Officer Report

Applicant: Mr & Mrs David Pearce Proposal Erection of 2No Dwellings, alteration to existing vehicular access, and erection of replacement boundary wall (retrospective) to rear south boundary Site Address Land To Rear Of The Auburns No 19 Lezayre Road Ramsey IM8 2LP Case Officer : Paul Visigah Photo Taken: 30.08.2024 Site Visit: 30.08.2024 Expected Decision Level Planning Committee Recommended Decision: Permitted Date of Recommendation 19.12.2024

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 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, the garage, car parking and manoeuvring areas shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than for purposes associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times.

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

• C 3. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied or operated until all access design and visibility splays have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. The visibility splay shall have no obstructions greater than 1m in height within the splay zone, and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that sufficient provision is made for off-street parking in the interests of highway safety.

• C 4. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, the Flood Mitigation measures detailed in the Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Axis Consulting Engineers Ltd, and received 30 October 2024, shall be installed/constructed in accordance with details submitted.

The development must be carried out in accordance with the recommended flood resilience measures stipulated in the Flood Risk Assessment and shall be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of prospective occupiers and to ensure the development complies with Environment Policy 10 & 13 of the Strategic Plan.

• C 5. The ground floor of the dwelling hereby approved shall only be used in accordance with the internal layout as shown on the submitted Drawing No. 22 1631 05 rev A received 30 October 2024 and being retained as such thereafter. The ground floor shall be used solely as a non-sleeping space.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of prospective occupiers and to ensure the development complies with Environment Policy 13 of the Strategic Plan. The application does not propose to create sleeping spaces within the ground floor and has been considered as such.

• C 6. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, details of the proposed surface water drainage system, which shall include the use of soakaway(s) and connections to the Litney Stream shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

No part of the development shall be occupied until the agreed surface water drainage system has been implemented. The surface water drainage system shall be permanently retained thereafter in accordance with the approved scheme. Reason: In order to ensure that adequate drainage facilities are provided, and retained, in the interests of the amenity of the area.

• C 7. Within three months to the installation of external finishes and materials, details of all external finishes, including the manufacturer's details, specification and colour of all the materials/roof/wall/windows/doors/garage doors/rainwater goods to be used in the external finish for the approved development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

The development shall not be occupied or brought into use unless the external finish has been applied in accordance with the approved details, and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To ensure that the development is carried out to the highest standards of materials, in the interests of the appearance of the development and the visual amenities of the area.

• C 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2012 (or any Order revoking and/or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no extension, enlargement or other alteration of the dwelling, and no garages or other free standing buildings shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwellings hereby approved, other than that expressly authorised by this approval, without the prior written approval of the Department. Reason: To control development in the interests of the amenities of the surrounding area.
• C 9. The proposed first floor windows for the Bathroom on the west elevation of Plot 1, Ensuite on the east elevation of Plot 1, Ensuite on the west elevation of Plot 2, and Bathroom on the east elevation of Plot 2, shown on Drawing Nos. 22 1631/06 - Proposed First Floor Plans and 22 1631/07/A - Proposed Elevations, shall be glazed with obscure glass to Pilkington Level 5 or equivalent and permanently retained as such.

Reason: To safeguard the amenities of adjoining occupiers from overlooking and loss of privacy.

• C 10. Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved, the following shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Department:

• 1. A scheme for the protection of the retained trees (a tree protection plan), including a schedule of trees to be removed, in accordance with British Standard BS5837:2012 - Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction-Recommendations.
• 2. A tree planting plan including size and species specification. The tree planting specification shall adhere to the recommendations of BS8545:2014 - Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape - recommendations, and provide written evidence of such in relation to the evaluation and assessment of planting constraints and species selection.

The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the submitted tree information, and retained thereafter.

Any retained tree which within five years of the approved development being occupied or completed (whichever is the later) dies, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced by a similar species, of a size to be first approved in writing by the Department, during the next planting season or in accordance with a programme of replacement to be agreed in writing with the Department.

Reason: To safeguard the existing trees and planting to be retained within the site.

• C 11. Within three month to the commencement of the development hereby approved, a Bat and Bird Box Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department.

Any plan provided shall show the location, number and type of box/brick/structure to be provided. The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plan, and retained as such thereafter. Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site/locality.

• C 12. Prior to the installation of external lighting at the site, a detailed external low level lighting scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Department. The lighting of the site will be designed in accordance with the recommendations outlined in the BCT and ILP Guidance Note 8 Bats and Artificial Lighting (12th September 2018).

The lighting details shall include detailed drawings of the proposed lighting columns and fittings, information about the levels of luminance and daily duration and any measures for mitigating the effects of light pollution.

The development shall not be carried out other than in accordance with the approved plan. Reason: To provide adequate safeguards for the ecological species existing on the site.

• C 13. Prior to the occupation of the dwellings hereby approved, details which show (Elevation) changes to the front boundary wall (including material finish), that is shown to be altered on Drawing. No. 22 1631/02/Rev A, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Department. Prior to the occupation of the new dwellings hereby approved, these front boundary alterations shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and be retained as such thereafter.

Reason: In the interests of the appearance of the development and the visual amenities of the area.

• C 14. No new hardstanding areas other than that shown on the Proposed Site Plan (Drawing No. Drawing. No. 22 1631/02/Rev A) shall be created on site. The approved hardstanding areas shall also be carried out strictly in accordance with the details within Paragraphs 3.13 and

3.14 of the Flood Risk Assessment, and retained as such thereafter.

Reason: To help minimise the impact of increased surface water run-off, in order to minimize the potential for increased flooding of the site and surrounding properties.

This application has been recommended for approval for the following reason. Overall, it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of impact on neighbours, visual impact, highway safety and parking, as well as impact on trees/biodiversity (General Policy 2, Strategic Policies 1, 2, 3 (b), 4 and, 5 Housing Policy 4, Environment Policy 42, and Transport Policy 7). No unacceptably adverse impact has been identified with respect to the appearance of the site and surrounding area. Whilst there remains risks to occupants of the new dwellings, the net difference between current proposal and the extant approvals on site is only marginal. Likewise, sleeping accommodation which would be on the first floor would be set at about

• 2.55m above predicted flood levels, and the Flood Risk Assessment also details Flood Mitigation Measures that would be implemented to further mitigate future flood impact. As such, it is considered that the proposal would also meet the requirements of Environment Policies 10 and 13 of the Strategic Plan. Plans/Drawings/Information; This decision relates to the following documents and plans:

• o Planning statement.
• o Site Photographs
• o Drawing No. 22 1631/0 - Site Survey Drawing
• o Drawing No. 22 1631/01 - Site & Location Plans.
• o Drawing No. 22 1631/03 - Proposed Site Access Plan,
• o Drawing No. 22 1631/06 - Proposed First Floor Plans, and
• o Drawing No. ITLSL - Tree Survey. Received 18 April 2024;
• o Preliminary Bat & Bird Survey prepared by Manx Bat Group, received 3 July 2024;
• o Drawing No. 22 1631/02/A - Proposed Site Plan.
• o Drawing No. 22 1631/04/A - Proposed Plots Site Plan.
• o Drawing No. 22 12631/05/A - Proposed Ground Floor Plan.
• o Drawing No. 22 1631/07/A - Proposed Elevations.
• o Drawing No. 22 1631/08 - Flood Direction Plan.
• o Drawing No. 2407E/01 - Updated Topographical Survey.
• o Drawing No. 22 1631/FM - Flood Map, (provided by the Flood Division).
• o Drawing No. 22 1631/PSL - Photo showing Existing Boundary Levels.
• o Drawing No. 22 1631/SBLD - Plan showing Existing Site Boundary Levels.
• o Drawing No. 22 1631/FDP - Flood Detail Photographs, and
• o AX0333 FRA - Amended Flood Risk Assessment. Received 30 October 2024; and
• o Flood Wall Details Received 18 December 2024. _______________________________________________________________

Interested Person Status

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

• o DOI Flood Risk Management

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 4(2):
• o The Oaks, Lezayre Road, Ramsey and
• o 15 Lezayre Road, Ramsey

As they satisfy all of the requirements of paragraph 2 of the Department's Operational Policy on Interested Person Status. ________________________________________________________________ Officer’s Report THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT

1.0 THE APPLICATION SITE - 1.1 The application site is the curtilage of the 'The Auburns', 19 Lezayre Road, Ramsey which is a large two storey detached property with a large garden located on the southern side of Lezayre Road, and situated about 113m from the junction connecting Lezayre Road, Bowring Road, Parliament Street and Parliament Square. The southern boundary of the site directly abuts the Litney Stream which runs along the entire stretch of the southern boundary. - 1.2 Within the rear garden of the site sits an L-shaped two storey stone outbuilding which is situated at the rear of the main dwelling. This building was covered almost entirely in overgrown shrubs which screens large sections of the outbuilding and contributes to the variety of biota on site, although these are now removed. - 1.3 Large parts of the rear garden boundary is covered in mature landscaping comprising trees and shrubs which mostly encloses the western and eastern boundaries of the property. The ground level within the garden rises towards the boundary forming a raised embankments on the boundary with the stream and the western boundary of the garden, with level differences between the embankments and garden site level set at between 400 to 600mm. A new wall has recently been erected over the bund on the southern boundary.

2.0 PROPOSAL - 2.1 The application seeks approval for Erection of 2No Dwellings, alteration to existing vehicular access, and erection of replacement boundary wall (retrospective) to rear south boundary. - 2.2 The new dwellings which would have mirrored floor plans would measure 16.6m on its longest side elevation, 14.4m on its southern, with projecting front elevation measuring 7.4m wide. These detached two storey dwellings would have a pitch roof over, have a pitch roofed integral garage which has a pitch roofed dormer on the front elevation and rooflights to the rear, and a flat roofed covered porch. The roof of the dwellings would have their roof finished in blue/dark grey coloured natural slate tiles, while the external walls are to be finished in a mixture of smooth plain render, traditionally laid natural stonework, and natural Larch timber cladding left to weather naturally. All the windows would be triple glazed Aluminium units finished in light grey. The rooflights are to be Velux or similar centre pivot rooflights.

2.3 The new dwelling would have internal layout that provides for an open plan kitchen/dining/sitting area, a lounge, utility, a home office, porch, a double garage, and hallway on the ground floor, while the upper floor will house four bedrooms (one with ensuite), and bathroom. - 2.4 There would be an outdoor raised patio area at the rear of the dwelling projecting 3.2m from the rear of the dwelling, and 14.4m long. Two parking spaces would be created on site (aside from the double garage provision). No mature vegetation would be removed to facilitate the development and no trees are within the development area. There would also be no change in site level. Surface water runoff will be discharged to new soak away, while foul water will be discharged to existing combined sewer in Lezayre Road. - 2.5 Also proposed within the scheme is the erection of a new reinforced concrete block wall with earth embankment on each side to run along the entire southern boundary of the site. This wall will have a 150mm thick reinforced concrete cavity wall set between 100mm wide blockwork on each side. When measured from within the site level, this wall will be about 1.8m tall, although its top would be set at about 6.27m (AOD - above ordnance datum). - 2.6 Other works proposed for the site includes:

• 1. Closing up the existing access to the Auburns, 19 Lezayre Road, with new walls/metal fence to match the style/design of the existing boundary details. A new pedestrian access would be created here.
• 2. Existing wall to the west of the access to be demolished, with the existing access to the property situated here widened from 6m to 15.8m.
• 3. Creating a new bin area to the west of the new access to accommodate 4 bins.

2.7 The scheme would result in the removal of three (3) trees and some mature shrubs on site, and the new access would be over the RPA on a tree on site. - 2.8 The application is supported by the following information:

• 1. A Planning Statement prepared by Sarah Corlett Town Planning Consultancy.
• 2. Percolation Test Calculations prepared by Structural Engineering Services Ltd (and carried out on 21 January 2023).
• 3. Bat Survey Prepared by Manx Bat Group and dated 28 June 2024.
• 4. Amended Flood Risk Assessment prepared by Axis Consulting Engineers. The Flood Risk Assessment concludes by stating the following: "5.1 The proposed development sits in an area of flood risk, within the Ramsey town area.
• 5.2 The sources of flood risk are tidal and fluvial. The modelled flood levels are 0.5% AEP of

• 5.64mAOD for tidal events (with climate change), and 1% AEP of 5.37mAOD for fluvial events (both including climate change allowance).

5.3 The proposed mitigation measures are elevated threshold levels with a finished floor level of

• 5.50mAOD, earth bunding, property level protection (flood boards, and raised sockets). Planning constraints restrict the raising of this threshold level further.

5.4 Flood boards will be provided to achieve 600mm freeboard over the highest modelled flood level. As tidal is the largest flood levels, it is envisaged that there would be various warnings in place to advise ahead of installation of flood boards. - 5.5 Other passive measures include designing the property as two storeys with no sleeping accommodation on the ground floor. - 5.6 Topographic surveys prove the site is bunded and therefore does not act as a functional flood plain. As such, site development will have negligible impact on dispersing flood waters to surrounding areas. - 5.7 With the proposed measures in place, the risk of damage to property, occupants and surrounding areas is considered low."

2.9 The Demolishing the existing stone barn/outbuilding on site would not require planning approval. As such, it is not assessed as part of the current application.

- 3.0 PLANNING POLICY

3.1 Site Specific:

• 3.1.1 The site is located within an area designated as 'Predominantly Residential Use' under the Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Ramsey Local Plan) (No. 2) Order 1998, and the site is not within a Conservation Area. There is a Registered tree on site, although the site is not within a Registered tree Area. The site is prone to high surface, river and tidal flood risk, with the proposed development area situated within the high flood risk zone.

3.2 Local: Ramsey Local Plan 1999

• 3.2.1 The Ramsey Local Plan Written Statement (Planning Circular 2/99), has the following policies that are specifically relevant to the current site:

• 1. "Policy R/R/P3: Infill/Backland Sites Within areas zoned for Predominantly Residential Use there will be a general presumption against the development of those sites which provide attractive natural "breathing" spaces between established residential buildings. These sites will often include trees, mature landscaping, or simply green space. Any possible development of such sites should form the subject of consultation with the Office of Planning prior to submission of any application".
• 2. "Policy R/E/P3 Backland Development and Development in Grounds of Houses 7.20 There shall be a general presumption against backland development and development within grounds of large houses on those sites which are well landscaped within ample tree coverage".
• 3.3 National: STRATEGIC PLAN

• 3.3.1 The following policies from the 2016 Strategic Plan are considered pertinent in the assessment of this application;

• 1. Strategic Policy 1 - Efficient use of land and resources
• 2. Strategic Policy 2 - Development focussed in existing towns and villages
• 3. Strategic Policy 4 - Development to protect or enhance setting of Registered Buildings, landscape quality and biodiversity, and not result in unacceptable environmental pollution
• 4. Strategic Policy 5 - Design and visual impact
• 5. Strategic Policy 10 - Sustainable transport
• 6. Strategic Policy 11 - Housing needs
• 7. General Policy 2 - General Development Considerations
• 8. Environment Policy 4 - Protection of species and habitats
• 9. Environment Policy 5 - Mitigation against damage to or loss of habitats
• 10. Environment Policy 10 and 13 - Development and flood risk.
• 11. Environment Policy 42 - Designed to respect the character and identity of the locality
• 12. Housing Policy 1 - Housing needs
• 13. Housing Policy 4 - New Housing to defined existing towns
• 14. Housing Policy 6 - Residential development to be undertaken in accordance with development brief or Paragraph 6.2 of Plan.
• 15. Transport Policy 1 - Proximity to existing public transportation services
• 16. Transport Policy 2 - Layouts to link to existing systems
• 17. Transport Policy 4 - Highway Safety
• 18. Transport Policy 7 - Parking Provisions
• 19. Infrastructure Policy 1 - Development to take place in areas which will be connected to the IRIS drainage system
• 20. Infrastructure Policy 5 - Water conservation and management
• 21. Community Policy 7 - Designing out criminal and anti-social behaviour
• 22. Community Policy 10 - Proper access for firefighting appliances

• 23. Community Policy 11 - Prevention for the outbreak and spread of fire
• 24. Spatial Policy 2 - Outside Douglas development will be concentrated on the following Service Centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services. o Ramsey
• 25. Section 7.12: Areas Subject to Flooding and Erosion "7.12.2 The Isle of Man does not have a full survey identifying all areas which may be at risk from flooding. However, there are areas which are at potential risk from flooding and this includes areas which have flooded in the past. The Strategic Plan seeks to prevent the loss of natural flood plain and to guide development away from areas at risk of flooding. Where development is permitted for special or exceptional reasons, then appropriate flood protection and mitigation measures must be taken to safeguard life and property."
• 26. Backland development - "development on the land at the back of properties may also be acceptable in some circumstances, but only if satisfactory access can be achieved and if there is sufficient space to provide adequate amenity for both new and existing adjoining dwellings."

3.4 Area: AREA PLAN FOR THE NORTH AND WEST

• 3.4.1 It must be noted that at the time of writing, the Draft Area Plan for the North and West is not formally adopted and is only, at this stage, a broad direction of how planning policy is reviewing the areas. Their proposals can still be challenged at a public enquiry where an inspector could reach a different opinion to the drafts. The final draft would also need to be ratified by COMIN. This means that the 1982 development plan remains the correct land use designation and no material weight is given to the Draft Area Plan for the North and West.

- 4.0 OTHER MATTERIAL CONSIDERATIONS

4.1 Regard will be given to the recently released Residential Design Guidance 2021 in development of new dwellings.

4.2 IOM Biodiversity Strategy 2015 to 2025 seeks to manage biodiversity changes to minimise loss of species and habitats, whilst seeking to maintain, restore and enhance native biodiversity, where necessary. Section 21 deals with Habitat loss actions through promoting a policy of 'no net loss' for semi-natural Manx habitats and species and to ensure that unavoidable loss is replaced or effectively compensated for.

4.3 Section 68 of the Flood Risk Management Act (2013) indicates that any published Flood Risk Management Plan and the extent to which the proposed development creates an additional flood risk are material considerations. - 5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

5.1 The application site has been the subject of a number of previous planning applications and it is considered that the following are specifically material to the assessment of this current planning application:

• 1. PA 03/00669/A for Approval in principle for erection of dwelling and garage. This was approved in August 2003. A 12 month extension of time period was approved under PCM11.1/27/5/05.
• 2. PA 06/01369/REM for Reserved matters application for the erection of a detached dwelling with garage and alterations to existing vehicular access. This was approved on 30 October 2006 but has now lapsed. It proposed a detached single storey dwelling with footprint measuring about 258sqm. Also, the existing barn was to be retained on site.
• 3. PA 07/01058/B for Alterations to and conversion of outbuilding to a dwelling. This application was approved by the Planning Committee in September 2007. The application proposed alterations to and conversion of outbuilding to a dwelling. The existing two storey aspect of the barn was to be retained and converted to a dwelling house, while the single

• storey garage extension was proposed to be demolished and replaced with a single/two storey extension.
• 4. PA 19/00778/B for conversion and extension to building to create a residential dwelling. This was approved in October 2019 and will lapse in October this year (2023). The proposal is a resubmission of similar scheme approved in 2007 under PA 07/01058/B, which has now lapsed.
• 5. PA 23/00306/B for Proposed variation of condition of approval No 1 to P.A. 19/00778/B, for an extension of time, proposed conversion and extension to outbuilding to create a residential dwelling - Approved. This application sought and was granted approval for an extension of timing of the previous approval under PA 19/00778/B.
• 6. PA 22/01212/A for Approval in principle for proposed residential development, addressing means of access and number of plots - Refused. This application sought to erect four dwellings on the site. The application was refused by the Planning Committee on 16 October 2023 for the following reasons:

• R1. Insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that appropriate mitigation measures could be implemented on site to safeguard the occupants of the four dwellings proposed within the scheme from future flood occurrence in accordance with the requirements set out in Appendix 4 of the Strategic Plan and as required by Environment Policy 10.
• R2. It has not been sufficiently demonstrated that the proposal would not result in unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or offsite, for future occupants of the proposed dwellings, and that the development would not increase flood vulnerabilities and intensity of flooding in the area. Therefore, the scheme is considered to fail the requirements of Environment Policy 13.
• R3. Due to the overall layout of the site, positioning of the buildings and the spaces around them, coupled with the volume of hardstanding areas to be created on site, it is considered that the proposal would result in significant loss of an established green corridor which has public amenity value and contributes to the character of the site and locality.

The removal of large sections of the garden area and its replacement with about 526sqm of hardstanding areas (impermeable parking areas and dwellings) would considerably deplete the green corridor with potential to further decrease the available green corridor, resulting in deleterious impacts on the character and appearance of the area and the context of this part of Ramsey, and a loss of a sense of place for the immediate locality, thus failing to comply with Policy R/R/P3 of the Ramsey Local Plan, and Environment Policy 42, General Policy 2 (b, c, & g), and Strategic Policy 4(b & c) of the Strategic Plan.

• 7. PA 23/00490/B for Alterations, replacement rear extensions and front Porch and raising of the existing roof to provide additional/improved living accommodation to dwelling - Refused. The application was refused for the following reasons:

• R1. The proposed development, by reason of the removal of the parapet overhang, increase in height of the main ridge and flanking chimney breasts, would result in a harmful impact upon the intrinsic architectural and historic significance of the existing dwelling, to the detriment of its character and the positive contribution it presently makes upon the character and appearance of the immediate streetscene. The proposals are therefore deemed to be in conflict with Strategic Policy 5, General Policy 2 (b) and (c), and Environment Policy 42 of the Strategic Plan (2016).
• R2. In the absence of sufficient arboricultural information having been submitted demonstrating that the proposals would not result in a detrimental impact upon the health and vitality of a

Category A Registered tree, the proposals are deemed further contrary to General Policy 2 (c) and Strategic Policy 4 of the Strategic Plan (2016).

6.0 REPRESENTATIONS Copies of representations received can be viewed on the Government's website. This report contains summaries only.

6.1 DOI Highways Division have indicated that they find the proposal to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and/or parking, as the site layout, access design and access visibility is acceptable for the proposals and should be conditioned before first occupation, subject to the visibility splay having no objections greater than 1m in height within the splay zone (3 May 2024 1).

6.2 DOI Highways Drainage have stated that allowing surface water runoff onto a public highway would contravene Section 58 of the Highway Act 1986 and guidance contained in section 11.3.11 of the Manual for Manx Roads. They advise the applicant to be aware off and demonstrate levels compliance with the clause above (29 July 2024).

6.3 DOI Flood Risk Management have made the following comments regarding the application:

• 6.3.1 Comments Received 22 May 2024:

• 1. The proposed building is in a tidal and fluvial flood zone. The Litney Stream which runs along the edge of the property which floods across back across the site from the old Ray Motors direction towards the Auburns (please see snip of Litney Flood map below) which puts the whole area proposed for building in the flood zone. The flood water depth is mainly between

• 0.5m to 1m deep for a 1 in 100 plus climate change scenario (shown below) which is significant depth. This site is also within what is classed as a functional flood plain less than 1 in 30 year event for the Litney stream (see figure 2 showing extent of 1 in 20 year event). The Litney stream also passes through culvert past the old Ray Motors and then under Parliament Square which could easily be blocked which again could cause flooding to the site at any time. There is no public flood warning system on the Isle of Man for fluvial flooding and you would have little warning of an event.

1. The proposed dwellings would also displace flood water which could increase the risk of flooding to others this would have to be modelled to prove the extent and the level of risk. The Flood Management Division of the Department of Infrastructure do not support building on undeveloped land within a flood zone.

• 6.3.2 Comments received 18 October 2024:

• 1. The flood management division objects to this application as it on undeveloped land in a natural flood plain. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states in 7.12.2 (see snip below) that the Strategic plan seeks to prevent loss of natural flood plain this proposed development is in contravention of this. The site sits within the 1 in 100 plus climate change fluvial flood zone and the 1 in 200 year plus climate change tidal flood zone. The flood risk assessment mentions walls to two boundaries that are higher the current 1 in 100 year flood zones these structures were probably not built as flood defence structures and therefore cannot be relied upon in a flood event to protect the site from flooding. This would also mean that the proposed properties would displace flood water which could increase flood risk to others. The Litney stream that runs past the site passes through a culvert in Parliament Square which has the potential to block which could flood the site from the eastern boundary which has no wall protecting it. The walls mentioned would also not protect the site from tidal flooding which would be putting the proposed residential property in an area that could flood to over 1 m deep.
• 2. The main issues is that this is a tidal and fluvial flood plain and will always remain one regardless of whether you have a flood defence because at some point they will be overtopped and then you have the situation of more properties vulnerable to flooding who cannot get

house insurance this is why the FMD of the DoI do not support any development on undeveloped land in a flood zone. There is also the fact that the level of protection flood defences provide reduce over the years.

• 6.3.3 Comments received 27 November 2024: The flood management division oppose this application for the following reasons.

• 1. The flood management division objects to this application as it on undeveloped land in a natural flood plain. The Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 states in 7.12.2 (see snip below) that the Strategic plan seeks to prevent loss of natural flood plain this proposed development is in contravention of this. The site sits within the 1 in 100 plus climate change fluvial flood zone and the 1 in 200 year plus climate change tidal flood zone. They refer to Paragraph 7.12.2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016, whilst noting that this development is fundamentally against this principle of preventing loss of natural flood plain.
• 2. The flood risk assessment mentions walls to two boundaries that are higher than the current 1 in 100 year flood zones these structures were probably not built as flood defence structures and therefore cannot be relied upon in a flood event to protect the site from flooding. Building a flood defence is not just about the wall structure or height you must also consider the ground conditions underneath will they allow water flow under the structure?
• 3. As the existing boundary walls are not flood defences this also mean that the proposed properties would displace flood water which could increase flood risk to others.
• 4. The Litney stream that runs past the site passes through a culvert in Parliament Square which has the potential to block which could flood the site from the eastern boundary which has no wall protecting it. The walls mentioned would also not protect the site from tidal flooding which would be putting the proposed residential property in an area that could flood to over 1m deep.
• 5. The site is in the tidal and fluvial flood plain and will always remain one regardless of whether you have a flood defence because at some point they will be overtopped and then you have the situation of more properties vulnerable to flooding who cannot get house insurance this is why the FMD of the DoI do not support any development on undeveloped land in a flood zone. There is also the fact that the level of protection flood defences provide reduce over the years so they may meet the current standards however this will decrease over years. For example Brechin in Scotland had new flood defence constructed in 2016 to a 1 in 200 fluvial standard these were breached in October 2023 when Storm Babet hit.
• 6. The flood management division objects to the proposed development on this site because development should not continue to be allowed on green field sites in areas of known flood risk. There should be no residential development on this greenfield site as the site is largely in a high risk flood zone (fluvial and tidal) no development other than water compatible should take place in this area.
• 7. The current Strategic Plan states in Chapter 6, General Development Considerations (i) that the development should be subject to unreasonable risk of erosion or flooding.

6.4 DEFA Forestry have made the following comments on the application (9 August 2024):

• 1. They state that they have no objection to the application for the following reasons:

• a. The major arboricultural constraint (Category A sycamore) has declined in condition and is now assessed as Category C.
• b. Engagement with the applicants has secured guarantees related to mitigation planting and tree protection which will be secured by pre-commencement conditions.

• 2. Additional information required to support application:

• a. Tree Removal Schedule and Tree Protection Plan

• b. Tree Planting Plan and Species Schedule They note that this information is not required prior to a decision being made

• 3. Suggested conditions to be applied in the event that the application is approved:

• a. No site clearance, preparatory work or development shall take place until the following is submitted and agreed in writing by the Department:

• a. A scheme for the protection of the retained trees (a tree protection plan), including a schedule of trees to be removed, in accordance with British Standard BS5837:2012 - Trees in relation to Design, Demolition and Construction-Recommendations.
• b. A tree planting plan including size and species specification. The tree planting specification shall adhere to the recommendations of BS8545:2014 - Trees: from nursery to independence in the landscape - recommendations, and provide written evidence of such in relation to the evaluation and assessment of planting constraints and species selection.

• b. No alterations or variations to the approved tree protection plan, working methods, and planting schedule shall be made without prior written consent of the Department.

6.5 DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team have made the following comments regarding the application.

• 6.5.1 Comments received 24 May 2024:

• 1. This application will require the demolition of an old stone barn with a slate roof and multiple potential bat roost features including loose and missing slates, crevices within stonework, open windows, dense ivy etc. in an area surrounded by trees and near a small watercourse. All features which increase the likelihood of bats being present. Many of the features around the barn are likely also providing nesting locations for birds.
• 2. Multiple trees are to be removed to facilitate the development, many of these are mature but dying ash trees. Though most are Category U trees, this categorisation does not take into account the wildlife value of the trees. Dead and dying trees are often of high wildlife value and could contain features suitable for roosting bats or nesting birds.
• 3. Though the Ecosystem Policy Team note section 4.17 of Sarah Corlett's Planning Statement which says that the Manx Bat Group will be contacted for a bat survey prior to the demolition of the barn, the Ecosystem Policy Team's preference is still (see our previous responses to applications for this site) that a preliminary assessment for roosting bats and nesting birds is undertaken on the property and trees prior to determination of the application. The survey should be undertaken by a suitably qualified ecological consultancy and the submitted report should contain the findings of the preliminary assessment and any additional surveys, alongside appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, to ensure that bats and birds are protected during and after development. This in line with best practise, which is referred to in Section 9.2.4 of the British Standard Biodiversity - Code of Best Practise for Planning and Development (BS 42020:2013).
• 4. The use of planning conditions to secure ecological surveys after planning permission has been granted should therefore only be applied in exceptional circumstances, such as where original survey work will need to be repeated because the survey data might be out of date before commencement of development, etc.
• 5. They request that an assessment is done now and before determination so that adequate mitigation measures can be conditioned on approval and because it is the right time of year for bird and bat surveys to be undertaken.
• 6. Preliminary assessments for bats and birds can be undertaken at any time throughout the year. However, if emergence/re-entry surveys to confirm bat roost presence or nesting birds is required then there are seasonal requirements (they need to be undertaken in the summer).
• 7. Bat surveys are required to identify the species of bat utilising the property, their abundance and whether they are breeding and this will determine the mitigation required.
• 8. They provide an advisory regarding bats with reference to the Wildlife Act 1990.

• 9. No landscaping plan has been provided which shows how ecological mitigation will be provided for the trees and vegetation that is to be removed (possibly already has been removed) to facilitate development and so details should be provided at this stage to ensure adequate levels of landscaping can be incorporated on site which ensure that there will be no net loss for biodiversity, in line with Strategic Policy 4 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016.
• 10. The site plan makes reference to the reinforcement of retained boundary features and possibly shows new hedges, but we would like to see details of this, including what species are to be planted and in what quantity.

• 6.5.2 Comments received 9 July 2024:

• 1. The Ecosystem Policy Team can confirm that the Manx Bat Group's (MBG) bat and bird report for the Auburns, 19 Lezayre Road, Ramsey is all in order and that a suitable level of assessment has been undertaken.
• 2. The MBG found no evidence of bats within the buildings, but found evidence of an active wren nest in a box on the outside of the building and previous nesting within the buildings by an unknown bird species. Mitigation for the loss of nest sites is therefore required.
• 3. As per the MBG's recommendations the nest box currently used by wrens should be moved to the thick hedge along the western boundary (as should the unused box) and two swift bricks/boxes should be erected on the new buildings. The wren box must not be moved whilst it is in use. The breeding season for wrens is between March and August.
• 4. Though the MBG found no evidence of a maternity roost in the buildings, the many external cracks, which were not internally inspected, could be used by bats outside of the maternity season. For example by hibernating bats. We therefore recommend that mitigation is provided for the loss of these spaces via the erection of bat boxes. At least one should be provided on the northern elevation of the new dwelling to provide a potential hibernating space.
• 5. They request conditions regarding bird and bat boxes and external lighting. Their advice also indicates that a note regarding roof removal would be beneficial.
• 6.6 Ramsey Town Commissioners have no objection to this proposal (21 May 2024/19 July 2024).

6.7 The owners/occupiers of The Oaks, Lezayre Road, Ramsey, have made the following comments on the application (22 May 2024/4 December 2024):

• 1. They note that the applicant needs to address the concerns highlighted in the response to the previous application one of which is the mitigation measures in respect of future flood occurrences.
• 2. They refer to previous works carried out to erect a flood barrier (bund) as flood mitigation at the site.
• 3. They state that they have concerns with the FRA report from Axis Consulting Engineers Ltd.
• 4. They refer to potential impact of the works on the character of the area.
• 5. They state that given that the two storey buildings will sit on raised underbuilding, it may well be construed that the general massing of these buildings will not sit comfortably with their surroundings and indeed may well be somewhat overbearing.
• 6. They state that should approval be given to this application, they would wish to see a condition that a bund be constructed along the boundary with the stream to at least the specification referred to in the Axis report.
• 7. They refer to boundary issues and contents of deeds.
• 8. They refer to offsite risk from flooding exacerbated by the culvert under the car park further downstream.

6.8 The Owners/occupiers of 15 Lezayre Road, Ramsey, have made the following comments (3 June 2024):

• 1. They are concerned that this development is completely unsuitable for the site which is at high risk from flooding, that it will be detrimental to biodiversity & to neighbouring properties including our own.

• 2. The work so far to clear the site for the existing planning application has led to ongoing and extensive clearing of trees, other vegetation that must have resulted in the loss of large areas of natural habitat.
• 3. They note that they have already noticed a decrease in the frequency of bats in the area, a regular starling roost was displaced when one of the trees was taken down & there has been a significant loss of bird habitat and other habitat supporting biodiversity.
• 4. They are concerned that this newly proposed development, which is a major change from what was originally proposed, will lead to further biodiversity loss in what is an important green space in the centre of Ramsey, including the loss of the ivy-covered barn which is ideal bat habitat. Significant additional biodiversity loss seems inevitable with this current application & proper assessment of its remaining value for nature & possible mitigation measures are essential.
• 5. They are concerned that the flood alleviation methods proposed will lead to intrusive and unacceptably elevated houses that will impinge on the character of the surrounding area & will overlook & overshadow the adjacent properties and gardens, including theirs.
• 6. They state that these significantly elevated two storey houses will rise above adjacent properties, and will not be in keeping with the character of the area.
• 7. The change of land use from vegetation/earth to buildings and engineered platform means a loss of soakaway and could also displace floodwater and increase the flood risk to surrounding properties, including our own and this must be properly addressed.
• 8. There are road safety challenges on the busy school run route and this development would add to road safety issues, crossing the busy pavement.

- 7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 The fundamental issues to be considered in the assessment of the current application are:

• 1. Principle of developing the site for the proposed use;
• 2. The potential visual impact on the site and street scene;
• 3. Impacts on Parking and Highway Safety;
• 4. The potential impact on neighbouring properties;
• 5. Ecological/tree Impacts; and
• 6. Flooding concerns
• 7.2 PRINCIPLE OF DEVELOPMENT (STP 1, SP2, HP4, HP 6, & Policies R/R/P3 & Policy R/E/P3 of the Ramsey Local Plan)

• 7.2.1 In assessing the principle of the proposed development, it is considered that the site is zoned for residential use which implies that the use of the site for residential purposes would be compatible with adjoining uses and conform to the general use of the area.

• 7.2.2 The site is also within the settlement boundary and adjacent to and surrounded by existing residential dwellings; conditions which would ensure that residential development here broadly aligns with Strategic Policy 1 and Housing Policy 4.

• 7.2.3 In addition, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 seeks to locate new housing and employment close to existing public transport facilities and routes, or where public transport facilities are, or can be improved, thereby reducing the need to use private cars and encouraging alternative means of transport, and it is considered that the site would meet this goal given that it sits along a major public transport corridor. While this does not signify a presumption in favour for all forms of housing development, it points to the fact the proposal would generally accord with the Strategic Plan goals for new housing on the Island. Therefore, in terms of the acceptability of the use of the site for residential development it is concluded that the proposal basically accords with the Strategic objective of the Strategic Plan, as detailed in Paragraphs 3.2 (c & f).

• 7.2.4 Similarly, the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016 stipulates that a total of 770 new dwellings are required to be provided between the years of 2011 to 2026 in the North of the Island.

Ramsey is also regarded as one of the service centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing under Spatial Policy 2; and this is supported by Spatial Policy 3 which states that "Housing should be provided to meet local needs and in appropriate cases to broaden the choice of location of housing".

• 7.2.4 Based on the foregoing, it is considered that as the application aligns with the zoning of the area within the Ramsey Local Plan, and the development of the site for residential purposes would be acceptable in principle. It is, however, worth noting that the factors highlighted above do not in any way denote automatic approval for residential use of the site, given that the development of the site would have to be appropriate for the existing site character, character of locality and not result in adverse impacts on other attributes of the site, such as biodiversity, flooding, access and highway issues, and/or neighbouring amenity. Therefore, it still remains necessary to assess the proposed development against other relevant planning policies and the physical constraints of the application site.

- 7.3 VISUAL IMPACT ON THE SITE AND STREET SCENE (GP 2, STP 3, EP 42 & RDG 2021)

• 7.3.1 In terms of the size (footprint) of the dwellings and relationship with the spaces between the buildings which serve to define the character of the area, it is considered that the density of the development would be within acceptable limits for the immediate vicinity given the varied levels of site density and site coverage in the locality.

• 7.3.2 With regard to the potential impact on the area and street scene, it is noted that the immediate street scene along Lezayre Road is characterised mainly by traditional styled dwellings. Whilst the design of the new dwellings is not such that the could be judged to be traditional, the design of the new dwelling which presents traditional styled features, such as pitch roofs in slate tile finish, use of traditional laid stone finish, introduction of pitch roofed dormers, and use of Velux (conservation style) rooflights, would ensure that the proposals fit with the character of the area. It is also noted that the orientation aligns with the dominant set up within the street scene, where most of the properties are front facing.
• 7.3.3 Further to the factors highlighted above, there are existing buildings and walls around the site boundary, with the proposed development area set back further into the site form the main highway bordering the site, such that large sections of the site area would be screened from public views, particularly along Brookfield Avenue and Lezayre Road. These would prevent direct view to the proposed buildings (although there may be distant views via the access), and diminish any concerns that could arise I terms of direct visual impacts.
• 7.3.4 Additionally, the mass and height of the new dwellings will be in keeping with the character of the area. Whilst the building would be different from most of the dwellings given the modern design, their position which is situated about 45m from the edge of the highway (at the closest), and at a point where obstructions exist due to the screening provided by the large dwelling on site, and the boundary treatment would ensure that the buildings are not particularly noticeable. Besides, the design is reflective of the dominant building form, scale, height, and appearance when compared to the existing dwellings in the area which are considerably older. Accordingly, the overall design, siting, layout, size, landscaping and finishes of the dwelling would all be acceptable and would create a pleasant housing development, without having significant adverse visual impacts to the amenities of the street scene, site or area.
• 7.3.5 It has been noted that the development would remove a significant portions of a vital garden area which contributed to the character of the area and served to define the sense of place for the area. Whilst this is a significant change, it was observed during the site visit on 30 August 2024 that there has been considerable change to the site area by way of removal of significant boundary vegetation within the site area, removal of vegetation which once enveloped the redundant stone building on site, and the resurfacing of large parts of the site area in gravel; changes which have considerably altered the appearance and character of the

• site area. Therefore, it is not considered that the site in its current context would be judged as reflecting the continuation of the green corridor along the rear gardens of the properties (as described under PA 22/01212/A), given the much changed nature of this garden area which may have been carried out following a recent approval for works to the redundant building within the garden under PA 23/00306/B. The assessments above, however, does not diminish the role the garden offers in providing ecosystem services; such as carbon sequestration, serving as soil binders, and controlling flood spread in the area, although these are matters that fall outside the scope of the assessment of visual impacts given the extant site conditions.
• 7.3.6 Overall, it is considered that the scheme has the potential to alter this part of the site and locality which previously did not house development similar to the scale currently proposed. However, there is no reason to doubt that the vegetation was cleared in a manner other than what would commonly be found in a domestic garden and which the Appellant is entitled to clear. Furthermore, the external materials replicate the dominant materials in the immediate vicinity, whilst the overall building height, proportions, fenestration size and positions, are also largely in keeping with the locality. Therefore, the proposals would be acceptable when judged within the context of the site, immediate street scene and locality.

7.4 IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY (General Policy 2h & I, TP's 1, & 7, & SP 10)

7.4.1 In terms of impacts on highway safety, it is considered that the access alterations including visibility would be appropriate for the site and number of dwellings proposed for the site, and offers a safe access onto the existing highway and as such is acceptable.

• 7.4.2 With regard to off road parking, the dwellings would have 4 spaces provided within the site for each dwelling (two on site and two within the integral double garage), which would be above the requirements of Transport Policy 7 as stipulated within Appendix 7 of the IOMSP. Additionally, the site is within walking distance to public transport corridors and the Ramsey Tram Station which increases the public transport options available to future occupants.

• 7.7.3 In addition, Highway Services have assessed the proposal and find it to have no significant negative impact upon highway safety, network functionality and /or parking, subject to condition that the visibility splay has no objections greater than 1m in height within the splay zone, prior to first occupation. Therefore, it is considered that this element of the scheme complies with the requirements of the aforementioned policies.

7.5 THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES (GP 2 & RDG 2021)

• 7.5.1 In terms of the potential impact upon neighbouring properties it is considered that the site directly adjoins No. 17 Lezayre Road, and land which is part of the Cheshire Mews properties on Fairfield Avenue situated to the east, and The Oaks, Lezayre Road to the west, with the separating distance such that there is the potential for impacts on these neighbours.

• 7.5.2 Impact on No. 17 Lezayre Road

• 7.5.2.1 With regard to potential overlooking concerns for the dwelling at No. 17 Lezayre Road, it is considered that the separating distance between the proposed dwellings at Plot 2 and this neighbouring dwelling, and the position of fenestrations on the dwelling which look inwards to the site, would ensure that there are no privacy concerns for this neighbour. Whilst a new first floor toilet window overlooks the rear garden of No. 17 Lezayre Road, this window would be installed with obscure glazing. As such, it is not considered that the overlooking of this neighbouring rear garden. This concern is further diminished by the mature landscaping which runs along most of the boundary with No. 17. A condition would, however, be imposed to ensure that this window is installed with the appropriate levels of obscure glazing.
• 7.5.2.2 Given the separating distance between Plot 2 and No. 17 Lezayre Road, it is also not considered that overbearing impacts or loss of light (overshadowing) would be significant concerns for this neighbour.

• 7.5.3 Impacts on The Oaks, Lezayre Road

• 7.5.3.1 In assessing the potential concerns for The Oaks, Lezayre Road, in terms of loss of light (overshadowing) and overbearing impacts that could result from the proposed dwelling at Plot 1, it is considered that the position of Plot 1 relative to the Oaks (being positioned about 7.7m further back of the building line of this property), the separating distance of about 12.6m between both properties, and the orientation of the new dwelling relative to the position of the Oaks, would ensure that overbearing impacts or overshadowing does not result, with most of the shadow cast by the new dwelling falling towards the portion of land to the south of the Oaks, which is outside the curtilage of the Oaks.
• 7.5.3.2 Overlooking is not anticipated to be an issue due to the orientation of the window above the garage in relation to the windows on the rear outrigger of the Oaks. Additionally, the window facing the Oaks is very narrow, and there is a degree of mutual overlooking of the garden areas at the first-floor level between the application site and the Oaks, which mitigates any potential overlooking concerns. The presence of mature landscaping on the boundary would also serve to further diminish overlooking from the new development.
• 7.5.3.3 It is perhaps worth mentioning that there is existing approval for converting the redundant barn on site into a new dwelling. If this conversion is carried out, it would place two new first-floor windows closer to the boundary with The Oaks, raising greater overlooking concerns compared to the current proposal. These windows are wider than the proposed firstfloor window for the bedroom above the garage at Plot 1, which is 750mm wide (about 150mm narrower than the dormer windows above the garage under PA 23/00306/B). Additionally, the combined area of these two windows is more than double that of the north-facing first-floor window for Plot 1. Consequently, any potential overlooking would be considerably diminished when compared to the extant approval on site for PA 23/00306/B.
• 7.5.4 Potential Impacts on No. 15 Lezayre Road

• 7.5.4.1 With regard to potential impacts on the amenities of No. 15 Lezayre Road, it is considered that the distance of the new dwelling from this neighbours, and the nature of the boundary with No. 17 which directly adjoins Plot 2 would preclude overbearing impacts of overshadowing from occurring. Likewise, the fact that the only window on the east elevation of Plot would have obscure glazing would prevent overlooking concerns would occurring for this neighbour.

• 7.5.5 The impact on Land positioned southwest of Plot 1 is also considered to be minimal and not sufficient to warrant refusal of the scheme due to the nature of the boundary treatment, and the absence of windows with overlooking potential on the west elevation of Plot 1.
• 7.6 IMPACTS ON TREES/BIODIVERSITY (GP2, EP4 & EP5)

• 7.6.1 In terms of potential impacts on protected species resulting from the proposed development, it is considered that the demolition of the existing barn on site to facilitate the new development holds potential to result in impacts on site biodiversity. The applicants have, however, provided a bat and bird survey which has been reviewed by the DEFA Ecosystem Policy Team which confirm that the Manx Bat Group's (MBG) bat and bird report is all in order and that a suitable level of assessment has been undertaken. They request conditions regarding bird and bat boxes and external lighting, and also suggest that a note regarding roof removal would be beneficial. As such, conditions would be imposed to ensure that there are no adverse impacts on bats and birds within the site and immediate locality.

• 7.6.2 In assessing the impact of the proposed scheme on site ecology, it is noted that some mature vegetation has been removed from site, and there is potential for further removal of existing biota on site. However, the site is not within an ASSI or a designated conservation site, where protection must be afforded as required by Environment Policy 4 (c). Furthermore, the site is not adjacent an Area of Special Scientific Interest and other designations, where protection must be afforded as required by Strategic Policy 4 (b). Based on the foregoing, it is not considered that the scheme as proposed would conflict with the principles promoted by the

aforementioned policies and General Policy 2 (d) of the Strategic Plan, particularly as the site is not a protected site or situated adjacent a protected site.

• 7.6.3 With regard to potential tree impacts, it is noted that the concerns with trees relate to the need to prune or remove some trees prior to the planning application being determined as canopy dieback is significant and has resulted in a substantial volume of deadwood over both the entrance and the gravel area adjacent to the house. As these matters fall outwit the remit of Planning, they are not matters for consideration within this planning application, and would be better addressed via the Preservation Act application. Mitigation planting to replace trees that are to be removed to enable the proposed development have been considered to be the acceptable approach, and these align with the provisions of General Policy 2 (f).

• 7.6.4 Granting the proposed driveway has the potential to impact on the registered tree on site, given that it would go over the RPA (Root Protection Area) for the registered tree, the proposed driveway system will not involve the installation of traditional hardstanding, but the Terram Bodpav 85 system which is a fully permeable surface, and will minimise pressure on the root system (See pages 9 and 10 of the Updated Flood Risk Assessment for details on the proposed driveway system). Besides, the DEFA Arboricultural Team advise that the registered tree which is a (Category A sycamore) has declined in condition and is now assessed as Category C, and on this basis they do not object to the application. Moreover, any impact resulting from potential tree impacts/loss would be mitigated by new mitigation tree planting which DEFA Forestry advises has been agreed with the applicants to be secured via mitigation planting and tree protection on site.

7.7 FLOOD CONCERNS (EP 10, EP 13 & GP 2)

• 7.7.1 A key concern with this proposal lies in the fact that the site is situated in a high flood risk area for surface, river and tidal flooding which increases the flood vulnerabilities for future occupants of the proposed dwellings. The proposed site area is also the lowest part of the application site and serves as the main collector of flood water that discharges onto the site, and as such is more susceptible to flood impact for both regular and severe flood occurrences.

• 7.7.2 Whilst there is an accepted issue with the existing susceptibility of the site area to flooding, the policy thrust of Environment Policy 13 and General Policy 2 (m) is not that development should not take place in flood prone areas, but that such development should not result in an unacceptable and unreasonable risk from flooding, either on or off-site. Given the supposed policy position in relation to flood risks, the scheme as currently proposed is considered to be acceptable.

• 7.7.3 Firstly, the proposed development would only increase the scale of development for the site marginally, as the two new dwelling proposed would have a combined footprint only 16sqm larger than the barn conversion on site, and the unbuilt bungalow under PA 06/01369/REM (which is judged to have commenced given that the bund which was proposed as part of this development has already been erected on site - See Drawing No. 06 0046/1 under PA 06/01369/REM that shows details of bund which is now insitu and has been recently modified retrospectively). For clarity, the combined foot print of the approved buildings on site would be 346sqm (Barn Conversion - 131sqm, and Unbuilt bungalow - 215sqm), while the combined footprint of the new dwellings would be 362sqm, hence the 16sqm increase in footprint.

• 7.7.4 Secondly, there would be minimal hardstanding areas on site, save for the new dwellings as the proposed parking and turning areas, as well as the new driveways and landscaping would comprise fully permeable surfaces that will minimise surface water run off using infiltration. Further to the above, the flood bund on the boundary with the Litney Stream has been upgraded to improve its stretch and height to prevent water ingress in times of flooding.

• 7.7.5 Further to the above, the proposed dwellings will have elevated threshold levels with a finished floor level of 5.50mAOD, with the Flood boards providing further protection to achieve 600mm freeboard over the highest modelled flood level. It is also considered that the sleeping areas would be on the first floor where the occupants of the proposed development would not be exposed to immediate danger from flood occurrence in the area. It is also noted that the first floor levels would be set at 2.55m above the predicted flood level for the site, which would ensure that any flood impacts would not result in harm to the sleeping areas. The risks to the integral garage on the ground floor still exist, although the building does not include any element of residential accommodation as it is simply for the garaging of cars. The applicants have also indicated that they would be willing to comply with the mitigation measures detailed in the Updated Flood Risk Assessment. Based on the foregoing, it is not considered that there would be sufficient risk of flooding to the residential use to such as extent that would warrant refusal of the proposal.
• 7.7.6 The reference to Paragraph 7.12.2 by the DOI Flood Risk Management Team in their consultation dated 22 November 2024 which states that "The Strategic Plan seeks to prevent the loss of natural flood plain and to guide development away from areas at risk of flooding" is noted. However, there are no specific policies within the Strategic Plan that precludes development on flood plains, with the Strategic Plan only stating within Paragraph 7.12.1 that "there may be serious consequences for some parts of the Island's coastline and inland areas particularly those areas at low level and close to natural flood plains" …and that "all areas known to be subject to flooding will be shown on Area Plans", which indicates a precautionary note, and not a policy position that development should not be carried out within flood plans. Moreover, General Policy 2, and Environment Policies 10 and 13 which deal with flooding do not preclude development in flood prone areas, but rather seek to ensure that there is no unreasonable or unacceptable risk from flooding, either on or off-site.
• 7.7.7 It is also important to note that the scheme has been supported by a Flood Risk Assessment which whose contents have not been largely contested, save the contentions regarding the flood wall that runs along the southern boundary of the site, and the walls on the other boundaries which the DOI Flood Risk Management Team notes are not flood defences, and would also not protect the site from tidal flooding, such that the proposal would be putting the proposed residential property in an area that could flood to over 1m deep. However, the rear flood wall was approved and erected as part of a previous development for the site under PA 06/01369/REM, and has been insitu for a period in excess of 10 years.
• 7.7.8 Additionally, the site of the proposed development exits as part of the residential curtilage of an existing dwelling, and the occupants could place buildings/hardstanding on any part of this garden area without needing an application, and there are extant approvals which if implemented would only result in net reduction in floor area by 16sqm when compared with the two new dwellings proposed as part of the current proposal. Furthermore, the hardstanding areas would be made of permeable material which would serve to ensure that there are minimal restrictions to infiltration as a result of the new hardstanding areas.

7.8 Other Matters

• 7.8.1 Deeds and Boundary Issues

• 7.8.1.1 The matters related to property boundaries and definition of curtilages, and contents of Deeds which have been raised by the neighbour are civil legal matters that lie outside the scope of the planning application, as land ownership is a civil matter and would hold no weight in the assessment of a planning application. Any determination under the Town and Country Planning Act 1999 can neither create nor detract from land ownerships, any right of way, or other civil legal rights and obligations as may exist between the parties. Considering these bear no weight in a planning decision, the application has been assessed with respect to the relevant Strategic Plan policies which set the benchmark for assessing proposed developments, with no reference made to the stated deeds.

• 7.8.1.2 It is important to note that the application includes a Site Plan and Location Plan, in which the redline boundary is clearly defined in accordance with the Development Procedure Order 2019. Consequently, comments suggesting that the applicants have marked a broad, ambiguous boundary with a wide green strip, instead of a single straight line to represent the existing boundary between the two properties, are a misrepresentation of the plans. The green lines mentioned pertain to plan details depicting mature landscaping along the boundary on the Flood Direction Plan (Drawing No. 22 1631/08), and do not replace the submitted Site Plan and Location Plan which delineates the planning unit.

- 8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 Overall, it is considered that the proposal would comply with the relevant planning policies of The Isle of Man Strategic Plan, and the Ramsey Local Plan, and for the reasons set out in this report. It is recommended that the application be approved. - 9.0 INTERESTED PERSON STATUS

9.1 By virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2019, the following persons are automatically interested persons:

• (a) the applicant (including an agent acting on their behalf);
• (b) any Government Department that has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (c) the Highways Division of the Department of Infrastructure;
• (d) Manx National Heritage where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (e) Manx Utilities where it has made written representations that the Department considers material;
• (f) the local authority in whose district the land the subject of the application is situated; and
• (g) a local authority adjoining the authority referred to in paragraph (f) where that adjoining authority has made written representations that the Department considers material.

9.2 The decision maker must determine:

• o whether any other comments from Government Departments (other than the Department of Infrastructure Highway Services Division) are material; and
• o whether there are other persons to those listed in Article 4(2) who should be given Interested Person Status.

9.3 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 can confirm that this decision has been made by the Planning Committee in accordance with the authority afforded to the it by the appropriate DEFA Delegation and that in making this decision the Committee has agreed the recommendation in relation to who should be afforded Interested Person Status.

Decision Made : …Permitted……….... Committee Meeting Date:…10.02.2025 Signed : Paul Visigah 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 10.02.2025

Application No. : 24/00474/B Applicant : Mr & Mrs David Pearce Proposal : Erection of 2No Dwellings, alteration to existing vehicular access,

and erection of replacement boundary wall (retrospective) to rear south boundary Site Address : Land To Rear Of The Auburns No 19 Lezayre Road Ramsey IM8 2LP Planning Officer : Paul Visigah Presenting Officer As above Addendum to the Officer’s Report

The Planning Committee considered the application at its meeting on 10 February 2025 and agreed with the recommendation to approve the application subject to the officer's inclusion of a further condition relating to the surfacing materials for the proposed access.

The new condition shall read:

Prior to the occupation of the new dwellings hereby approved, the resurfacing of the first 6m of the altered access shown on drawing no. 22 1631/03 - Proposed Site Access Plan, shall be finished in a bound surface such that no material is tracked onto the public highway. The new access shall thereafter be permanently retained as such.

Reason: in the interests of highway safety.