DEC Officer Report

Application No.: 17/00852/B Applicant: JM Project Management Limited Proposal: Erection of 28 residential units and retail unit with associated parking and landscaping Site Address: Field 320653 And Part Field's 324324, 324323 & 324321 Ballaglonney Farm Peel Road Crosby Isle Of Man Principal Planner: Miss S E Corlett Photo Taken: 20.09.2017 Site Visit: 20.09.2017 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement Date of Recommendation: 24.12.2018 _________________________________________________________________

Conditions and Notes for Approval

C : Conditions for approval N : Notes attached to conditions

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

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

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

6 months of the connection of the site to the public system.

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

C 3. Landscaping, (including mitigation tree planting) and post planting maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with drawing 1060/C200F and the maintenance and aftercare schedule for new tree planting received on 7th August, 2017, in the first planting and seeding season following completion or occupation of any part of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants (including those retained as part of the development) which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development are removed, or, in the opinion of the Department, become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation.

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

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

C 4. There must be no disturbance to the bed or margins of the south eastern stream including disturbance due to in-channel works or entry to the watercourse by machinery and to ensure this, details of any proposed works to the north western bank profile of the stream running along the south eastern side of the site together with a construction method statement must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department prior to the start of the construction of the path and the culvert and any embankment works: the method statement shall outline a suitable construction approach to reduce the possibility of disturbance of fish within the stream and the works must be carried out in accordance with these details and this statement all to avoid disturbance or injury to fish and protection of the aquatic and bankside habitat. Reason: To accord with Environment Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan and the Wildlife Act 1990.
C 5. Prior to any work to create ditches or pipework in the area between the Heritage Trail and the River Dhoo, a construction method statement must be submitted to and approved by the Department to demonstrate that these works will be undertaken in such a way as to avoid damage to an area of ecological value and the works must be carried out in accordance with these details. Reason: To accord with Environment Policies 4 and 7 of the Strategic Plan.
C 6. No development may be undertaken until such times as protective fencing has been erected to protect those trees which are to be retained in positions agreed by the Department and this fencing must be retained during the course of construction.

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

C 7. Each of the retail units hereby approved may be used as a shop Class 1 of Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 and for no other purpose.

Reason: To reflect the nature of the planning approval and to control the impact of the development on the surrounding area.

C 8. Prior to the operation of either of the proposed retail units, the car parking spaces to the north shall be laid out and available for use by staff and customers of the retail units and retained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure that there is sufficient car parking available to serve the commercial unit.
C 9. No external lighting may be attached to the retail building, nor may external lighting associated with the retail units be installed within the site without the prior permission of the Department.

Reason: To protect the character of the area and the living conditions of those in properties in the vicinity.

C 10. No items for sale may be stored or displayed for sale outside the retail building; and there may be no outside storage of material, nor the installation of plant or equipment, outside the building.

Reason: To ensure that all parking and access areas are available for their intended purpose; to preserve the visual appearance of the building; and to ensure that there is no noise nuisance from heating, ventilation or other plant.

C 11. The retail unit may not be open for business after 2200hrs on any day; or before 0700hrs on any day. Reason: To protect the living conditions of those living in nearby residential property.
C 12. The on-site parking, turning and loading areas must be suitably hard surfaced and provided prior to occupation of the proposed development, and be maintained and retained unobstructed thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure that there is sufficient car parking provided to serve the proposed development.

C 13. No construction work may be undertaken on the site other than between 0800hrs and 1900hrs Monday to Saturday inclusive. Reason: To protect the living conditions of those living near the site.
C 14. The retail building must be erected, laid out and used as shown in drawing 16/2576/105F received on 20th November, 2018. In particular, the two units must be arranged as shown and may not be combined or merged, and there may be no additional floor space introduced either through the introduction of mezzanine flooring or other means.

Reason: The proposal as approved represents less than 500 sq m of retail floor space which would not require a Retail Impact Assessment (RIA) to demonstrate that it would not have an adverse impact on the viability and vitality of the town centres; any increase in floor area would be in excess of this and no RIA has been provided.

C 15. Prior to the installation of any pipework between the proposed commercial unit and the junction of the A1 and Old Church Road, a method statement demonstrating how the pipework will be installed without interfering with the roots of existing trees, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development must be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement.

Reason: The pipework is shown to pass very close to where there are roots of trees that are to be retained, and it is necessary to ensure that the pipework will be installed without harming the roots of these trees.

N 1. The decision to grant planning approval, subject to a Section 13 agreement, was made by Planning Committee on the 7th January 2019. The issue of the decision notice has been triggered by the Section 13 agreement having been concluded. The 21 days for appeal (for those with Interested Person Status) runs from the date of the decision notice.

Plans/Drawings/Information;

This approval relates to the following drawings and information all received on 7th August, 2017:

0800/C203, 1060/C200F, 1060/C201A, 16/2576/16A, 16/2576/17A, 16/2576/18, 16/2576/19C, 16/2576/22, 16/2576/23B, 16/2576/25B, 16/02576/28A, 16/2576/29, 16/02576/30A, 16/02576/35A, 16/2576/40, 16/2576/46, 16/2576/101, 16/2576/101, 16/2576/102, 16/2576/104, 16/02576/106 and 16/2576/301

P1639161102-01P and the Professional Lighting Design report dated 1st November, 2016 The Construction Method Statement for highways, drainage and housing dated 31st October,

2016 The Construction Method Statement relating to the construction of the bus lay-by dated 10th October, 2016 The report of the Manx Bat Group dated 31st July, 2016 The Manx Wildlife Trust report dated October, 2016 The Flood Risk Assessment dated January 2017 and Supplemental Technical Information Issue

2.0 The tree survey dated 23.07.15 and the revised maintenance and aftercare schedule dated 12th May 2017.

16/2576/27C, 16/2576/114, 16/2576/116, 16/2576/118 and 16/2576/300A all received on 7th November, 2018 16/2576/15N, 16/2576/105F received on 20th November, 2018.

_______________________________________________________________ Interested Person Status – Additional Persons

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

Marown Memorial Playing Fields

5, Eyremont Terrace 1, Eyremont Terrace 3, Eyremont Terrace

as they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018).

It is recommended that the owners/occupiers of the following properties 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):

Mr. W. Shimmins MHK and Mrs. Poole-Wilson MLC 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

7, Kermode Road 21, Main Road 3, Richmond Terrace

3, Crosby Terrace Close Jiarg 1, Eyreton Terrace (2 representations)

6, Crosby Terrace 1, Eyreton Cottages

4, Crosby Terrace and Mr. W. Shimmins and Mrs. Poole-Wilson

as their properties 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.

6, Eyremont Terrace as they do not refer to the relevant issues in accordance with paragraph 2C of the Policy.

7, Kermode Road 21, Main Road 3, Richmond Terrace

3, Crosby Terrace 6, Eyremont Terrace 1, Eyreton Terrace (2 representations) 1, Eyreton Cottages
4, Crosby Terrace Mr. W. Shimmins and Mrs. Poole-Wilson

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.

Some of the parties appear in more than one category but have been listed separately in each for completeness.

It is recommended that the following organisation 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):

Manx Utilities as they do not own or occupy property that is 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 and 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 Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status (July 2018). _____________________________________________________________________________

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DUE TO THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE, THE FACT THAT A LEGAL AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED, AS THE APPLICATION IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL WHERE THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HAS RAISED AN OBJECTION AND THE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSES WORKS (DRAINS AND A SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT) OUTWITH THE AREA DESIGNATED FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE 1982 DEVELOPMENT PLAN ORDER

Preliminaries Planning application history

1. Approval was granted at appeal in 2016 for the principle of the development of the main part of the current application site for 28 dwellings and provision of retail space with the details of the siting of the buildings and the means of access (15/00775/A) approved at that time. Subsequent to this, four applications for the reserved matters were submitted - 16/01131/REM for 7 of the dwellings with associated infrastructure, 16/01314/REM for the remaining 21 dwellings with the retail unit and supporting infrastructure, 18/00329/REM and 18/00339/REM both of which were solely for the retail unit. Additional information relating to ecology was submitted and approved in response to the condition attached to the approval in principle.
2. During the consideration of 16/01131/REM and 16/01314/REM, but quite late on in the process, it became apparent that the development proposed in those applications included a new wastewater treatment system and associated pipework which were not within the red line defined on either the approval in principle drawings or the two applications for the reserved matters. As it is not possible to consider a reserved matters application for a site which differs in definition to that of the approval in principle, it was not possible to consider the two reserved matters applications as submitted: two options were available to the applicant - to submit a new, full detailed application for the whole of the development with an amended red line site area which included not only the development area approved under 15/00775/A but also the land required to accommodate the drainage infrastructure (which is what this current application is for) or alternatively, which was also undertaken, to submit amended plans for those two REM applications with the drainage contained within the site.
3. These applications were partly approved at appeal - 16/01131/REM for the first 7 dwellings (affordable units) on the right as one enters the estate which was approved in its entirety, and 16/01314/REM approved solely for the 21 dwellings with the retail unit being refused as its area exceeded that for which a retail impact assessment would have been required and was not provided and that it included office use for which no approval in principle had been sought or granted. At the end of this stage, all of the housing had been approved but no details for the retail unit.
4. Subsequent to this, two further reserved matters applications were submitted, both solely for the retail unit. 18/00339/REM was refused as the inspector included all of the available floor area in his calculation of the retail floor area, including a first floor balcony and concluded that this too exceeded the 500 sq m floor area for which a RIA would be required and none was provided. 18/00329/REM however, was approved. This was for a smaller building in a slightly different location (the loading bay and building handed) and whose floor area was concluded by the inspector to be "about 31.6m by 15.6m and its ground floor area would be approximately 493 sq m". He also commented that the building would have a ridge height of around 9.6m and an eaves height of some 5.5m. The service yard was to be positioned at the south eastern end of the building. At the rear of the building a 2m high wall would be erected to separate the building from plot 21 with a hedge immediately beyond the wall. The building was to contain two shop units, one 273 sq m and the other around 92 sq m.
5. Whilst the red line area has been increased in size, it should be clear that the area of built development and the scheme itself is little different to that which has previously been approved

in 15/00775/A, 16/01131/REM, 16/01314/REM (28 houses only) and 18/00329/REM, inasmuch as the dwellings on plots 1-11 and 23-28 remain exactly as originally approved. The application form correctly describes the existing use of the site as agricultural and the proposed as residential with associated infrastructure and the area which is outside of that shown in

15/00775/A is purely for the accommodation of the drainage system: there is no proposal for additional dwellings or additional built development outside of the originally approved area.

6. Whilst this is a new, full detailed application, the approval in principle, and three reserved matters approvals remain a strong and relevant material consideration unless there have been any changes in circumstances or policy since then. Two things may be considered to have occurred since that decision. Firstly, the applicant has obtained a licence to discharge the proposed drainage system into the adjacent watercourse (River Dhoo) - dated 29th August,

Secondly, the position in respect of the underlying land use policy has changed. Policy position

7. Cabinet Office embarked upon the preparation of an Area Plan for the East in February, 2017, for an area which includes Crosby as well as the wider parish of Marown and the parishes of Braddan, Santon, the administrative area of Garff, the District and parish of Onchan and the Borough of Douglas. The application site and the land to the west was proposed by the owners for consideration for development - the application site for residential and the wider area to the west - for mixed use - housing, recreation and leisure, residential care/nursing home, retirement bungalows, cafe and car parking. This was accepted by the Cabinet Office who have included in the draft plan the application site as residential with areas of open space around the periphery, coinciding with those areas of planting shown on the application in principle. The area to the north west, west and south west has been included in the draft plan

as a reserve site for Predominantly Residential and Community Facilities.

8. The Area Plan Process includes two main phases of public consultation - preliminary publicity (to determine the scope and key issues) and the draft plan stage. The Preliminary Publicity stage of the Area Plan for the East was completed on 26th May 2017 and the draft Plan has been published (May, 2018). No dates or timeframe for the remaining stages of the plan, have been identified. THE SITE

1.1 The site is that of a development which has been approved in principle for residential use PA 15/00775/A as well as additional land to the south west. The site lies on the south western corner of the crossroads in the heart of Crosby village and rises from the stream which abuts the children's play area, Marown Parish Commissioners' offices and Hall Caine Pavilion, bowling green, BMX track and sports pitches. To the south west of the site is a field through which a proposed pedestrian link will be created to join the long distance footpath referred to as the Heritage Trail which follows the route of a former railway line. To the north west is another agricultural field as well as the remainder of the agricultural field part of which is the development site. The site extends to the south side of the Heritage Trail. - 1.2 Mature trees line the A1 across the frontage of the site and abut the site on its south eastern boundary. In this case, the trees are mostly on the eastern side of the water course. The water course is a meandering stream whose water levels vary throughout the season. The banks are naturally formed by the passage of the water together with existing trees growing near and on the banks which are generally no greater than around 300mm higher than the level of the water and the stream is generally (unless in periods of much higher rainfall, which do happen) low enough to be able to see the stones which make up the stream bed. A post and wire fence runs along the edge of the application site on this side of the stream. - 1.3 There is a significant break in the tree line which runs down the western side of the stream consistent with the location of the bowling green.

1.4 The application site differs from that of all of the preceding applications in that it includes not only the area on which housing and retail unit and pedestrian link to the Heritage Trail, but also land to the south west including the Heritage Trail which is part owned by Department for Infrastructure and Marown Memorial Playing Fields Ltd and land across the Heritage Trail adjoining the River Dhoo whose ownership is part of Coolingel Farm.

THE PROPOSAL

2.1 15/00775/A approved the principle of the residential development of the site together with the provision of a new access off the A1 and the provision of a pedestrian footpath onto the Heritage Trail. The approval required that any application for the reserved matters provide also details of the landscaping of the site, a flood risk assessment, drainage of its foul and surface water, a Construction Method Statement including working hours, drawings demonstrating that visibility splays of 2.4m by 70m can be provided, lighting and details of the pedestrian crossing,

bus lay by and associated highway drainage. The current application seeks permission for all of the details of these matters although the development of plots 1-11 and 23-28 remain as approved and therefore need no further planning approval. The dwellings on plots 12, 15, 18, 19 and 20 are to be the same as already have approval but are to be moved slightly (around 1m) and those on plots 13, 14, 16, 17 and 21 are to have different house types, slightly larger than were previously approved with attached garages and stonework front elevations. Finally, the retail unit is the same size (marginally smaller) than that approved under 18/00339/REM
but the building and the loading bay have been handed.

2.2 House types

2.2.1 The dwellings will all have on-site parking in the form of driveways which are at least 5m long and 5m wide, many longer, which will accommodate two vehicles side by side, although not particularly spaciously. Most could have been extended widthways without significantly altering the character of the streetscene but providing more usable parking space. Each dwelling also has an integral garage.
2.2.2 The dwellings will be finished in a mix of finishes - plain painted render and stone with white or grey uPVC framed windows and dark coloured interlocking roof tiles and some having natural slates.
2.3 Retail building

2.3.1 The commercial building will be marginally smaller than that described by the inspector in his report into 18/00339/REM - 30.9m by 15.6m, 9.1m to the ridge and 5.5m to the eaves: a total floor area of 482 sq m. The ground floor is split into two, one smaller area which has a floor area of around 94 sq m and the larger area which is 274 sq m in area with a storage area, manager's office, staff room and toilets to the side of that. There is no first floor accommodation nor any stairs leading to any upper level.
2.3.2 An HGV parking and unloading bay sits in between the commercial unit and the back of plots 27 and 28, which is just over 6m wide and surrounded by a 3m high wall, reducing to

1.8m along the rear of the building, which does not form part of the service yard. The building is finished in a combination of facing blockwork, wood effect boarding, glass and Manx stone with a simulated slate roof. This is closer to the proposed path to the south east than was shown in the approval in principle, due in part to a slightly longer building and also due to the HGV parking being on the other side of the building than originally shown. The applicant has explained that the building differs from that shown in the approval in principle drawings following comments made about having the service yard next to the footpath and stream and the building is not considered to be affected by flooding at this point. The increase in size of the building resulted from the desire to include a 6m grid and the use of stone has affected the construction. They do not consider the overall differences to be significant and the resulting area suitable for a small supermarket or convenience store with additional retail unit.

2.3.3 A hedgerow of Griselinia is to be planted around the commercial unit and in the rear and side garden of numbers 16, 17, 21 and 22 and along the rear boundaries of numbers 17 -28. The number of car parking spaces alongside the retail unit have decreased from 38 shown in the approval in principle to 33 and these spaces have been increased in size following suggestions from the Highway Authority. A footpath link has been proposed from the retail unit to the new Toucan crossing.

- 2.4 DRAINAGE

2.4.1 The site will be drained of its foul water via pipes which will link to a new Biodisc situated to the south west of the development site, behind plot 16 with a hard surfaced strip sitting alongside the estate road and partly intruiding into the agricultural field to the south west with a sand filter included in the pipework linking into an existing foul sewer which runs parallel with the watercourse to the west of the stream to the east of the development, across the field and into an existing manhole that is connected to the field to the south of the Heritage Trail to an existing foul water outfall. The surface water will be drained into new pipework which will be discharged into an existing drainage ditch to the west of the proposed footpath link with attenuation which limits the flow to that equivalent of the existing field run off. The drainage pipework does not conflict with any of the important tree canopies.
2.4.2 The Biodisc system will be used until the mains drainage has been upgraded such that the development can connect into it and pipework is also shown to connect the development to the mains system in Old Church Road. This route involves utilising land to the south of the Heritage Trail and will be utilised only when Manx Utilities indicate that this is acceptable. The adequacy or otherwise of any system and its ability to satisfactorily discharge into any adjacent watercourse is conditional upon appropriate licences from DEFA (and it is understood that such

a licence to discharge has been granted): if these are not forthcoming then the system will not be able to be installed and operational. A condition could be attached to require that a satisfactory drainage system is in place prior to commencement of work, although the provision of a satisfactory means of draining the site of its foul sewage will be a requirement of obtaining approval for the housing and any commercial development, under the Building Regulations prior to the occupation of any of the dwellings, so this is not recommended.

2.4.3 Manx Utilities have advised that no adoption will be considered whilst a temporary works are in operation but that once the Crosby Treatment Works have been replaced the site can be connected into the mains system and the temporary works decommissioned. It is important that any infrastructure is then also removed and this should be required by condition.

- 2.5 LANDSCAPING

2.5.1 The landscaping scheme (plans 1060/C200F and 1060/C201A and the maintenance and aftercare schedule dated 12.05.17) is comprehensive and covers the whole of the site. This involves the introduction of birch and alder alternating along the frontage from the proposed access south westwards to replace the existing ash which are to be removed to make way for the visibility splays and one tree which is shown but not annotated alongside the proposed pedestrian access from the site to the new pedestrian crossing. One of the proposed trees is very close to the path, possibly unfeasibly so: this was as shown in the plans approved under 18/00339/REM.
2.5.2 The majority of the dwellings, other than the affordable units, will have a cherry tree introduced into the front garden and ash, birch, rowan and hazel are to be introduced around the perimeter of the site. Public open space will be a mix of grass, native shrub mix, planted hedges and feature shrubs (hebe, fuchsia, tufted hair grass, sea pink, Mexican feathergrass, lavender, stonecrop, pittosporum and sea holly).

- 2.6 CONSTRUCTION

2.6.1 Information has been provided on the construction process, describing portable toilets and offices but no indication of where these will be. All deliveries, storage and access will be

into the main site. A temporary footpath order is referred to, "where required" along with the fencing of the work area within the site and the setting out of the position of the road and houses with the taking of initial progress photographs and the removal of approved trees. There is provision within the Temporary Uses Permitted Development Order to allow the use of adjacent land for construction uses, subject to conditions and it should be noted that the development has commenced and the seven affordable units at the entrance to the site are almost complete.

- 2.7 LIGHTING

2.7.1 The applicant has provided details of Twilight street lighting - 5m high which a direct and narrow illumination pattern and Wow which are also 5m high, together with an illumination map which illustrates that most of the lighting will be within the estate road and that 6 Twilight standards will be positioned alongside the woodland to the south east. None is alongside the A1. The area of lighting closest to the stream is opposite the bowling club where there are floodlights approved, subject to time constraints on their operation, reflecting concerns about bat activity.

2.8 ACCESS AND BUS LAY BY

2.8.1 The construction process will involve the gaining of a temporary road closure order, the fencing off of appropriate areas, the setting out of the position of the layby on site and the undertaking of an underground utility survey and marking out on site with initial photographs. Trees approved to be removed will be so and any street furniture will be disconnected and repositioned along with the overhead electricity lines. The layby has been amended following concerns raised by various parties and now meets with the approval of the Highway Services Division. This now involves the creation of a toucan crossing with tactile paving on each kerb and the appropriate road signage, all of which can be done by or on behalf of the Department of Infrastructure, under the terms of the Permitted Development Order. The layby for buses sits to the north west of the crossing allowing an unobstructed parking area of 2.6m wide and 12.2m long (enough to accommodate a bus) with associated space for access and egress. This will provide a bus stop. A new footway will run along the front boundary of the site which will be formed by a sod hedge no higher than 1.05m and trees planted behind it.

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

FLOOD RISK

2.9.1 The applicant has submitted a flood risk assessment, dated January, 2017. This describes the southern edge of the site flooding during high flow events where the stream is overtopped which causes flooding to the adjacent areas of the site despite none of the site being within published flood mapped areas. This area could be seen to be affected by water overspilling from the watercourses to the north east and south east in the recent period of heavy rain in late November, 2018, amongst other times. The stream serves a catchment area of around

2.80 sq km with the water entering the stream through a culvert under the highway under the A1. A ditch runs along the north eastern boundary of the site and discharges into the watercourse. This overflows due to cross sections of low flow capacity and poor maintenance and isolated flooding from overtopping occurs in the application site. The south eastern bank of

the watercourse, which is not within the application site, is prone to overtopping with resultant flooding of the adjacent playing fields.

2.9.2 The application proposes to increase the capacity of the stream by re-profiling it and the existing ditch at the north eastern side of the site is diverted or culverted to prevent localised flooding. Subject to this being undertaken, the applicant's consultants report that there is no risk of flooding to or from the proposed development. The proposal involves the culverting of the ditch which runs alongside the A1 with a new 450mm diameter pipe which will then discharge into the stream which runs down the south eastern boundary of the site.
2.9.3 The means of preventing flooding from this point southwards will involve re-profiling the western bank of the watercourse, where there are no trees. The exact works have not been shown and will not be known until further work has been undertaken. No works are proposed to the stream bed, just the western bank which may affect the precise location of the proposed footpath running along this edge of the site.

2.10 Ecology

2.10.1 The applicant has submitted a report each from the Manx Bat Group and the Manx Wildlife Trust. The bat report concludes that the development will not unduly impact the bats of Crosby and that the hedgerows and trees are not considered to be essential foraging sites or regular transit routes between a roost and important feeding grounds. They recommend that lights are placed as far as possible from the hedgelines and light is directly downwards.
2.10.2 Manx Wildlife Trust submitted a report dated October 2016 generally describing the habitat value of the site as limited, but noted that the boundary features are clearly of wildlife interest, particularly due to noted lamprey and bat activity. Their field study revealed no protected species and despite an earlier record of Japanese Knotweed on the site, this was not found to be present however, montbretia was recorded along the northern and eastern boundaries. They advise that the site is adjacent to an area identified as having ASSI and Ramsar potential.
2.10.3 They recommend the undertaking of work outside the bird nesting season, construction works being planned to prevent silt and water run off into the stream, the use of native species in new planting which are suitable for the site, treatment of the montbretia and replacement of the boundary feature with a sod bank with native species and subsoil to encourage species rich vegetation development.
2.10.4 They conclude that the main field is improved pasture dominated by white clover and ryegrass. The northern boundary edge is moderately species rich with dog violet and germander speedwell although it is not exceptional. The boundary bank with the trees alongside the A1 is the most ecologically varied with older trees, saplings, large shrubs, climbers and sub shrubs. Montbretia was very common on this bank and the bank was notable for its bird life at the time of the survey. The drain alongside the bank was running at the time of the survey but is likely to be seasonal. Two mature ash trees which are to be removed for the creation of the bus lay-by are noted as being good wildlife specimens and full of ivy so could have bat interest but are not so noted by the Manx Bat Group report.
2.10.5 The eastern boundary where there is a stream is described as semi-natural and it was assumed that wild garlic would be prevalent in the spring. They consider the stream to be most species rich at its lower parts where marsh and semi-natural woodland predominates. The stream and its banks are an extension of the Central Valley Phase 2 site which is potentially of ASSI standard and should be treated with care as would an ASSI.
2.10.6 The lower field where the footpath and drainage are proposed is considered to have low ecological interest due to it being semi-improved grassland. Despite no evidence found on site,

they consider the site to be suitable for brown hare, foraging birds and they specifically advise that the site is not likely to be suitable for the common frog or viviparous lizard.
2.10.7 They describe the site as important due to it being next to the Central Curragh Phase 2 site and identify potential to enhance this value by encouraging connectivity to it by extensions of habitat and areas for foraging, wildlife movement and roosting and nesting.
2.10.8 They advise care in the choice of lighting within the estate - the use of low pressure sodium or high pressure sodium instead of mercury or metal halide lamps and directing light to where it is needed rather than spilling out the adjacent areas.
2.10.9 In terms of work to the northern bank, they advise against undertaking work within the bird nesting season and treating soil on the bank as contaminated waste due to the presence of montbretia. The soil could be buried beneath at least 2m of soil or should be removed off site to a suitable landfill site. The trees to be removed should be checked for bat activity and replacement of the feature with tree topped sod bank made from subsoil not topsoil with wych elm, ash, hazel, hawthorn, blackthorn, holly and grey willow with ground species colonising naturally.
2.10.10 They advise that the eastern boundary does require mitigation during construction although harm should not come if development and the footpath do not cross the existing wire fence line. Where the proposed footpath joins the Heritage Trail it could be that only one large ornamental shrub is all that is lost. They recommend that the stream should be protected from run-off and any planting alongside the stream must be sensitive to the species rich nature of the area.
2.10.11 In addition, the condition requires that lamprey were considered in the assessment of the site and its wildlife value. A survey has not been undertaken although Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture hold records of brown trout and eels within the stream with brook lamprey being observed in the main river not far from the junction with the stream. They advise that a survey at this time of year (October) would not be appropriate as electrofishing could be damaging at the start of the trout spawning season. They add that it may be difficult to survey for lamprey even at the appropriate time and as such it may be better to adopt a precautionary approach and ensure that the development takes place in a manner which protects the whole stream ecosystem.
2.10.12 If foul and surface water is planned to be discharged into the main river then the risk to the stream is much less with remaining risks being from works associated with the building of the path and adjacent houses, in particular, sediment run-off and not changing the physical nature of the stream. Removal of bankside vegetation should be kept to a minimum.

PLANNING POLICY 1982 Development Plan

3.1 There is a piece of land in this position shown on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 as Proposed Predominantly Residential. Due to the scale of the Plan (1:25,000), the quality of the base mapping and the thickness of the lines demarcating the roadways it is not possible to be precise about the boundaries of the proposed residential area. What seems to be clear by a comparison of the Order with the Digital Mapping is that the area comprises a frontage to the A1 of around 105m and it then extends back by around 132m. The north western boundary of the site as shown in the application appears to be at a slightly different angle to what is shown in the Order but takes its reference from the existing field boundary to the west which is formed by a post and wire fence. The western boundary of the development is also an informal curved line incorporating groups of trees rather than a straight edge. Inspector's comments on 15/00775/A

3.2 The inspector commenting on the approval in principle comments as follows in respect of the land use designation:

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

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

3.4 The land is proposed for residential use in the draft Area Plan along with land alongside identified as a Strategic Reserve site for residential and Community Facilities. Crosby is referred to in the Written Statement as follows:

"3.4.5 The majority of these new homes will be located in and around Douglas and Onchan, making the best use of existing urban areas and previously developed land, and the sustainable expansion of some settlements. In the smaller settlements around Douglas and Onchan, their character will largely be retained but there will be some development to ensure the long term development of communities with the right services who will be given better chances to feel real connections to where they live. Settlements such as Baldrine, Crosby, Union Mills and Strang in particular will have opportunities in the short term and the long term through Strategic Reserves, for more services and an improved sense of community. The focus will be on high quality and well-designed housing developments that are supported by the right social (e.g. education and healthcare), green (e.g. open space and recreation) and grey infrastructure (e.g. transport and utilities)."

"12.13 iv. The planned investment in sewerage in relation to Laxey, Baldrine, Crosby and Glen Vine could be sized to accommodate additional housing growth. There is some headroom capacity available at the Meary Veg Waste Water Treatment Facility. Expansion of Meary Veg is possible (including the network connecting areas to it), and so funding and timescale issues could be explored to enable growth in areas in and around Douglas and Onchan."

"1.7.2 Whilst the Area Plan for the East will follow the current timescale in place for the Isle of Man Strategic Plan (2011 to 2026), this does not mean that the lifetime of the Plan or relevance of the Proposals within the Plan will automatically come to an end in 2026. Continuity is ensured, so that planning is orderly, and transitions between statutory plans take place smoothly. The Plan contains 'Strategic Reserve' sites for both Residential and Employment uses which are intended for development in the longer-term (beyond 2026) or possibly before that, should there be a demonstrable need. The arrangements for the future release of such Reserve Sites have been set out in the relevant Chapters identifying the Proposal Sites."

"8.11 Strategic Reserves

8.11.1 Some sites have been identified as Strategic Reserves. It is not envisaged that these sites will be required during the plan period and proposals are set out which would restrict their development ahead of other sites. However, they provide flexibility and the potential to accommodate development beyond the plan period. As a result, 100% of the available capacity has been discounted in meeting the demand identified previously in this chapter."

"11.5.3 Types of community, educational and health facilities vary considerably from community centres, schools and GP surgeries to police, fire and ambulance services. They form an essential network of support and are basic requirements for the underpinning of sustainable communities. Without basic services, communities tend to lack a sense of belonging and places tend to be little more than groups or estates of housing. Many of the schools in the East contribute towards indoor and outdoor sports provision and halls can be multi-purpose out of school hours. This draft plan does not contain any provision for new schools but it is recognised that there may in the future need to be additional provision. For this reason, Strategic Reserve Sites (excluding that South of Cooil Road) will need to take both education and community facilities into account before release."

"Residential - Strategic Reserve - Proposal 1 The development of Strategic Reserve 'Predominantly Residential' Sites which may also include elements for Community Facilities such as schools will only be brought forward where it can be demonstrated:

i. that there is need for these sites which cannot be met by the existing allocations set out under Residential Proposal 2;
ii. that sufficient infrastructure exists, or can be provided prior to the development being brought into use, to allow the development to function and to avoid any unacceptable impact on wider networks;
iii. that the proposals will not have any unacceptable environmental impacts (including any significant landscape impacts).
iv. All options for different uses on the sites have been fully explored taking into account health, social care and education needs."

3.5 As the development is on land which is if not all, then mostly, designated for development, the general standards of development as set out in General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan are considered applicable here:

General Policy 2 states: "Development which is in accordance with the land use zoning and proposals in the appropriate Area Plan and with other policies of this Strategic Plan will normally be permitted, provided that the development:

b) respects the site and surroundings in terms of the siting, layout, scale, form, design and landscaping of buildings and the space around them;
c) does not affect adversely the character of the surrounding landscape or townscape;
d) does not adversely affect the protected wildlife or locally important habitats on the site or adjacent land, including water courses;

f) incorporates where possible existing topography and landscape features, particularly trees and sod banks;
g) does not affect adversely the amenity of local residents or the character of the locality;
h) provides satisfactory amenity standards in itself, including where appropriate safe and convenient access for all highway users, together with adequate parking, servicing and manoeuvring space;
i) does not have an adverse effect on road safety or traffic flows on the local highways;
j) can be provided with all necessary services;
k) does not prejudice the use or development of adjoining land in accordance with the appropriate Area Plan;
l) is not on contaminated land or subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding;

m) takes account of community and personal safety and security in the design of buildings and the spaces around them; and
n) is designed having due regard to best practice in reducing energy consumption."

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

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

These villages are: Bride, Glen Maye, Sulby, Dalby, Ballaugh, Ballafesson, Glen Mona, Colby, Baldrine, Ballabeg, Crosby, Newtown, Glen Vine, Strang. Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such settlements so as to maintain their existing character.

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

3.7 Where development is proposed, provision must be made for affordable housing and public open space in accordance with the following provisions:

Housing Policy 5: In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of

8 dwellings or more.

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

3.8 Guidance on retail developments is provided as follows:

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

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

Strategic Policy 1 which states: "Development should make the best use of resources by:

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

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

(a) avoiding coalescence and maintaining adequate physical separation between settlements; and
(b) having regard in the design of new development to the use of local materials and character."

Strategic Policy 5: "New development including individual buildings, should be designed so as to make a positive contribution to the environment of the Island. In appropriate cases, the Department will require planning applications to be supported by a Design Statement which will be required to take account of the Strategic Aim and Policies."

Strategic Policy 10: "New development should be located and designed such as to promote a more integrated transport network with the aim to:

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

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

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

Transport Policy 6: "In the design of new development and transport facilities the needs of pedestrians will be given similar weight to the needs of other road users."

Transport Policy 8: "The Department will require all applications for major development to be accompanied by a Transport Assessment."

PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 The site has been the subject of one previous detailed application - 06/00055/B for the provision of temporary drainage infrastructure to serve approved residential development to

the north of the Crosby Hotel. This was approved. Ballaglonney Farm of which the application site forms part was also the subject of recent applications but these are not considered relevant to the current proposal.

4.2 The most recent and relevant applications for the site is 15/00775/A which established the principle of the development of the site for 28 dwellings together with retail facilities, drainage, access, landscaping and a footpath link to the Heritage Trail.

4.3 Four reserved matters applications were submitted:

i. seven affordable houses (16/01131/REM) and associated infrastructure, which was approved

at appeal

ii. twenty one open market properties and the retail unit (16/01314/REM) which was approved for the housing but the retail unit was refused for the reasons that:

"No planning approval has been granted for office development on this site. The use of the retail building authorised by planning approval 15/00775/A is not a reserved matter, and therefore an office use cannot be authorised in this building on the basis of an application for the approval of reserved matters. Furthermore, the proposed office use would be contrary to Business Policy 7 of the Isle of man Strategic Plan 2016, as the site is not zoned for office use in any development plan.

The gross floor space of the proposed retail building would exceed 500 sq m. Paragraph 9.4.4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 defines 'major retail development' to include any retail development of more than 500 sq m of floor space as measured externally. The proposed development would therefore constitute a 'major retail development'. Business Policy 9 of the Strategic Plan requires that major retail development proposed should be supported by a Retail Impact Assessment. As no such assessment has been submitted, the proposed retail development fails to meet this requirement."

iii. retail unit with balcony (18/00329/REM) which was refused at appeal as its total floor area would have exceeded 500 sq m and
iv. retail unit without balcony or first floor accommodation which was approved at appeal. Other applications

4.3 15/01156/A proposed development on the eastern side of Old Church Road. This land is not designated for development on The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Development Plan) Order 1982 and is of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance on that Plan. This application was refused at appeal. REPRESENTATIONS - 5.1 Marown Parish Commissioners sought a deferral of a decision until after 20th September, 2017 (17.08.17). They confirm their objection to the application on 21st September, 2017, reiterating many of the points raised in opposition to the application in principle. They consider that including land south of the heritage trail will confer a residential use on this land which is not acceptable and note that the applicant has made representations to the Cabinet Office in respect of the designation of further land in this area. They consider the development to be premature pending the formulation of the Area Plan for the East. They are concerned about the efficacy of a Biodisc system as their experience in the area is that such systems can give rise to environmental nuisance and they remain concerned about allowing surface water runoff into the existing watercourse. Whilst they welcome a bus lay-by it should not be in the position shown and they are concerned that the applicant does not own all of the land required for the development to be implemented. They do not believe that this is a viable location for a shop and there is no approval in place for any office accommodation. They note that no dialogue has been entered into with respect to recreation facilities or how these would be provided and they have no specific comments on the actual dwellings proposed. They have

concerns about the size of the commercial building. If the development is approved, they recommend conditions to the maintenance of areas of open space and lighting and would suggest the addition of hours and days of work and would suggest no earlier than 0800hrs and

no later than 1900hrs Monday to Friday with the possibility of a later start and lunch time finish on Saturday although this is not encouraged.

5.2 The owners of 7, Kermode Road express concern that the number of applications submitted make it difficult to be aware of which proposals are to be considered and disadvantage the lay person. They express concern at the size of the retail unit which has now become a supermarket with a second floor. The amount of traffic which such a facility will generate will lead to increased noise levels which will adversely affect those living alongside and the proposed balcony overlooking the children's playground is most concerning. The retail unit will adversely affect the outlook from the children's playground towards Greeba and it would seem that the previous promises of a doctor's surgery and pharmacy were empty. They are concerned about the blanked off access roads which seem to invite further development and they wonder, given the number of applications submitted so far, whether there will be further amendments submitted. They are concerned about the potential for flooding of the Memorial Playing Fields which have flooded in the past (25.08.17).

5.3 The Marown Memorial Playing Fields Ltd are surprised and concerned over the size of the retail unit and its appearance which they consider is out of keeping for a village and is more than a convenience store and nothing like the row of shops which were described in the earlier application. The building includes a first floor office which was not included in the original application and the resulting height of the building will obscure views from the bowling green and play area towards Greeba Mountain. They consider the proposed balcony on the retail unit to be highly inappropriate in this era of enhanced child protection. They are concerned at the potential problems with a BioDisc system - foul odours for example, which would create an unpleasant atmosphere for those using the play areas. They remain concerned about flood risk (dated 09.06.17 and submitted on 22.08.17). They submit further objections on 20.12.18, noting that whilst the mezzanine level and balcony have been removed, the building remains the height of a two storey structure and are of the view that a single storey building would be more in keeping with the area as the proposed building will dwarf the surrounding buildings and they consider it a major retail development which is in conflict with BP10 and would exceed 100 sq m which is the size recommended in the Strategic Plan for a neighbourhood shop within a residential development. They consider that the size and design will require significant heating and lighting, contrary to environmental objectives. They reiterate their previously expressed belief that the building will block out views towards the west from the play area and reduce sunlight which could result in deterioration of the play area surface or danger to users of it. They note that part of the site crosses the Heritage Trail which they own along with other land in the vicinity and would advise that at no time have they been approached or have given permission for their land to be used. They believe that the development breaches at least four planning policies and wonder why the development has been approved thus far if this is the case. They hope that notwithstanding the approvals already granted, at this late stage steps can be taken to revert to the original suggestion of a village store rather than this superstore structure that in their view will drastically change the character of Crosby.

5.4 The owners of 5, Eyremont Terrace object to the application, reiterating the above concerns about the size and impact of the retail unit and the inclusion and impact of the proposed balcony, the flood risk and potential problems with the BioDisc system, the smell from which could affect their property as well as the noise, dust and traffic from the development (29.08.17).

5.5 The owner of 21, Main Road, Crosby objects to the application on the basis that the school is nearly at capacity, the site is known to flood, the setting of the site is rural and the development will result in a loss of views for local residents. They consider the adjacent nature

reserve to be threatened by the proposal and the views from the former railway line will be spoiled (01.09.17).
5.6 The owners of 3, Richmond Terrace point out that parts of the site lie outwith the land which is designated for development and approved in principle under 15/00775/A. They are aware of problems with the existing sewage treatment works which serve Reayrt ny Crink and this site is close to children's and public recreation facilities. They do not accept that incidence of flooding is low as suggested in the application and the proposed retail unit is much larger than the small convenience shop and has an upper level which has a balcony overlooking a children's play area. The height of this building would block views from the play area and be out of keeping. They note their status as interested persons, but do not clarify why (06.09.17). They submit further comments on 20.12.18, stating that the whole of the red line area is not wholly owned by the applicant nor designated for development and that there is no mention of recreational facilities and were under the impression that these had to be provided in any residential development.
5.7 The owner of 3, Crosby Terrace is concerned about the traffic implications of the proposal and the capacity of the local school to accommodate any increase in school children. She considers that the development will adversely affect the character of the village in terms of the visual impact and that of the noise from the operation of the retail unit. She is concerned about the removal of trees and the risk of flooding in the area as well as the height of the retail unit and the number of dwellings proposed (05.10.17).
5.8 The owners of Close Jiarg maintain the objections they had to the principle application, regarding traffic increase and resulting highway safety issues on Old Church Road as well as at the junction with the main road and difficulties in getting out of their own access onto Old Church Road (01.09.17).
5.9 The owner of 6, Eyremont Terrace expresses objection to some omissions in the Construction Method Statement which does not provide contact details for all of the Key role holders, the fee is questioned as it appears to omit the retail space and points out inconsistencies between the application forms completed for this and the earlier applications. He refers to the Isle of Man Government Financial Regulations and suggests that there are irregularities in terms of the statutory duties of one of the directors and suggest that the Department has a duty of care to ensure that those to whom planning permission is granted should be able to carry out the development (08.09.17). He submits further comments on 20.12.18 suggesting that the inspector required that the building's height was reduced by 1.2m and this has not been done, that there are many plans and this could be confusing and result in the wrong plans being approved by mistake and that land is included in the site which is not owned by the developer. He also suggests that as there is a change of disposal method of foul water from the site, this needs to be a new planning application. He also suggests that drawings are missing from the suite of documents, notably two master plan drawings. He believes he is entitled to IPS.
5.10 The owners of 1, Eyreton Terrace object to the application, noting that it is very difficult to work out which documents one should be looking at electronically and considers that she is not surprised that there are no doctor's surgery, pharmacy or post office and that the proposed development is out of place in a village (08.09.17). A further submission, dated 08.09.17 reiterates these concerns, adding that in the local media there was a suggestion that the Department had already pre-judged the application, and also reiterating comments made in respect of the application in principle.
5.11 The owners of 6, Crosby Terrace are concerned about the traffic and highway implications of the proposal and whilst they consider the pelican crossing to be a good idea, the accompanying development is not justified by this. They are concerned that there are not enough school places and worry that the sewerage system will not be able to accommodate

the additional load. They are concerned at the visual impact on the countryside and note that some of the trees to be lost are important to bats which are a protected species. They wonder why an access is required to the Heritage Trail and comment that they think 39 spaces are excessive and the bus lay-by is not needed nor is the shop. Whilst the land has apparently been designated for development for 32 years, things can change and they consider that the site is no longer suitable for development (07.09.17).
5.12 The owners of 1, Eyreton Cottages comment that the development site now exceeds that of the approval in principle and the adequacy of the proposed drainage system has not been tested. There is clearly an intention to continue to develop, from the inclusion of open-ended roadways within the site and what is proposed would detract from the village character. They suggest that the proposed plans do not optimise the potential of the site in supporting local facilities, the local community or transport networks with a low-key mix of uses combined with an enormous shop. They consider that the buildings do not demonstrate good architectural design or appropriate landscaping around them. The question the appropriateness of the proposed sewage system and comment that the development contains an excess of paved areas which mitigate against safe drainage of ground or surface water. They consider that the retail unit will "eclipse" the existing community facilities and will be large, uninspiring and unattractive with an inappropriate mix of materials. They consider that the development depends upon the development of the surrounding area to be successful in a visual sense and they suggest that the roads are incapable of accommodating additional cars. They consider the proposed houses to be of poor design, liable to damp and dark corners and the windows make poor use of available light and they are disappointed that slate or simulated slate rather than concrete tiles are to be used on the roofing. The garages are considered inadequate for normal sized cars. The bus layby is inadequate to completely accommodate a full sized bus and there are concerns about the proximity of the pedestrian crossing to the junction. The loss of trees is unacceptable. The development fails to present an attractive development which is able to be lived in with pride and which contributes to the lively vibrant community of Crosby (13.09.17).
5.13 The owners of 1, Eyremont Terrace object to the application on 22nd September, 2017.

Many of the points raised were mentioned in objections to the application in principle reference to the land use designation, tree loss, human rights, the visual and ecological intrusion of the proposed footpath link which they consider would be used by motorbikes, proximity of the development to the watercourse, the visual impact of the houses on the character of the area, with a photograph provided of a view down to the site from Old Church Road, the impact on traffic, particularly from the shop and what they consider is the unsustainability of the shop whose customers will rely upon the private motor car. They also express concern at the impact from the access and its use to the use of existing accesses on the other side of the road. They refer to Planning Policy Statement 1/01 which deals with Conservation of the Historic Environment and Conservation Areas (the area is not so designated, nor is there a Conservation Area in Crosby) and perhaps confuse the provisions to protect nature conservation zones with Conservation Areas which are aimed primarily at the built historic environment not the natural environment and its ecology which are protected by different policies. They are concerned that the retail floor space which they suggest is 418 sq m is too large to comply with the policy requirement to protect town centres and is four times more than the recognised level for a neighbourhood shop and close to the level where a Retail Impact Assessment would be required. They refer to something called the IGD classification for retail development (understood to be the Institute of Grocery Distribution) which refers to convenience stores being with sales areas of less than 3,000 sq feet which are open for long hours and sell at least "eight seven" grocery categories and with examples such as Spar, the Co-op and Londis. Unfortunately the reference provided (simply www.igd.com) was not sufficient to be able to locate the precise quotation and as such, it is not understood what "eight seven" means in this sentence and the lateness of the submission has not allowed further investigation of this point. They refer to the affordable housing and consider it does not relate to an ageing population. They consider the drainage infrastructure inappropriate as it is

not mains provided and therefore fails Strategic Policy 1 and they consider that a BioDisc system can be unreliable with resultant smell nuisance and note that there is no provision for large vehicle access to the proposed sewage treatment plant and that the Crosby system is not intended to be linked into IRIS. They do not believe that there is a need for the development sufficient to outweigh their objections. They request that no external free standing advertisements are allowed nor alongside the road. They refer to an earlier application for a shop which was refused and consider that there is some association between that and this current application,

5.14 The owners of 4, Crosby Terrace object to the application as the area of development exceeds that of the approval in principle and the impact of the development will greatly affect the character of Crosby. They consider that the shop is too large and the inclusion of a balcony inappropriate in terms of safeguarding children. They are concerned about the impact on wildlife and the general appearance of the development is utilitarian and unimaginative and the

bus lay-by does not seem to make provision for a bus to pull in completely. They would have no objection to "sheltered housing in the field opposite" (18.09.17).

5.15 DEFA Senior Biodiversity Officer previously expressed concern about works which were not specified on the plans, relating to the ecology of the eastern stream and the potential for tree loss. Following further information and consideration, DEFA makes comments only on dealing with invasive species, protection of the important wetlands (extent and methods of ditch and pipe works) and potential flood bank works on the eastern boundary (08.09.17). - 5.16 DEFA Inland Fisheries reiterate their previous comments on the earlier applications on 31.08.17 and 30.11.18, identifying the previous areas of concern, being damage to the ecology of the stream, known to accommodate brown trout, eels and possibly brook lamprey and the works which caused these concerns are no longer proposed. They advise caution in respect of the proposed works to culvert the existing watercourse and works close to the banks and the new field drain entering the stream, to ensure that harmful materials are not allowed to enter the stream. They recommend two conditions should the application be approved:

There should be no disturbance of the bed or margins of the stream to the south east of the site including disturbance due to in-channel works or entry to the watercourse by machinery.

Reason: to protect the aquatic and bankside habitat and to avoid the risk of injury or disturbance to fish within the river.

A construction method statement should be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department prior to the start of construction of the path, of the culvert along the north eastern boundary and of any embankment works. The method statement should outline a suitable construction approach to reduce the possibility of disturbance of dish within the stream., The works should be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: to avoid the risk of injury or disturbance to fish within the river.

5.17 They add to this on 30.11.18. noting that the works still include some construction works close to the watercourse and culvert works to an existing drain on the north eastern boundary. To avoid disturbance to fish populations, it is important that the appropriate paperwork relating to Working Within 9m of a Watercourse is completed and they reiterate the recommendations submitted on 31.08.17. - 5.18 Highway Services have not provided comments at the time of writing. - 5.19 The owners of 4, Crosby Terrace question whether the land is designated for development in full and note the siting of the development as being ill considered in terms of its impact on the view from the playing fields, the bowling green, the pub, the residential properties on

Eyremont and Crosby Terraces and the railway line. They consider the development to be a standard layout and there are plenty of properties already for sale in the area. The increase in traffic will cause congestion at peak times when there is already vehicular back up and problems for those trying to cross the road. Flooding is an issue for the playing fields and bowling green and they are unsure whether there is sufficient provision for drainage. The retail unit is too large and will block light to nearby properties and could give rise to take aways which could in turn bring problems of litter and noise and they consider Crosby is not suited to this level of retail development. They remain concerned about the removal of and the impact of the development on existing trees and the suitability of the bus lay by. They are aware of further proposals for the development of additional land further west.
5.20 The owner of 3, Eyremont Terrace expresses concern at the number of applications that have been submitted for this development and how confusing it has been for her to work out what is going on. She feels that the scale of development is inappropriate, as referred to in Spatial Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan, would spoil the rural character of the village and she is concerned that the development will expand onto more land that is not designated for development. She feels the proximity to her property brings the opportunity for huge direct impact and multiple material considerations for objection - noise, privacy, traffic generation (02.05.18 and 04.05.17).
5.21 Manx Utilities have no objection to the application subject to conditions relating to the responsibility of the sewage treatment plant, requiring a detailed operation and maintenance programme is submitted for consideration by the Planning Committee and the Department's Environmental Health Division, advising that a fee is payable for connection to the public drainage system and they advise that they should be consulted on connections to a water main or service or where new mains are required (19.10.17).
5.22 Mr. W. Shimmins MHK submitted comments on 20.12.18, suggesting that there is concern within the community about the development which has been the subject of a number of applications, which has in part led to a suspicion that the developer will eventually get what they want, a belief reinforced by the recent approval by the Minister of the decision relating to the retail unit on the site. He states that the development encroaches onto land owned by others and that the Marown Memorial Playing Fields feel they have not been listened to and there is a real risk of development creep where if this drainage is approved, further applications will be submitted for additional developments which is the modus operandi of the developer. He believes that the Heritage Trail is a national asset and currently being refurbished by DoI to reflect the high level of people who use it and it is akey priority to support increased leisure activity for all ages and provide an active travel corridor and where closure of the trail would be unwelcome.
5.23 Mrs. J Poole-Wilson MLC, Equality Champion advises that she attended a meeting of Marown Parish Commissioners on 19.12.18 and wishes now to express her concerns about the area of the development which involves crossing the Heritage Trail and incorporating land which was not part of the original proposal and which is not on land designated for development. She is concerned that the approval of this development could lead to additional development which would not otherwise be considered acceptable and that it may adversely affect the use of the Heritage Trail (21.12.18).

ASSESSMENT

6.1 The principle of development of this site, with this number of dwellings, roughly in the positions shown, with access where it is proposed and with associated landscaping and infrastructure together with a requirement for the provision of a pedestrian crossing and bus lay-by have all been approved along with the details of the retail unit and the approved development is being implemented: the access has been formed, the first seven dwellings are well on the way to completion and the roadside trees have been removed. The issues that remain are the visual impact of the type and size of the houses proposed where they are to be

changed from those which already have planning approval and whether the proposals for drainage of the site are environmentally and visually acceptable. It is also relevant to consider whether the retail unit now proposed is acceptable but of considerable weight is a very recent approval for something almost identical but in a slightly different position.

Retail unit

6.2 Concern has been expressed that the retail unit is too large and not what was envisaged at the approval in principle stage and does not represent a neighbourhood or convenience store. It is relevant that the footprint of the building is very similar to that shown in the approval in principle plans and almost identical to the most recent reserved matters approval (18/00339/REM). No conditions were recommended or attached to the approval in principle to limit or otherwise control the size or nature of the retail unit. The inspector notes in her report that the application includes provision for 4,500 sq ft/418 sq m of retail space and she makes no other comment about the principle or detail of the retail space proposed and recommends that the application is approved subject to a range of conditions, none of which control the size or nature of the retail unit.

6.3 As such, considerable weight should be given to the fact that approval in principle has been given to a retail building of around the size shown here. Crosby is designated in the Strategic Plan as simply a village where development should maintain the existing settlement character and should be of an appropriate scale to meet local needs for housing and limited employment opportunities. Even more weight needs to be given to the approval granted to something very similar to what is now proposed, under 18/00339/REM - essentially the same building but where the delivery yard and the building are handed. Whilst one of the parties notes that the inspector for the above application required that the building were reduced in height by 1.2m, this is not the case at all and the application was approved as it was submitted, at the height now proposed. The applicant at the appeal suggested that the height of the building could be reduced by 1.2m. What he states in his conclusion, after recommending that the appeal is allowed, was that:

"However, if the Minister is minded to dismiss the appeal because he considers that the proposed building would be too high, the appellants have submitted the revised scheme shown on Drawing 16/2576/405(Doc 9) as a possible alternative. That drawing shows a building of reduced height, and might go some way to addressing the objections raised by the Planning Committee and others. However, as the revised scheme has not been the subject of a formal application to the Department, I consider that it would be irregular to use it as a basis for granting approval of the details of the reserved matters".

He could therefore not have approved the application subject to a requirement that the building is reduced in height. He states at his paragraph 57 that, "I do not accept that the proposed retail building would look out of place."

6.4 The Strategic Plan also discusses shops in Chapter 10 where it states: "The provision within residential areas of small shops, often combined with sub-post offices and off-licence facilities , occupies an important place in the range of shopping facilities available. Many people are dependent upon such shops, these being the only shops to which access can be gained easily on foot, without relying on public or private transport. In addition, such a facility may not only be considered a desirable service but may also serve as a focus of community life and help sustain a small community." (paragraph 10.6.1).

6.5 It goes on: "Local shopping/neighbourhood centres, typically described as local centres, usually comprise a newsagent, a general grocery store, a sub-post office and occasionally a pharmacy, a hairdresser and other small shops of a local nature. Allied to this may also be a community centre/meeting place to serve the immediate local community. With the increased focus on recycling, local centres are ideal sites for local recycling facilities." (paragraph 10.6.2).

6.6 Finally, "In requesting community facilities within new and expanding developments, account needs to be taken of the size, type and particular needs of the new resident population. However account must also be taken of availability and proximity of existing community facilities. Community benefit in this context is defined as one or more of the following: sub-post office/general store, a doctor's surgery and community meeting centres" (paragraph 10.6.3). A policy is included: Community Policy 1: where relevant and appropriate, there should be provided by the developer of new or expanded residential areas, community benefits in the form of neighbourhood centres". - 6.7 Chapter 9 deals with retail generally and states that "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 52 (Business Policy 10). It goes on to state that "new neighbourhood shops within new residential developments will not normally comprise more than 100 sq m of floor space measured externally" (paragraph

9.4.4).

6.8 There is a further policy which suggests that new community facilities should be located to serve the local population and be accessible to non-car users and should where possible, reuse existing vacant or underused buildings (Community Policy 2). The opportunity could have been taken at the Crosby Wholesalers site when that operation ceased to trade. However, that site now has permission for use as storage facilities (12/01367/C). The proposed retail unit is certainly larger than the small village shop that used to be located on the main road to the west of the Crosby Wholesalers site. It is also larger than the Spar shop at Union Mills (163 sq m - 16m by 9m) and the shop off Clybane Rise in Farmhill (220 sq m - 20m by 11m). It is not far off the footprint of the Anagh Coar general stores - 25m by 13m (334 sq m and single storey) which has a chemist and doctor's surgery alongside which has a footprint of 276 sq m and two storey. What is proposed is a unit whose overall footprint is 488 sq m measured externally, the internal space is subdivided into two units, one 94 sq m and the other 274 sq m with additional facilities of a manager's office, staff room and storage area: the latter two combined is slightly larger than the Anagh Stores facility albeit that that is single storey and not as tall internally or externally, as that now proposed. It is relevant to consider that in one of the objection letters that they quote from the Institute of Grocery Distribution that convenience stores are considered to be stores with a sales area of less than 3,000 sq ft (278 sq m) with which the proposal complies. - 6.9 Whilst the Strategic Plan suggests that neighbourhood shops will generally be expected to be no more than 100 sq m of floor space, in this case, the shop facility is not intended to serve only the new development but all of the village of Crosby and possibly Glen Vine. The site is well placed to serve passing traffic on what is one of the Island's busiest principal distributor roads. As such, it is not considered that the size of the shop unit itself is contrary to the provisions of the Strategic Plan nor has it been demonstrated how such a size would be detrimental to the amenities of the village. Whilst it is suggested that the shop will not reduce,

but will add to dependence upon the private motor vehicle by customers, at the present time, all of Crosby's population have to go outside the village for all of their shopping. If only one local resident shops here by foot, this will have improved the sustainability of the settlement. The retail unit will also provide local employment which is generally lacking within the village.

6.10 The visual impact of a building this size is a material consideration, particularly as the approval in principle did not provide any information on the height of the building and it may well have been anticipated that the building would be of truly single storey height. The size will have an impact on those who live in the plots nearest within the new estate and there will also be an impact on the view of the site from those passing on the A1 although this will be mitigated by the existing and new trees to be introduced. The position of the proposed retail unit is adjacent to the children's play area to the south and will be visible from there as well as from Church Road across the children's play area, albeit in both cases, mitigated somewhat by the existing trees. Whilst there is concern that the office will overlook the children's play area,

it is unclear as to why this is unacceptable either in principle or particularly as the play area is a publicly accessible facility where anyone could be and much more close to those who are using it. The retail unit is also separated from the children's play area by existing trees and the open area alongside the bowling green, referred to in paragraph 1.3 above will open out a view from the bowling green and Old Church Road, of the fronts of the detached dwellings on plots 1720.
6.11 There are now to be 33 parking spaces associated with the retail unit and office. This is fewer than what was shown in the approval in principle but there were no comments made about the parking, positively or negatively. This number is very similar to the number of spaces available in the car park in front of Anagh Coar stores which also serves the adjacent doctors' surgery and chemist. Dwellings
6.12 The proposed dwellings are similar in appearance, all are mainly finished in plain painted render and some in stone with white or grey framed windows and a dark coloured interlocking tiled roofing and some with natural slate. All have a projecting two storey element on the front elevation and some have Cedar cladding and some stonework. This has already been approved under 16/01314/REM. Planting
6.13 This phase introduces a hedgerow around the retail unit: and whilst there was some concern about a potential impact on hedging growing unneighbourly high around number 21, there are no windows in the side of this property which faces the retail unit. Three hazel trees are to be introduced to the east of plot 16 alongside the footpath. Two birches, an alder and a hazel are to be planted to the east of plots 17-21 alongside the footpath and a row of birch and alder trees introduced alongside the frontage of the site. A new footpath is to be introduced between an existing ash/sycamore and a proposed ash the canopies of both of which overhang the proposed footpath. Specialist construction will be required here so as not to damage the roots of the existing ash/sycamore although as this tree is growing in the bank, the roots may not be close to the surface immediately alongside where the footpath is to be created. Ash, hazel and birch trees are to be planted around the periphery of the site. This has been accepted in reserved matters applications 16/01311/REM, 16/01314/REM (houses) and 18/00339/REM. Flood risk
6.14 There is a risk, acknowledged in the application in principle, that the introduction of hard standings and the change in the nature of discharge to the watercourse could result in flooding to adjacent land and attention has been drawn to the playing fields which have experienced flooding in the past. The applicant's flood risk assessment identifies a method of dealing with this by the culverting of the ditch which runs parallel with the A1 and the re-profiling of the banks of the stream which runs along the south eastern edge of the side such that this watercourse has greater capacity to accommodate both the existing water which flows down it, as well as that resulting from the proposed development although much of the surface water will be directed through new pipework south towards the Heritage Trail via a hydrobrake on the river side of the Heritage Trail which will control how the water enters the water course as well as potentially controlling pollutants in the surface water. The hydrobrake will discharge into an open ditch which is referred to by DEFA and is acceptable to them. As such, it is likely that the development will increase the protection of the site and the adjacent land from flooding. This has been accepted under 16/01131/REM and 17/01314/REM. The environment
6.15 The impact of the development on the environment for much of what is now proposed, has already been determined through the approval of this number of dwellings and commercial development on this site with the ensuing amount of built development, access, impact on trees, traffic and lighting. It is also the case that environmental damage can occur through how

a development is undertaken and almost irrespective of what is actually being created and indeed, some of the objections relate to this as much as to what is being proposed in this application. To some extent, some of this is outwith planning control but there are conditions and practices which can be put in place to minimise damage including the requirement for method statements regarding the installation of ditches and the foul connection running across the land between the Heritage Trail and the river Dhoo to Old Church Road. Also, conditions can and should be attached regarding the implementation of the approved footpath close to the south eastern boundary of the site and the re-profiling works to the western bank of this watercourse. Whilst it would have been useful to have some or all of this information now, before a determination is made on the current applications, to some extent, some of that can only be provided after additional work has been done and this may only be reasonable to be required after the detailed layout has been approved. The critical issue is whether the proposed works are capable of being carried out without adverse impact on the environment and the professional advice appears to be that it can, subject to conditions and it is important that conditions are only attached where they are capable of being implemented without affecting the materiality of what is being approved. It is believed that this can be achieved. There is no evidence in any of the objections that the proposed method of sewage treatment is unacceptable and this will be subject to environmental regulation and approval which is outwith the planning system. Whilst there will be excavation and infrastructure installed, and possibly, ultimately removed within an area certainly outwith the area of the approval in principle as well as outside of the area designated on the 1982 Development Plan Order, this will not preclude the area still appearing and being used as part of the surrounding countryside area as the majority, if not all of the infrastructure will be below ground.
6.16 It is fully accepted that the Heritage Trail as a facility of national importance for leisure and access should not be compromised by development. However, there is no evidence that the provision of drainage underneath the route will do this or would result in the closure of the path at any time. As the route is not owned by the applicant there is control by others presumeably DoI and the land owner, over whether and how these works are undertaken.
6.17 It is also agreed that developments should be comprehensive and well thought through and it should not be the case that an originally approved scheme should have to be amended to accommodate a basic infrastructural necessity such as drainage. In this case, it is possible to develop the site without having to use the proposed drainage route and planning approval has been granted for this through the various applications which have already been approved which use a pumped system to route the sewage to the main road. What is now proposed will utilise gravity and will eventually result in the development being capable of being drained until the treatment works serving the village, has been suitably upgraded whereupon any temporary facilities which are no longer required, will be removed. Whilst this further application is unfortunate, it is not a sufficient reason for refusal simply because the developer should have thought of this when the approval in principle was being considered. If there is no adverse environmental impact, and the views of the relevant parts of Government who deal with this have indicated that there would not necessarily be, then there is no reason why this form of drainage should not be considered acceptable. Whilst there would be drains running under land which is not designated for development, this will have no visual impact nor any impediment to the land being used for agricultural purposes or for open space. It is not the case that if the land remains undesignated for development that the existence of drains or approval therefore will weaken or remove the presumption against development in the parts of the site which are not designated for development. Access
6.18 The means of access into the site was accepted at the approval in principle stage and this current application includes the details of how this will be achieved. The details also include the provision of a bus layby and pedestrian crossing, all of which appeared to be accepted by the Department of Infrastructure during their consideration of the two reserved matters applications.

CONCLUSION

7.1 It is perfectly understandable that those with an interest in this site and the initial application in principle, have found it difficult to process the considerable amount of information which has been produced throughout the consideration of the applications. It is also completely understandable that those who objected to the principle, remain in opposition to the development in whatever form it may have despite the fact that planning approval has been granted to what is now proposed but in a slightly different form in the case of the retail unit and 11 of the dwellings. What is proposed now is considered to address the requirements of the approval in principle and to propose a development which is acceptable in those terms as well as with the general standards of development set out in the Strategic Plan and as such, the application is recommended for approval. It is important if planning decisions are to be considered consistent, that appropriate weight should be given to land use designations and to earlier decisions and if the proposals are similar, then similar decisions should be reached.

7.2 The individuals behind the application are not relevant considerations as planning approval runs with the land, not individuals and if permission is granted, the development need not be implemented by the applicant, although this is likely. Whilst it is completely understandable that there are concerns about land ownership, if the works require approval from others to implement the works, and that approval is not forthcoming then the scheme cannot proceed. The fact that there is a planning approval in place does not oblige anyone to allow development of their land if they do not want to. Similarly, it does not give the right to someone to undertake works on land not within their ownership or control. It is understood that there are concerns that the extension of the red line to land outwith that which was indicated as suitable in the 1982 Plan for residential development, could be seen as a way of somehow extending the approved area for development and circumventing the planning system and undermining the decisions taken previously and the provisions of the development plan, the extension of the site is required purely to accommodate drainage works and do not construe any permission to build anything else upon it. If the pipework is no longer required, including the sewage treatment works, this is required by condition to be removed and the land made good.

7.3 Despite considerable local objection, to which there was also to the earlier application in principle which was ultimately approved on appeal, the proposal is considered to accord with planning policy and decisions taken in respect of earlier versions of development on this site and it is recommended for approval subject to the provision of satisfactory safeguarding of the provision of affordable housing. SECTION 13 AGREEMENT - 8.1 A legal agreement is required to ensure the delivery of the affordable housing. This has already been signed in respect of the earlier applications which approved the affordable housing and public open space (15/00775A and 16/01131/REM and 16/01314/REM). A deed of variation will be required to vary the references in those approvals to the more current proposals for the development and updated planning application reference. INTERESTED PERSON STATUS - 9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013 (Article 6(4), the following persons are automatically interested persons:

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

8.2 The decision-maker must determine:

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

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

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

Decision Made : …Permitted……….... Committee Meeting Date:…07.01.2019

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 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.

Planning Committee Decision 07.01.2019

Application No. : 17/00852/B Applicant : JM Project Management Limited Proposal : Erection of 28 residential units and retail unit with associated

parking and landscaping Site Address : Field 320653 And Part Field's 324324, 324323 & 324321 Ballaglonney Farm Peel Road Crosby Isle Of Man Principal Planner : Miss S E Corlett Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee approved the application at its meeting of 07.01.19 subject to three modifications to the officer's written recommendation:

the description of the development should be amended to omit the reference to office space the list of approved plans should omit plan reference 31B and an additional condition should be attached as follows:

For the avoidance of doubt, the entrance and internal roadways shall be constructed in accordance with drawing reference 15N, should there be any conflict with any other approved plans.

Reason: to ensure that the development is built to the appropriate standards and in accordance with current highway guidance.

Conditions of Approval

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

Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

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

6 months of the connection of the site to the public system.

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

C 3. Landscaping, (including mitigation tree planting) and post planting maintenance shall be carried out in accordance with drawing 1060/C200F and the maintenance and aftercare schedule for new tree planting received on 7th August, 2017, in the first planting and seeding season following completion or occupation of any part of the development, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants (including those retained as part of the development) which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development are removed, or, in the opinion of the Department, become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Department gives written consent to any variation.

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

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

C 4. There must be no disturbance to the bed or margins of the south eastern stream including disturbance due to in-channel works or entry to the watercourse by machinery and to ensure this, details of any proposed works to the north western bank profile of the stream running along the south eastern side of the site together with a construction method statement must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department prior to the start of the construction of the path and the culvert and any embankment works: the method statement shall outline a suitable construction approach to reduce the possibility of disturbance of fish within the stream and the works must be carried out in accordance with these details and this statement all to avoid disturbance or injury to fish and protection of the aquatic and bankside habitat. Reason: To accord with Environment Policy 7 of the Strategic Plan and the Wildlife Act 1990.
C 5. Prior to any work to create ditches or pipework in the area between the Heritage Trail and the River Dhoo, a construction method statement must be submitted to and approved by the Department to demonstrate that these works will be undertaken in such a way as to avoid damage to an area of ecological value and the works must be carried out in accordance with these details. Reason: To accord with Environment Policies 4 and 7 of the Strategic Plan.
C 6. No development may be undertaken until such times as protective fencing has been erected to protect those trees which are to be retained in positions agreed by the Department and this fencing must be retained during the course of construction.

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

C 7. Each of the retail units hereby approved may be used as a shop Class 1 of Schedule 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 and for no other purpose.

Reason: To reflect the nature of the planning approval and to control the impact of the development on the surrounding area.

C 8. Prior to the operation of either of the proposed retail units, the car parking spaces to the north shall be laid out and available for use by staff and customers of the retail units and retained as such thereafter. Reason: To ensure that there is sufficient car parking available to serve the commercial unit.
C 9. No external lighting may be attached to the retail building, nor may external lighting associated with the retail units be installed within the site without the prior permission of the Department.

Reason: To protect the character of the area and the living conditions of those in properties in the vicinity.

C 10. No items for sale may be stored or displayed for sale outside the retail building; and there may be no outside storage of material, nor the installation of plant or equipment, outside the building.

C 11. The retail unit may not be open for business after 2200hrs on any day; or before 0700hrs on any day. Reason: To protect the living conditions of those living in nearby residential property.
C 12. The on-site parking, turning and loading areas must be suitably hard surfaced and provided prior to occupation of the proposed development, and be maintained and retained unobstructed thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and to ensure that there is sufficient car parking provided to serve the proposed development.

C 13. No construction work may be undertaken on the site other than between 0800hrs and 1900hrs Monday to Saturday inclusive. Reason: To protect the living conditions of those living near the site.
C 14. The retail building must be erected, laid out and used as shown in drawing 16/2576/105F received on 20th November, 2018. In particular, the two units must be arranged as shown and may not be combined or merged, and there may be no additional floor space introduced either through the introduction of mezzanine flooring or other means.

C 15. Prior to the installation of any pipework between the proposed commercial unit and the junction of the A1 and Old Church Road, a method statement demonstrating how the pipework will be installed without interfering with the roots of existing trees, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The development must be carried out in accordance with the approved method statement.

Reason: The pipework is shown to pass very close to where there are roots of trees that are to be retained, and it is necessary to ensure that the pipework will be installed without harming the roots of these trees.
C 16. For the avoidance of doubt, the entrance and internal roadways shall be constructed in accordance with drawing reference 15N, should there be any conflict with any other approved plans.

Reason: to ensure that the development is built to the appropriate standards and in accordance with current highway guidance.

Plans/Drawings/Information

This approval relates to the following drawings and information all received on 7th August, 2017:

0800/C203, 1060/C200F, 1060/C201A, 16/2576/16A, 16/2576/17A, 16/2576/18, 16/2576/19C,

16/2576/22, 16/2576/23B, 16/2576/25B, 16/02576/28A, 16/2576/29, 16/02576/30A, 16/02576/35A, 16/2576/40, 16/2576/46, 16/2576/101, 16/2576/101, 16/2576/102, 16/2576/104, 16/02576/106 and 16/2576/301

P1639161102-01P and the Professional Lighting Design report dated 1st November, 2016 The Construction Method Statement for highways, drainage and housing dated 31st October, 2016 The Construction Method Statement relating to the construction of the bus lay-by dated 10th October, 2016 The report of the Manx Bat Group dated 31st July, 2016 The Manx Wildlife Trust report dated October, 2016 The Flood Risk Assessment dated January 2017 and Supplemental Technical Information Issue 2.0 The tree survey dated 23.07.15 and the revised maintenance and aftercare schedule dated 12th May 2017.

16/2576/27C, 16/2576/114, 16/2576/116, 16/2576/118 and 16/2576/300A all received on 7th November, 2018 16/2576/15N, 16/2576/105F received on 20th November, 2018.

DEC Officer Report

Source & Provenance