DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 19/00373/A Applicant: Delgatie Ltd Proposal: Approval in principle for the erection of a building to provide exhibition space, retail, apartments and restaurant with associated 159 parking spaces Site Address: Marine Biological Station Breakwater Road Port Erin Isle Of Man IM9 6JA Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation: 30.09.2019 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

• C 1. The development hereby approved shall be begun either before the expiration of four years from the date of this approval or before the expiration of two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters.

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013.

• C 2. Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the Department before the expiration of two years from the date of this approval and thereafter the development shall only be carried out in accordance with the details as approved. Reason: To avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.
• C 3. Approval of the details of siting, design, external appearance of the building[s], internal layout, means of access, drainage, landscaping of the site (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be obtained from the Department in writing before any development is commenced.

Reason: to comply with the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure)(No2) Order 2013.

• C 4. The application for the reserved matters must include a survey of the existing habitat on the cliff and broogh to the rear of the site together with an assessment of impact on the ecology of this area which is a designated Wildlife Site and measures for mitigation of any adverse impact thereon. The development must be undertaken in accordance with the details

of mitigation. The applicant is encouraged to incorporate features which would be complementary to the existing habitats nearby through the use of planting, green walls, nest boxes or other appropriate features.

Reason: to ensure compliance with Environment Policy 4 and the Wildlife Act 1990.

• C 5. The application for the reserved matters must include details of the traffic management work described in the Transport Assessment together with a timetable for the implementation of these works. Reason: to ensure that the development has an acceptable impact on highway safety.
• C 6. The application for reserved matters must demonstrate that sufficient car parking is provided to service the development in accordance with the standards in the Strategic Plan. If the standards in the Strategic Plan are not being met, justification for setting these aside must be provided in the application. Reason: to accord with Transport Policy 7 in the interests of highway safety.
• C 7. The apart-hotel units hereby approved shall be used solely as serviced apartments and shall not be used as separate residential units or occupied as a person's sole or main place of residence or for any other purpose between the months of April and September (inclusive).

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure the development fulfils the role of temporary hotel accommodation during the holiday season.

• C 8. This approval relates to a maximum of 83 apartments of which at least 14 shall be used as aparthotel suites and with retail, non-food retail, restaurant and exhibition space as generally shown in the submitted plans.

Reason: the approval is based upon a transport statement which is supportive of this level of development.

• C 9. No part of the building may be occupied until such times as there is in place a scheme which has first been approved by the Department, which provides electricity and water to the public open space immediately in front of the perimeter road which fronts the proposed building.

Reason: to enable the public open space to be better used for recreation and entertainment purposes.

• C 10. No guest or customer of the aparthotel units may occupy any part of the accommodation for a period exceeding 28 days during the months of April and September (inclusive).

Furthermore, before the apart-hotel units are brought into use, a management plan detailing the booking system for the serviced apartments shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Department.

The plan shall include:

• i) the maximum permitted stay in the serviced apartments,
• ii) a system for keeping a register of customer bookings and a means by which the Department can check the register to ensure that the maximum permitted stays are enforced.
• iii) These registers shall be kept for not less than two years form the date of the last entry and shall be made available to be inspected by the Department upon reasonable demand.

• iv) The units shall be operated in accordance with the approved management plan.

Reason: to ensure that the development is only used and occupied as short-let holiday accommodation during the holiday season.

• C 11. The aparthotel rooms hereby permitted shall be used for holiday accommodation only for the previously specified periods and shall for those periods be used for no other purpose (including any other purpose within Class 7 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012, or any Order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification.)

Reason: to maintain the availability of the units as short term holiday accommodation during holiday season.

• C 12. The ground floor uses, where not shown on the submitted plans as being apartments, must be used for retail, shopping, cafe, community or exhibition space and all open to the visiting public.

Reason: to ensure that the building has at least on the ground floor, a public function and purpose to add interest and vitality to this end of the village.

N 1. The applicant is encouraged to design a scheme which comprises a broken form, rather than one large building mass and a variety of different finishes and which has regard to the natural context of the site in terms of materials and colours. It should also be noted that the rear of the building(s) will also be publicly visible from the footpath to the east and south and as such, the rear elevation should present an attractive facade to the south.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This decision relates to drawings 4423/BS/17/001 P1, 4423/BS/17/003 P1, 4423/BS/18/030 P1, 4423/BS/18/041 P1 received on 29th March, 2019

Dice Transport Scoping Report and the Flood Risk Assessment both received on 1st April, 2019 Phase 1 Environmental Risk Assessment received on 9th April, 2019 100217_03_500_01 received on 10th April, 2019 4423/BS/18/031 P4, 4423/BS/18/032 P4, 4423/BS/18/033 P4, 4423/BS/18/034 P4,

• 4423/BS/18/035 P4 received on 14th May, 2019
• 4423/BS/19/037 P1, received on 29th May, 2019 Dice Transport Assessment received on 25th July, 2019 Dice Transport Assessment Addendum received on 8th August, 2019. _______________________________________________________________

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:

Department of Infrastructure Estates and Housing Division

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties as well as the Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society should not be given Interested Person Status as they are not 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 Old Coal Shed, 1, Bradda View Grove, Regent House, Port Verk, 20, Fairway Close, 24, Erin Way and Sea View

as they do not clearly identify the land which is owned or occupied which is considered to be impacted on by the proposed development in accordance with paragraph 2A of the Policy, the addresses are not within 20m of the application site and the development is not automatically required to be the subject of an EIA by Appendix 5 of the Strategic Plan, in accordance with

• paragraph 2B of the Policy, as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with
• paragraph 2C of the Policy and as they have not explained how the development would impact the lawful use of land owned or occupied by them and in relation to the relevant issues identified in paragraph 2C of the Policy, as is required by paragraph 2D of the Policy. _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

INTRODUCTION This application is in principle, seeking permission only for the principle of the construction of a building or series of buildings which will accommodate a range of uses including residential, aparthotel, food and non-food retail and the consumption of food on the premises together with the associated landscaping and car parking. No details have been provided for approval but some details have been included to demonstrate how the development could be satisfactorily accommodated on the site. For example, floor plans of the development show how the mix of uses would sit and how many floors of accommodation would be likely; an image of how the building could look has been provided (drawing 4423/BS/18/041 P1) which shows how a building of the height envisaged would sit in relation to the cliffs behind. Also, significant amounts of information has been sought by and provided to Department of Infrastructure, Highway Services to demonstrate that the "worst case scenario" from the range and extent of development shown would have an acceptable impact on the local highway network and highway safety.

As the application is in principle, the Department retains the right to determine all matters of detail that are currently shown only in illustrative form and that in approving the application as submitted, there is no obligation on the part of the Department to approve an application for reserved matters if there are material planning reasons for concern regarding the impact of such a detailed scheme. For example, if the design, height or impact on ecology were to be considered to have an adverse impact in respect of the relevant Strategic Plan policies, then an application for the reserved matters may not be successful. In respect of highway safety and the impact on the local highway network, however, if the reserved matters scheme proposes the same or lower level of development as is shown in this current application in principle, there should be no reason for the reserved matters application to be refused on matters of highway safety. The reserved matters will clearly need to show how the proposed car parking and access will work and these matters will remain open to scrutiny at that stage.

In some respects, as with many applications in principle, it is less straightforward assessing the impact of such a sizeable scheme without detailed illustrations of how large the building would be, what it would look like and what impact it would have on the surrounding area, particularly

the wildlife on the land to the south. However, it is considered that the amount of information available, in addition to the conditions proposed, are sufficient to be able to determine that the proposal is acceptable in principle.

THE SITE

1.1 The site is the curtilage of the former Marine Biological Station and its surrounding buildings and land which lies at the westernmost part of Port Erin, at the western end of Breakwater Road. The site fronts onto the higher level of the road which is restricted to one way from east towards west for vehicular traffic returning via the lower section where there is on-street car parking, together with an area of roughly finished ground to the west which is part of the site but often used for informal parking as a place from which to look at the bay. - 1.2 The buildings on the site are all unused and in varying states of disrepair, through a prolonged period of disuse and there having been a fire within the main former Marine Biological Station in recent years. The buildings were last used in 2006. The oldest building on the site is finished in a natural slate stone with a hipped, slated roof, red brick detailing above the window and door heads and a circular feature window above the front door, also edged in red brick. There is another part stone finished building alongside which is slightly taller but similar in appearance and this sits alongside a much taller, three storey red brick building which has less detailing. On the eastern side of this building is a metal fire escape. - 1.3 To the rear of the buildings is a stone cliff edge which supports land which is up to 21m above site level. A public footpath, part of the Raad ny Foillan, starts at the eastern side of the brick building, climbs the cliff behind it and ascends to skirt the cliff edge and southwards, towards the Calf, affording spectacular views over the bay, towards Milner's Tower and further up, southwards towards the Calf of Man. - 1.4 The site includes all of the buildings on the site, the area between them and the watermark to the west and some land to the east of the brick building. The applicant may also lease additional land to the north - which is currently an area of informal car park, and the land between the upper and lower parts of Breakwater Road. This area is currently grassed and slopes downwards very gently towards the bay. THE PROPOSAL

2.1 Proposed is the principle of the demolition of the buildings on site (for which planning approval is not required) and the construction of new buildings which will accommodate a combination of exhibition space, an apart hotel, non-food retail, apartments, retail and a restaurant together with 144 parking spaces - 63 at ground and 81 at basement level which are shown in an illustrative form in the submitted plans. No matters are to be determined at the present time and all will be subject to a further application or applications for the details of access, siting, internal layout within the buildings, design and external appearance of the buildings and landscaping of the site. The application, nevertheless, includes information to demonstrate how some of these issues could be resolved. A sketch of how the building could look is also included. - 2.2 The site plan shows a development of five elements one of which is completely separate from the others and where two of the other units abut each other and two others are linked by a stairwell. The exhibition space unit, building 4 is shown as a six storey building at the eastern end of the site, with the exhibition space sitting below 5 apartments - one per floor. Next to this and linked to it is building 3, a larger six storey building which will accommodate two retail areas and a restaurant in between at ground level with 38 apartments above. Next to the west, building 2 is another six storey building which will accommodate one retail unit and an adjoining restaurant with 3 apartments on the ground floor and 29 apartments above. Finally, building 1 is a five storey building comprising 8 apartments and an integral triple garage and will sit at the western extent of the site. There have been various iterations of the layout with slightly differing levels and sizes of apartments and different levels of car parking. It is not

• necessary to know at this stage how many apartments of what size are proposed, only that the site is capable of accommodating the necessary amount of car parking to satisfactorily service them.
• 2.3 Fourteen of these apartments are shown as being intended for hotel occupation and shown to be located on the first floor in Building 3. The apartments are arranged such that other than for buildings 1 and 4 and the penthouses of the other buildings, there will be apartments contained solely within the rear of the building.
• 2.4 Of the apartments shown, 3 are of a size to accommodate one person and the remainder could accommodate two persons or more on a permanent basis. 17 apartments are said to be one bedroomed and 52 two bedroomed.
• 2.5 Car parking is shown at the rear of the buildings and underneath buildings 2, 3, and 4 with car lifts to transport vehicles from the rear car park underneath the respective buildings. The provision of the car parking will necessitate the excavation of some of the existing cliff face although the applicant has indicated that if required, this could be avoided by moving the relevant buildings forward on the site towards the highway.
• 2.6 The application includes reference to a hotel comprising 14 suites (as clarified in the Transport Scoping Report, paragraph 3.0). The Scoping Report discusses the likely trips: the hotel is anticipated as generating 14 car trips, with 7 passengers, 4 people using public transport/coach with 1 person walking. The apartments are anticipated as generating a total of 105 vehicle trips per day with the majority (12) occurring in the 0700-0800hrs peak morning hour and 11 occurring in the evening peak hour between 1700 - 1800hrs. They calculate the bar/restaurant generating 243 trips and 158 people walking. The retail units see most people coming by car (171 trips) with 111 people walking and the exhibition space generating 42 trips in total using all forms of transport. The proposal allocates 14 spaces for the hotel, 72 spaces for the apartments and 13 spaces for the exhibition space.
• 2.7 The application also provides an Environmental Risk Assessment which looks at potential contamination, instability, pollution, hydrological issues and this concludes that there are no likely risks to or from the development.
• 2.8 The application also includes a flood risk assessment which has been prepared following discussions with Manx Utilities who consider that the site is at moderate risk of flooding from surface water. The site is at low risk from other potential sources of flooding and is not in a high flood risk area. The site and surrounding area are unsuitable for infiltration as a primary source of surface water disposal. The proposed surface water strategy will not increase the flood risk of the site or anywhere else. The disposal of foul sewage will be by gravity through the existing network to the north of the site. Surface water coming from the higher ground will be met by linear drainage systems aligned to adjacent retaining structures and the run off will be collected and discharged into the existing surface water network designed for the proposed development. This will minimise the risk of surface water flooding.
• 2.9 Following concerns raised by Highway Services, an additional Transport Assessment was submitted. This considers the highway network including the pedestrian access which is not via a consistent footway from the village to the site. The report states that there are many facilities within a 2km radius - restaurants, recreation facilities, bus stops, the railway stations, post office and shops and the Southern Group Medical Practice. They note that some parts of the link between the site and the village involve a steep incline and there are a number of issues

• - pedestrian footway pinchpoint where the former pump house sits on the Breakwater Road (the application proposes to remove this and reinstate the footway),

• - a trip/fall hazard on the inner footway of Breakwater Road (the application includes the installation of a new pedestrian crossing including re-grading of the footway on the rear side of the footway and installation of dropped kerbs and tactile paving),
• - a trip/fall hazard on the northern kerbline on Breakwater Road to the western side of the Raglan Pier (the application proposes the installation of a dropped kerb), hall hazard for young children and the visually and mobility impaired on the western side of the traffic controlled stretch of the lower promenade (the application proposes the installation of a raised white line pavement marking to raise awareness of the hazard),
• - the existence of a loading bay within the traffic light controlled stretch of the lower promenade which restricts the width of the footway (the most practicable solution which would raise the least opposition would be to limit the time of loading and unloading and return period of use and form a less wide layby with a maximum width of 0.9m which would leave enough space for vehicles to pass: this is not proposed as part of the application).
• - a footway pinch point on Strand Road adjacent to the Chinese take away (as the number of people using this is low, the gradient is low and the lane is not wide enough to facilitate vehicular traffic this is not proposed to be addressed in the application)
• - trip and fall hazard at the junction of the pedestrian link between Strand Road and the upper promenade (this could be addressed through the introduction of a level access but this is not being proposed as part of the application).

2.10 Similar comments are made about cycle access, referring to a 3km radius for a realistic range and 8 km for a maximum realistic range. Cycle stores are to be provided at the rear of the buildings in sheltered and secure positions close to the internal entry points. - 2.11 The report undertakes a parking audit, identifying 47 spaces around the site on Breakwater Road, a further 44 on Shore Road and a further 166 on the upper promenade, Church Road, Shoprite car park and Station Road. The audit of use reveals that the spaces on and around Breakwater Road were very lightly used with considerable spare capacity at the times observed (Tuesday 17th June between 1415 and 1500, 1700 and 1730hrs and Wednesday 18th June between 0800 and 0815 and 0840 and 0900hrs). - 2.12 The application will involve the following alterations which are all within the highway (and thus not subject to planning control) albeit not within the defined site:

Retain the clockwise one way system along Breakwater Road Provide a 2m minimum footway along the frontage of the site Narrow the width of Breakwater Road along the frontage of the site to reinforce the one way system Provide a loading bay in front of building 3 to allow taxi drop off and delivery arrangements which will not block the flow of traffic along the highway Provision of a new 2m wide footway adjacent to the western turning length of Breakwater Road and Provision of two uncontrolled pedestrian crossings.

2.13 Car parking is to be provided on the basis of one space per hotel bedroom, one space per one bed apartments and otherwise two spaces and the exhibition centre 9 spaces - a total of 144 spaces. The shortfall, when calculated including linked trips results in the proposed parking provision being sufficient. - 2.14 The proposal makes no provision for affordable housing or public open space (Housing Policy 5 and Recreation Policy 3). The applicant puts forward the case that the site is not designated for residential use nor is it within an area of predominantly residential use or character as is required by HP5. As such, there should be no requirement for affordable housing. In addition, they explain that a site of this nature has a number of exceptional costs that impact on viability and would justify an exception to the policy if it were appropriate in any event. They point out that the site is a brownfield one, which has been vacant for a number of

• years. The current state is unsightly, which is particularly unfortunate as the site is so prominent. They suggest that the need for regeneration is clearly urgent and justifies a positive response from any decision maker.
• 2.15 They suggest that at the same time this is a difficult site to develop with exceptional costs. Moreover the need for a quality solution means a scheme on this site faces greater costs than would normally be the case elsewhere. The major ones are summarised as follows:

• 1. Demolition, including asbestos removal, has been estimated to be easily in excess of £300,000.
• 2. Demolition is required because of the deterioration post fire and the damage caused by weather and vandalism since the buildings became vacant in 2006.
• 3. Highway improvement works beyond the site, including footways, laybys, road realignments etc.
• 4. Cliff footpath improvements, along with steps access.
• 5. Control of water run-off from the cliffs. This will enhance the access to the cliff path and assist with the control of water run-off to sustainable drainage.
• 6. Potential cliff maintenance both during the construction period and subsequently.
• 7. Due to the exposed nature of the site extra to normal precautionary construction costs need to be factored in throughout the build process to counter potential high wind disruption.
• 8. Environmental and ecological issues, such as nesting birds, will impose higher costs, during both the construction phase and afterwards in designing and implementing appropriate mitigation measures.
• 9. Higher than usual drainage costs including on-site rainwater retention tanks. And on the additional benefits, but significant extra costs that this particular scheme attracts:
• 10. The inclusion of exhibition space for community benefit along with educational opportunities for organisations to display the area's rich maritime heritage.
• 11. Underground car parking costs are well over 5 times the costs of surface level spaces. The screening of unsightly car parking is of considerable benefit to the visual appearance of the headland, but it comes with a major cost penalty. Additional Payments
• 12. Upon any sales at any time a 20% value figure must be factored in to be paid to the vendor (in this case Department of Infrastructure). They understand that this is to the direct benefit to the Isle of Man Government, but it is, of course, a further substantial cost to the developer. This means that whenever all or part of the property is disposed of 20% of the proceeds revert to the Government. This would apply to both the whole site, but also the disposal of individual units.

2.16 They suggest that it is important to note that most of these costs were unseen at the time of the bid offers being accepted by the Department of Infrastructure. At that time the intention was to restore the buildings in line with the policy requirements, but due to their further deteriorating condition this was recognised as inappropriate by all parties. Due to the high cost of procurement (and anyway lack of ability to access the site / buildings it was not possible to undertake any of the necessary surveys, including costs commissioning, until after the bid for the site was accepted. It was also totally unrealistic to undertake these in the context of no certainty of securing the site in an open tender, with the likelihood of numerous bidders. No information was available on record for most inputs e.g. traffic counts and hydraulic records. The same applies to construction costs, as unlike in England the IOM does not have BICS information available. Additionally, ecological analysis was not practical due to the time and necessary seasonality of the analysis. Collectively this means that virtually all the above items could not be identified in the first instance and this compromised the cost profile meaning that they have compromised viability based upon the original bid.

2.17 In terms of public open space, the applicant suggests that the site and development are very different from residential areas and residential use represents one of five proposed uses in the development. They suggest that the nature of the apartments, alongside retail and other facilities is unlikely to attract families and that there is some distance between the site and the village's main built up area and public open areas. In addition, various amenity areas are included within and surrounding the development - somewhere in the region of 550 sq m and the balcony and patio areas will add a further 1,350 sq m which is greater than the amenity space required using the SP standards (1,036 sq m). - 2.18 However, following verbal discussions with Port Erin Commissioners regarding public open space, the local authority have asked that consideration be given to the provision of services notably water and electricity - to the open area in front of the building which is used for public events. The applicant is happy to accord with this as is the land owner (DoI) - see e-mail from Jean Kimber dated which explains that DoI have no objection to the removal of the existing shelter and its replacement including the provision of water and electricity. They note that the applicant will be submitting a landscaping plan for the whole area although the planning application applies only to part of the site. The shelter could be erected without planning approval under Class 10 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012.

PLANNING POLICY Area Plan for the South

3.1 The site is designated on the Area Plan for the South (2013) as Proposed Mixed Use and there is a development brief. The site is within the village settlement boundary. The Written Statement refers to the site as follows:

• "3.6.2 Beyond the Village centre, the former Marine Biological Station is now partially occupied but the land around it would benefit from some improvement."

Landscape Proposal 10: "Any additional new built development on the Meayll Peninsula, other than very limited development near its northern edge at the former Marine Biological Station, should be avoided

• as such development would adversely affect the largely unspoilt character and appearance of the Peninsula and/or would diminish its role in providing a vegetated, undeveloped backdrop to Port Erin, Port St Mary and Cregneash."

• "4.61.1 The former Marine Biological Station sits beyond the lifeboat house, up against the base of the cliffs in the south-western corner of Port Erin Bay. Most of the contiguous land between the former Biological Station and the harbour is vested in the Department of Infrastructure, and is not intensively used. Re-use or redevelopment of the composite site would be of general benefit to Port Erin."

"4.61.2 The buildings which remain on the site became redundant as a Marine Laboratory in 2006, but have recently been let to a new user, keen to see the buildings used for purposes in keeping with their maritime heritage. The buildings and the land around them have considerable potential, and this wider site would support Mixed Use - primarily marine-based tourist/leisure uses (including associated accommodation) - but may also include a residential element."

4.62 Development Brief 22 "1. The use of the land is deemed suitable for marine-based tourist/leisure purposes (including associated accommodation), but an element of residential use may also be considered favourably.

• 2. Development should preferably make use of all existing buildings on the site, including the re-use of the original Marine Laboratory Building.

• 3. The overall development site should include not only the former Marine Biological Station site, but also contiguous land vested in the Department of Infrastructure. There should be consultations with the Department at an early stage in the formulation of development proposals.
• 4. The design of new buildings and the treatment of the spaces between them should reflect the conspicuous nature of the site as viewed from across the bay, and the appearance and character of the emerging Conservation Area.
• 5. The layout of the site must make appropriate provision for access to the cliff-top footpath from the harbour area. Applicants should be aware that due to the steep nature of the cliff, there exists a possibility that there will be water run-off from the top of the cliff to the cliff base

at the rear of the buildings.

• 6. Port Erin Bay is known for its ecological importance, for example, as a plaice nursery area, basking shark hotspot and as an important dive site. Any new development should be sensitive to this ecological importance and also the scallop 'closed area'.
• 7. Any proposed scheme must include a Traffic Assessment evaluating the traffic impact of development on pedestrian and vehicular access along the narrow section of Shore Road."

"6.30.1 The Harbours Division is also considering the development of further marine based leisure at Port Erin. Improvements to the harbour facilities in this location could be integrated with proposals to develop the former Marine Laboratory site and its immediate environs."

Finally, the Marine Biological Station is listed as a building to be researched for potential Registration. The site does not lie within the village's proposed Conservation Area whose boundary stops to the east before meeting the site.

The Strategic Plan 2016

3.2 The Strategic Plan also contains policies which are relevant:

• 3.2.1 Strategic Policy 1: "Development should make the best use of resources by:

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

• 3.2.2 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."

• 3.2.3 Strategic Policy 4: "Proposals for development must:

• (a) Protect or enhance the fabric and setting of Ancient Monuments, Registered Buildings, Conservation Areas, buildings and structures within National Heritage Areas and sites of archaeological interest;
• (b) protect or enhance the landscape quality and nature conservation value of urban as well as rural areas but especially in respect to development adjacent to Areas of Special Scientific Interest and other designations; and
• (c) not cause or lead to unacceptable environmental pollution or disturbance."

• 3.2.4 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."
• 3.2.5 Strategic Policy 9: "All new retail development (excepting neighbourhood shops and those instances identified in Business Policy 5) and all new office development (excepting corporate headquarters suitable for a business park location) must be sited within the town and village centres on land zoned for these purposes in Area Plans, whilst taking into consideration Business Policies 7 and 8."
• 3.2.6 Spatial Policy 2: "Outside Douglas development will be concentrated on the following Service Centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services

Ramsey Peel Port Erin Castletown Onchan

Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such centres so as to provide a range of housing and employment opportunities at a scale appropriate to the settlement."

• 3.2.7 General Policy 2: "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."

• 3.2.8 Environment Policy 4: "Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect:

• (a) species and habitats of international importance:

• (i) protected species of international importance or their habitats; or
• (ii) proposed or designated Ramsar and Emerald Sites or other internationally important sites.

• (b) species and habitats of national importance:

• (i) protected species of national importance or their habitats;

(1) Wildlife Sites are defined in Appendix 1

• (ii) proposed or designated National Nature Reserves, or Areas of Special Scientific Interest; or
• (iii) Marine Nature Reserves; or
• (iv) National Trust Land.

• (c) species and habitats of local importance such as Wildlife Sites, local nature reserves, priority habitats or species identified in any Manx Biodiversity Action Plan which do not already benefit from statutory protection, Areas of Special Protection and Bird Sanctuaries and landscape features of importance to wild flora and fauna by reason of their continuous nature or function as a corridor between habitats.

Some areas to which this policy applies are identified as Areas of Ecological Importance or Interest on extant Local or Area Plans, but others, whose importance was not evident at the time of the adoption of the relevant Local or Area Plan, are not, particularly where that plan has been in place for many years. In these circumstances, the Department will seek site specific advice from the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry if development proposals are brought forward."

• 3.2.9 Environment Policy 7: "Development which would cause demonstrable harm to a watercourse, wetland, pond or dub, and which could not be overcome by mitigation measures will not be permitted. Where development is proposed which would affect a watercourse, planning applications must comply with the following criteria:

• (a) all watercourses in the vicinity of the site must be identified on plans accompanying a planning application and include an adequate risk assessment to demonstrate that works will not cause long term deterioration in water quality;
• (b) details of pollution and alleviation measures must be submitted;
• (c) all engineering works proposed must be phased in an appropriate manner in order to avoid a reduction in water quality in any adjacent watercourse; and
• (d) development will not normally be allowed within 8 metres of any watercourse in order to protect the aquatic and bankside habitats and species."

• 3.2.10 Environment Policy 42: "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.
• 3.2.11 Environment Policy 43: The Department will generally support proposals which seek to regenerate run-down urban and rural areas. Such proposals will normally be set in the context of regeneration strategies identified in the associated Area Plans. The Department will encourage the re-use of sound built fabric, rather than its demolition."
• 3.2.12 Housing Policy 5: "In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more."

• 3.2.13 Housing Policy 17 provides advice on the conversion of buildings into flats. Whilst the proposal is for new build apartments, the standards set out here are useful:

"(a) adequate space can be provided for clothes-drying, refuse storage, general amenity, and, if practical, car-parking;

• (b) the flats created will have a pleasant clear outlook, particularly from the principal rooms and
• (c) if possible, this involves the creation of parking on site or as part of an overall traffic management strategy for the area."

• 3.2.14 Business Policy 1: "The growth of employment opportunities throughout the Island will be encouraged provided that development proposals accord with the policies of this Plan."
• 3.2.15 Business Policy 9: "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 on adjacent retail areas. Major retail development proposals will require to be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment.

(1) Retail Impact Assessment is defined in Appendix 1.

• 3.2.16 Business Policy 10: "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."
• 3.2.17 Business Policy 11: "Tourism development must be in accordance with the sustainable development objectives of this plan; policies and designations which seek to protect the countryside from development will be applied to tourist development with as much weight as they are to other types of development. Within the rural areas there may be situations where existing rural buildings could be used for tourist use and Environment Policy 16 sets out the circumstances where this may be permitted."
• 3.2.18 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."
• 3.2.19 Transport Policy 4: "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."
• 3.2.20 Transport Policy 7: "The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department's current standards."
• 3.2.21 Transport Policy 13: "Development in or around harbours should neither compromise the ability of the harbour to accommodate other commercial or recreational users in a viable manner, nor be detrimental to the character of those harbours of historic interest."
• 3.2.22 Parking. The Strategic Plan requires there to be one space for every single bedroomed apartment, two spaces for units with two or more bedrooms, assembly and leisure facilities require one space per 15 sq m nett floorspace, retail units in the town centre require space for servicing the units. The Plan also states that:

"In the case of town centre and previously developed sites, the Department will consider reducing this requirement having regard to:

• (a) the location of the housing relative to public transport, employment, and public amenities;
• (b) the size of the dwelling;
• (c) any restriction on the nature of the occupancy (such as sheltered housing); and
• (d) the impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area."

• 3.2.23 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."

PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 There have been two recent applications on the site which are relevant to the determination of the current application.

4.2 13/00459/A - approval in principle for the conversion of existing educational establishment into a Marine Interpretation Centre including an associated retail unit and cafe, dive centre, offices for marine related businesses and a 20 bedroomed hotel with parking and landscaping. This application was approved by the Council of Ministers, following a recommendation for refusal by an independent inspector who was concerned that it had not been demonstrated how sufficient car parking could be laid out in a visually acceptable manner in this prominent and sensitive location. COMIN did not agree with this, considering that such concerns could be met by conditions which had been suggested by the inspector. - 4.3 14/00460/B - full approval for erection of extensions and conversion of existing educational establishment into a Marine Interpretation Centre including an associated retail unit and cafe, dive centre and offices for marine related business. This was refused by Council of Ministers for the following reasons:

"With reference to the alterations and vertical extension proposed to the building at the eastern end of the site, the proposal would result in that building becoming overly dominant and intrusive in visual terms, to the detriment of the architectural and historical interest of the original Marine Biological Station building and also to the detriment of the general character and appearance of the existing group of buildings and of the area. It would thereby conflict with the intentions of parts b and c and g of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan and with the Development Brief for site 22 of the Area Plan for the South."

"The proposal makes inadequate provision for car parking within the defined application site, and as a consequence would be likely to result in additional on-street parking to the detriment of the safety of highway users and the free flow of traffic. It would thereby conflict with the intentions of Transport Policy 7 and parts h and i of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan."

4.4 Planning approval has also been granted for the conversion of a former coal shed further north along the quay, to a facility for the sale, storage, distribution and manufacture of alcoholic drinks (16/00527/C) now known as "Foraging Vintners" and in operation.

REPRESENTATIONS

5.1 Port Erin Commissioners support the application (15.05.19 and 21.06.19).

5.2 Department of Infrastructure Highway Services make several representations relating to the public right of way (17.04.19), an objection on the basis of lack of information and noncompliance with Manual for Manx Roads (17.04.19, 30.09.19). Their final position, following the submission of further traffic information, is that they have no objection to the application

subject to the imposition of certain conditions which have been included in the recommendation (30.09.19).

5.3 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Inland Fisheries Officer advise that a Development Within 9m of a Watercourse form should be completed and sent to them (17.05.19).

5.4 Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture Ecosystems Policy Officer considers that the EIA submitted with the application is very poor and lacks any details about the ecology of the site with no recognition that the application site intrudes into the designated Meayll Coast wildlife site and whilst not statutorily recognised by law, is of high wildlife value which should be recognised. This was designated for its coastal grassland, coastal heathland and for its importance for cliff-nesting seabirds as well as for other criteria. If approved, she would expect to see much more extensive ecological assessment at the next stage of the development (03.05.19). - 5.5 Department of Infrastructure Housing Division recommend that affordable housing is required as there are 90 persons on the general public sector waiting list and 9 persons on the active first time buyers' register for the south of the Island. They note that the Department does not currently support the sale or lease of leasehold apartments (29.04.19). - 5.6 Local residents and businesses in support of the scheme

• 5.6.1 Foraging Vintners based at the Old Coal Shed, Breakwater Road advise that they are fully supportive of the application. They suggest that Port Erin needs to address this derelict site and encourage visitors and residents to the area. They welcome the proposed alterations to the highway and consider that this site has the potential to be one of the most spectacular properties on the Island (07.05.19).
• 5.6.2 The owner of 1, Bradda View Grove who considers that the plans "look fantastic" and will give the village and the south of the Island the economic boost it needs (29.04.19). 5.6.2 The owner of Regent House states that he has never commented on an application nor has felt the need to, but in this instance he wishes to sully support the proposed development, noting that the village has a number of derelict vacant building sites along the promenade that many are forced to look at on a daily basis and the current site is a blight on the village in its current state and what is proposed would completely transform a very poor situation to the opposite of which Port Erin could be proud with additional facilities for the village and for its visitors. He sees no issues with the size of scope of the proposal if one looks at similar coastal developments where previously derelict areas have been rejuvenated in the UK and other parts of the world and he hopes that the development is approved (09.05.19).
• 5.6.3 The owner of Port Verk and as "provider of high quality self-catering tourist accommodation" he offers his support for the application. He advises that a recent study conducted on behalf of Department for Enterprise highlighted the need for an increase in the quality of tourism accommodation on the Island and he believes that a development of this nature would be a real asset to the south of the Island's tourism with a knock-on effect to local businesses, breathing new life and encouraging small businesses to base themselves here and supporting the regeneration of the village (13.06.19).
• 5.6.4 The owner of 24, Erin Way supports the application, considering that the current buildings are an eyesore and an embarrassment to the local community and the plans would breathe new life in an under utilised area of the village, creating jobs and additional business for existing shops, bars and restaurants (29.04.19).

5.7 Local residents opposed to the scheme

• 5.7.1 The owner of 20, Fairway Close who welcomes the principle of the redevelopment of the site but objects to the scale of the development which doubles the length of the frontage as well as the height, as shown in the impressions provided. He refers to the previous refusal of a redevelopment of the site, 13/00460/B which related to the height of the building and its dominance in respect of the existing buildings on the site and also suggesting that the height and size would be detrimental to the general character and appearance of the existing group of buildings and the area. He asks whether it is necessary to demolish the existing buildings which are of architectural or historic interest as the frontage of the original building appears to be intact and the adjacent building undamaged. He notes the narrowness of some parts of the access to the site and the proposed traffic will add significantly to the existing traffic flows and parking demand and the construction works will cause considerable impact on the highway network. He considers that the proposal fails to satisfactorily access potential impacts on pedestrian safety and notes that the development does not appear to show the existing PROW. He suggests that the impact of the development is difficult to envisage in the absence of contextual drawings and suggests that the "reported modest price for the acquisition of the site suggests that such a large scale development is not necessary in order to generate an adequate financial return" (16.04.19).

• 5.7.2 This respondent submits further comments on 27.05.19, welcoming the objection from Department of Infrastructure Highway Services and noting the proposal to remove some of the cliff face, comments that there is no information to demonstrate that this can be done safely, nor is there any information about the impact of the traffic associated with the demolition and excavation if this is proposed. He suggests that making use of the existing buildings would be a positive conservation measure which would also reduce traffic and concludes, "if this colossal proposal were to be approved and constructed, it will be too later for those who have expressed support to then say, "We didn't realise that it was going to be that big".

• 5.7.3 Further comments were received on 12.08.19 reiterating comments about the deficiency of information about construction traffic and he suggests that there is a conflict between the applicant's statement based upon visual inspection that no apparent issues were observed which would lead to accidents occurring yet earlier in the transport assessment, a number of hazards were identified. He considers that inadequate consideration has been given to the potential hazards at pedestrian pinch points.

• 5.7.4 The owners of Sea View, Shore Road object to the scale of the proposals which they describes as being for 73 apartments and 14 hotel suites with additional exhibition space, bar/restaurant and non-food related retail facilities and 159 parking spaces. They consider that the building is far larger than those which they will replace, with small or no gaps in between giving the impression of one large block as viewed from across the bay. The existing buildings blend into the background cliffs but the larger building finished in different materials will not and they consider that this will have an adverse and significant visual impact in an area of natural beauty. They consider the scale of the development to be inappropriate and excessive. They refer to the Meayll Coast wildlife site which is not referred to by the applicant and makes no effort to retain the existing building which is historically interesting. There is no mention of how the coastal footpath will be retained nor how much parking will be retained for users of the path and headland. They consider that access is inadequate to cope with the additional traffic that would be generated by the proposed use and there would be significant impacts if access to the emergency services located near the site were to be compromised. They note that there are currently hardly any coach movements along Breakwater Road as the road widths are unsuitable and coaches using the roads would result in significant traffic problems. They refer to 13/00460/B and consider this to support a refusal of the current scheme (06.05.19).

5.8 Other parties

• 5.8.1 The Isle of Man Natural History and Antiquarian Society express disappointment that the application is in principle only and involves the demolition of a building (the Marine Biological

Station itself) which "played such a prominent part of Port Erin and the core of which may still be viewed as having substantial architectural quality. They refer to the previous refusal for the extension of the building which was refused for reasons, inter alia, relating to the dominating and intrusive impact on the original Marine Biological Station. They consider that the illustration of what may be proposed indicates a 6 storey block of flats as high as the cliffs behind should be considered unacceptable and they consider that there is nothing in the application which suggests that the site's inherent characteristics are being considered or planned for. They have no objection to the nature of the proposed uses (19.09.19).

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The issues in this case are as follows:

• i. the principle of the mix of uses (Area Plan for the South development brief)
• ii. the impact of the development on ecology (Area Plan Development Brief, Eps 4 and 7)
• iii. the impact of the development on the public footpath (Area Plan Development Brief and RP5)
• iv. the impact of the development on highway safety (Area Plan Development Brief, General Policy 2h and I, TP4, TP7 and TP13
• v. the impact on the development on the landscape (Landscape Proposal 10, SP3, SP4, SP5 and EP 42)
• vi. whether the apartments have satisfactory levels of amenity (HP17)
• vii. the loss of the existing buildings (Area Plan Development Brief)
• viii. the lack of provision of affordable housing (HP5)
• ix. the lack of provision of public open space (RP 3 and Appendix 6).

6.2 i. the principle of the mix of uses (SP9, BPs 9 and 10, Area Plan for the South development brief and GP2a)

• 6.2.1 The Development Brief indicates that a range of uses including marine-based tourist/leisure uses (including associated accommodation) - but may also include a residential element. The proposed uses are not exactly in line with these - there is no marine based usage for example and the predominant use is residential. However, given the condition and appearance of the present site and its prominence in the local area it is considered that should the range of proposed uses be acceptable in themselves, then the non-conformity with the Area Plan development brief should not be a reason for refusal.
• 6.2.2 The provision of eating and drinking facilities will complement the existing facility at Foraging Vintners (who are in support of the application) and provide more opportunities for those already visiting this part of the village, to have refreshments. Similarly, the inclusion of exhibition space and retail will also add interest to this part of the village.
• 6.2.3 Whilst there could be concern that the location, outwith the centre of the village is not appropriate for retail, given BPs 9 and 10 and SP 9, the location is within the settlement boundary, the three units shown on the plans are all each less than 100 sq m, nowhere near the area which would necessitate a Retail Impact Assessment either individually or cumulatively and the provision of retail units alongside the restaurant and exhibition space is considered to be complementary in this case in an area where visitors already congregate despite the lack of facilities. The development brief clearly includes uses which are designed to attract visitors to the site and the retail units would support this.

6.3 ii. the impact of the development on ecology (Area Plan Development Brief, Eps 4 and 7)

• 6.3.1 There is relatively little information provided on the potential impact on ecology: however, it is perhaps not surprising given that the application is in principle and the details of the design, position and therefore impact of the development are not fully known at this stage. For example, it is not clear whether the development will necessitate any change to the cliff face which could have a significant impact on the habitat and it could be possible to include elements which enhance the biodiversity of the area compared with the existing - for example,

living walls, bat and bird boxes and planting. It is considered that the potential impact on ecology is best dealt with at the detailed planning stage (reserved matters in this case) and a condition should be attached accordingly.

6.4 iii. the impact of the development on the public footpath (Area Plan Development Brief and RP5)

• 6.4.1 The public footpath is already impacted upon by the existing buildings: the general character of the footpath is of a confined and steep first section where the existing buildings dominate the view, particularly the view of the rear of the buildings which is not particularly attractive. The new buildings may be taller but hopefully will be more interesting and attractive. The principal character of the path and most of its quality comes higher up where expansive views are available towards Bradda Head and south towards the Calf of Man. Whilst a part of the view towards Bradda Head could be affected with a taller range of buildings, the much greater majority of the view will still be available for a considerable part of the upper sections of the path.
• 6.4.2 The footpath skirts behind the site, running a little way from the edge of the cliffs and then it climbs steeply up to the west of the site, giving clear views towards Bradda Head and Milner's Tower, uninterrupted by the proposed building, however high it were to be. It is not therefore considered that the proposal will adversely impact the character and enjoyment of the footpath.

6.5 iv. the impact of the development on highway safety (Area Plan Development Brief, General Policy 2h and I, TP4, TP7 and TP13) - 6.6 v. the impact on the development on the landscape (Landscape Proposal 10, SP3, SP4, SP5 and EP 42)

• 6.6.1 There are no provisions within the development brief which prescribe a maximum height or size of building. The site has its own unique context which will neither affect nor be affected by existing buildings nearby. As such, whilst some are concerned that the proposed buildings could be too high or overly large, it must be asked, how does this affect what is a much greater surrounding landscape of which the proposed building will form a small part. The building will still have a backdrop of cliff and headland behind it. The application is only one in principle with all detailed matters of design and appearance, size and height, reserved for future determination although the application clearly indicates that the proposed development comprises a mix of uses and a building which would be substantially larger and different to what currently exists - buildings up to six storeys. As such, it is not considered that the application should be refused on the basis that the proposal would constitute overdevelopment of the site.

6.7 vi. whether the apartments have satisfactory levels of amenity (HP17)

• 6.7.1 As stated above, the details of the layout and design of the development have yet to be submitted however, it is clear that the buildings as illustrated on the plans will mostly have available a principal view to the north across the bay to Bradda Head with only a few having only a rear view. Despite this, the rear view will be towards a natural cliff at least 16m away and to the south. It is considered that this outlook is acceptable.

• 6.7.2 There is unlikely to be external communal areas for the apartments due to the commercial activities which will occur at the ground floor levels with their associated public access and servicing arrangements. All clothes drying and storage will therefore have to be provided within the building, which is not uncommon for apartment developments. There can be adequate car parking and public amenity space around the buildings (see 6.10 later).

6.8 vii. the loss of the existing buildings (Area Plan Development Brief)

• 6.8.1 The buildings on site comprise a mix of older, interesting buildings and newer, less attractive structures. There is no objection to the loss of the newer elements. None of the

buildings is currently in a particularly good state of repair or appearance. The older buildings, particularly the original Marine Biological Station is of acknowledged historical and architectural interest, having been identified in the Area Plan for the South adopted in 2013 as worthy of consideration for Registration. However, this has never been progressed and even in the face of a planning application which clearly proposes demolition of the building, the Department has taken no steps to protect any of the existing buildings on site. It is therefore not considered that the loss of the existing buildings should be a reason for refusal. The buildings on site could be demolished without the need for planning approval under Part 2, Section 6(2)e of the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 and Class 36 of The Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012.

6.9 viii. the lack of provision of affordable housing (HP5)

• 6.9.1 The proposal makes no provision for affordable housing. Housing Policy 5 states that this will be required "on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas". The site is neither of these things. However, in seeking approval for a predominantly residential development on a site where the approved land use is not predominantly residential, the applicant is suggesting that the site is suitable for residential development. As such there is an argument that affordable housing should be sought. In this case, it could be possible to provide affordable units on site, as the detailed layout has not yet been approved. Alternatively, it would be possible to require a commuted sum if it were not considered possible in the final design of the development.

• 6.9.2 The site is an unusual one in that there is significant public gain in the redevelopment of the site and there is a requirement for the site to include not simply housing but other, potentially less profitable or economically viable uses, which, distinguishes this from most other cases where affordable housing should be required. The applicant has also had limited access to the site prior to purchase which has made accurate build and demolition cost estimates less certain although some of the costs given by the applicant could have been foreseen and taken into account in the offer given to purchase the site. As a result of the discussions with Highway Services, there are improvements to the public highway to be undertaken to facilitate the development, which would not have been known to the applicant at the time of agreement to purchase. The applicant also has to give a 20% contribution of any profits derived back to Government - in this case through the same Department which administers the delivery of affordable housing through the House Purchase Assistance Scheme and some public sector housing.
• 6.9.3 Given the benefits of the development (see 7.1) and some of the factors listed in 6.9 above, it is not considered appropriate to refuse the application for lack of provision for affordable housing in this case.

6.10 ix. the lack of provision of public open space (RP 3 and Appendix 6)

• 6.10.1 Unlike HP5, the requirement for Public Open Space is not dependent upon the land use designation or the context of the site but simply on the number of units proposed. It is relevant that the various redeveloped hotels on the upper promenade have not provided significant (or any) areas of public open space either physically or by way of a commuted sum, the decision makers considering that these sites are in close proximity to areas of public open space - the headlands, brooghs, public footpaths and beach (14/00893/B for the Port Erin Royal Hotel and 14/00100/B for the Grosvenor Hotel and York House) and where the local authority did not require such provision or relative commuted sum. This site is little different although time has passed since these decisions, with a large, grassed area directly in front of the site, the beach within a short walking distance, two proposed areas of public open space at each end of the site amounting to around 810 sq m of amenity space (this is not likely to be either children's play or formal recreation space) and direct access to the footpath system to the south. It is not a site which, due to its location and exposed nature, other than those people living on site, the community is likely to come to for its recreational facilities and again, as with 6.9.1 above, there is significant public gain through the redevelopment of existing disused and some

unsightly fabric and the provision of facilities for the community such as exhibition space, shops and places to eat.

• 6.10.1 In any case, the applicant has agreed to improve the potential for use of the space which they are to lease in front of the building which will benefit the local community as described in 2.18 above. As such, it is not considered that the lack of public open space should be a reason to refuse the application in this case and a condition is recommended to ensure the delivery of the improvements referred to earlier. CONCLUSION
• 7.1 Some of the buildings on the site are of historic or architectural interest and the proposed redevelopment is likely to significantly increase both the mass of building on the site and the amount of traffic - pedestrian and motorised - coming to and going from the site. The loss of the buildings is dealt with in paragraph 6.8 and is not considered objectionable. The current buildings are in poor repair to the extent that the rear of the site is fenced off and inaccessible. The buildings have been like this for several years. The site is a popular one for people wishing to view the marine vistas and to walk however, at present there is nothing to visually welcome visitors to this end of the promenade, no facilities and an unattractive range of unused, unmaintained buildings. There is a significant benefit to the public who view this site either at close hand or from further away in the village, from the redevelopment of this site both through an improved visual impact and through the provision of facilities for those who come to the site (shops, restaurant, exhibition space). This is considered to complement the efforts which are being made further down the promenade to attract and cater for visitors to the area. It is also relevant that the application has the support of the local authority and a number of local business owners and residents.

7.2 The objections which have been received relate to the size and appearance of the proposed replacement building. However, this is dealt with in paragraph 6.6.

7.3 It is considered that the considerable benefit which will arise from the redevelopment of the site as proposed generally in the submitted application, outweighs the few issues which have arisen and the application is supported. INTERESTED PERSON 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: o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and o 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: 11.11.2019

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

Customer note

This copy of the officerreport 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.