therefore recommended that the application be refused.

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

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

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

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

Isle of Man Sport, National Sports Centre, Douglas The owners/occupiers of Hillcrest, Royal Drive, Onchan The owners/occupiers of Shenn Thie, 2 Marion Road, Onchan

• The owner/occupier of Flat 2, 14 Belgravia Road, Onchan

• The owner/occupier of Seafield, Royal Drive, Onchan The owner/occupier of Flat 1, 51 Royal Avenue West, Onchan
• The owner/occupier of Flat 3, 51 Royal Avenue West, Onchan The owner/occupier of Flat 1, 14 Belgravia Road, Onchan

8.3 In accordance with Article 6(3) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013 and paragraph 2(1) of Government Circular No. 01/13, the following persons who have made representation to the planning application are not considered to have sufficient interest in the subject matter of the application to take part in any subsequent proceedings relating to the application:

The owners/occupiers of Dunrovin, 23 The Park, Onchan The owner/occupier of 59 Wybourn Grove, Onchan The owner/occupier of 29 The Park, Onchan The owner/occupier of 5 Furman Road, Onchan The owner/occupier of 2 Western Ave, Douglas The owner/occupier of Tremissary House, Strathallan Road, Onchan The owner/occupier of Flat 18 Quay West, Bridge Road, Douglas

Recommendation Recommended Decision: Refused

Date of Recommendation: 21.06.2017

• R 1. The proposed use of land for the parking of vehicles, would be contrary to Recreation Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Policy O/TRT/P/5 of the Onchan Local Plan since it would result in a loss of space for recreation purposes or which has the ability to be used for recreation purposes.
• R 2. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in that the proposed development does not fall within any of the listed exceptions to the restrictions on development outside areas zoned for development.
• R 3. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Environment Policy 22 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in that the proposed development would cause substantial harm to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties through the noise created by the additional traffic generated by the development and also the same traffic then manoeuvring within the site to park.
• R 4. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Transport Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in that the application has failed to demonstrate that a safe and acceptable means of access to the site is achievable.
• R 5. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Environment Policy 42 and General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in that the proposed development would cause substantial harm to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the area by reason of the use of the site as a car park from open space/recreation use and therefore changing the character and appearance of site and street scene.

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

Decision Made : Refused Committee Meeting Date: 03.07.2017

Signed : Mr Riley 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 03.07.2017

Application No. : 17/00200/B Applicant : Onchan District Commissioners Proposal : Change of use of existing tennis courts to car parking for private

and/or public use, including new vehicular access Site Address : Tennis Courts Off Belgravia Road Onchan Isle of Man Presenting Officer : Mr Riley Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee were minded to add some additional wording to Reason 1 to make clear that the application had failed to demonstrate that the concerns raised had been adequately addressed. They also felt that reference should be made in the reasons for refusal to the specific elements of General Policy 2 that it was concluded the application failed to comply with. These amendments affect reasons for refusal 1, 3 and 5.

Reason for Refusal

• R 1. The proposed use of land for the parking of vehicles, would be contrary to Recreation Policy 2 and Environment Policy 42 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 and Policy O/TRT/P/5 of the Onchan Local Plan since it would result in a loss of space for recreation purposes or which has the ability to be used for recreation purposes, and the application has failed to demonstrate that the caveats of Recreation Policy 2 can be or have been met.
• R 2. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of General Policy 3 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in that the proposed development does not fall within any of the listed exceptions to the restrictions on development outside areas zoned for development.
• R 3. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of part (iii) Environment Policy 22 and part (g) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in that the proposed development would

• cause substantial harm to the residential amenities of neighbouring properties through the noise created by the additional traffic generated by the development and also the same traffic then manoeuvring within the site to park.
• R 4.The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Transport Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in that the application has failed to demonstrate that a safe and acceptable means of access to the site is achievable.
• R 5. The proposal is contrary to the provisions of Environment Policy 42 and parts (b) and (c) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 in that the proposed development would cause substantial harm to the character, appearance and visual amenity of the area by reason of the use of the site as a car park from open space/recreation use and therefore changing the character and appearance of site and street scene.

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.