Statement

Planning Statement For The Erection Of A New Dwelling On The Site Of The Former South View, Minorca Hill, Laxey Im4 7Dp

• 1.0 INTRODUCTION
• 1.1 The site is that of the former South View - a dwelling which has recently been demolished. The dwelling formerly appeared as follows as shown on Google Streetview:

1.2 The site has recently been cleared of all of its buildings and appears like this:

• 1.3 The site has a stone wall abutting Minorca Hill and established vegetation on its western boundaries which abut Laxey Primary School to the west, an electricity sub station to the south, Lilac Cottage to the north and on the other side of Minorca Hill to the east are Hillcrest and Hillcrest Cottage with Sundawn immediately to its south.
• 1.4 The site slopes downward from north west to south east, following the general slope of this northern valley containing Laxey Village.
• 1.5 The former dwelling on the site, together with Lilac Cottage, Hillcrest, Hillcrest Cottage and Sundawn all appear on the 1860s map (below). These properties are all traditional in design and finish and modest in proportion and form, as was the former South View.

Hillcrest, Hillcrest Cottage and Sundown as viewed from the site

• 2.0 Planning context Area Plan for the East (2020)
• 2.1 The site lies within an area designated on the Area Plan for the East as Predominantly Residential which extends to and includes the substation but incorrectly identifies the former church - now a dwelling opposite the site, as Civic Cultural or other uses.
• 2.2 The site lies some distance (78m to the nearest part of the site) from the village’s Conservation Area shown in red below
• 2.3 There are no Constraints shown on the accompanying maps with the Area Plan for the East and the site is not shown as being at risk of any form of flooding on the national Flood Risk Maps with the route of surface water running down Ballaragh Road and the northern section of Minorca Hill diverted to the south west at Lilac Cottage and running to the north and west of South View fore collecting at the substation site.

Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2016

• 2.4 As the site is designated for residential use on the adopted Area Plan, there is a presumption that such development will be generally approved subject to compliance with a range of criteria:

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

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

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

• 2.5 There are other policies within the plan which provide additional guidance on some of the matters included in General Policy 2: Environment Policy 3 protects trees of amenity value; Environment Policy 4 protects ecology, Transport Policy 4 requires that highways are suitable to accept the traffic resulting from development and Transport Policy 7 requires there to be sufficient car parking to serve the development - Residential development is expected to provide two off road parking spaces per unit (Transport Policy 7 and Appendix 7) although these standards may be relaxed where development:

• (a) would secure the re-use of a Registered Building or a building of architectural or historic interest; or
• (b) would result in the preservation of a sensitive streetscape; or
• (c) is otherwise of benefit to the character of a Conservation Area.
• (d) is within a reasonable distance of an existing or proposed bus route and it can be demonstrated a reduced level of parking will not result in unacceptable on street parking in the locality.

• 2.6 Development is generally directed towards existing settlements (Strategic Policies 1, 2 and 10, Spatial Policy 5, Housing Policy 4 and Transport Policy 1) and where Strategic Policy 1 recommends "the optimising the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings”.
• 2.7 Laxey is a settlement identified in the hierarchy within the Strategic Plan. It is a Service Village where “Area Plans will define the development boundaries of such villages so as to maintain and where appropriate increase employment opportunities. Housing should be provided to meet local needs and in appropriate cases to broaden the choice of location of housing” (Spatial Policy 3). The site is well within the settlement boundary.

• Residential Design Guide 2021
• 2.8 There are other documents which help assess developments against the criteria in GP 2. The Residential Design Guide introduces the concepts of sustainable construction and biodiversity net gain as material considerations in the determination of any development proposal and also provide guidance on how the impact on the outlook and privacy of development on adjacent neighbours may be measured.
• 2.9 There is a general expectation that where windows are proposed which look directly towards other windows in residential property that the windows should be at least 20m apart. There is a 25 degree measurement to assess whether a development in front of or behind an existing dwelling would have a harmful effect on outlook.

Brownfield sites

• 2.9 The importance of prioritising the development of brownfield sites over Greenfield land rose in prominence within Government towards the end of the 2010s. In November 2018, Tynwald resolved to approve Recommendation 1 of the Tynwald Select Committee on the Development of Unoccupied Urban Sites. Recommendation 1 states that Cabinet Office should publish at regular intervals data on planning approvals given and taken up in brownfield and greenfield sites respectively.
• 2.10 Further to this recommendation Cabinet Office published the Unoccupied Urban Sites Register: East (2020) which focused on Douglas and Onchan. Cabinet Office has now updated the Register in the East and has expanded its remit to cover settlements in the South and North and West. This site is not specifically identified as an UUS but is a previously developed site as defined in the Strategic Plan and it is noted that Strategic Policy 1 encourages the optimisation of the use of previously developed land, redundant buildings, unused and under-used land and buildings.

• 3.0 Planning history
• 3.1 The planning history of a site and surrounding area can be a useful guide to what may be considered acceptable.
• 3.2 In this case, the site has been the subject of only one previous recent application. This application, 24/00540/B proposed the erection of two detached dwellings on the site, including the demolition of South View. The demolition of a free standing structure does not presently require planning approval as the site lies outside of a Conservation Area.

3.3 The proposed development shown above generated a number of objections includingthe following which are a summary of the original submissions:

• • Garff Commissioners - object on the basis that the development is over intensive and the design, size and appearance of the dwellings would be intrusive and the number of vehicle movements would put stress on an already dangerously congested location close to the entrance of Laxey School. Members would be more sympathetic to smaller scale dwellings that are more in keeping with the area and which would be more affordable;
• • the Highway Services Division of Department for Infrastructure - sought additional information to demonstrate sufficient space for parking and visibility splays and showing appropriately measured splays;
• • Ecosystems Policy Office - object on the basis of the amount of vegetation to be removed and overdevelopment of the area with a resulting pressure to remove further vegetation in the future. A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal is recommended prior to the determination of any application and
• • Local residents: the owners of Driftwood, Sundawn, Holly Cottage and Hillcrest Cottage all object on the basis of overdevelopment, increased risk of flooding, increased congestion, increased danger to pedestrians,

3.4 The application was withdrawn prior to a decision being taken.

• 4.0 The proposal
• 4.1 Proposed is the erection of a new dwelling on the site. The new dwelling will be positioned as was the previously existing property on the site, to the south of the existing garage associated with Lilac Cottage and with the closest part of the proposed dwelling some 14.4m from the front wall of Lilac Cottage.
• 4.2 The proposed dwelling will sit approximately 1.05m below the level of the rear of the site and the ridge of the property will be 2.5m higher than the top of the existing adjacent neighbouring garage and the majority of the principal roof being approximately 200mm higher than the ridge of Lilac Cottage.
• 4.3 The dwelling will have one first floor window in the rear elevation facing Lilac Cottage, that serving the top of the kited staircase (ie not a landing). The western elevation is principally glazed but the projection of the glass from the stone surrounds is limited to 800mm giving limited view to the north towards Lilac Cottage.
• 4.4 The dwelling has a pitched, artificial slate finished roof whose ridge will sit approximately 1.5m higher than did the original cottage on the site. The walls will be finished mainly in stone with the southern and western projecting gables featuring significant areas of glazing to maximise natural light and heat and outlook.
• 4.5 Access into the site will be via a new entrance off Minorca Hill, positioned to achieve visibility splays of 2.4m by 25m in both directions. The existing wall immediately alongside the gable of the proposed dwelling will be removed and the lower section of stone boundary wall will have its height reduced to achieve the optimum visibility.
• 4.6 The driveway and turning area will be finished in a permeable gravel with the first 5m of the adopted highway bound and consolidated.
• 4.7 The property will be connected to the existing foul sewer with all surface water draining to a new soaraway within the site.
• 4.8 No trees are to be removed to accommodate the development.
• 4.9 The existing low voltage electricity line which runs along the boundary of the site will be left undisturbed.

• 5.0 ASSESSMENT
• 5.1 The previous planning application is very helpful in that it highlights the potential and actual concerns of development of this site. In particular, some principles which may be taken include:

• • There was no objection to the application from the Flood Risk Team of Government
• • The concerns of the Highway Services Division of Department for Infrastructure do not appear to oppose the application but only seek amendments and further information to demonstrate compliance with their standards
• • The objections from Garff Commissioners and the local residents do not appear to oppose a less dense development with either smaller or fewer buildings, or both
• • The issues raised by the Ecosystems Policy Team appear to be capable of resolution with less development, more information, the removal of less vegetation and mitigation of any biodiversity loss.

• 5.2 The site is designated for development and is within an identified settlement and is capable of being serviced (access, drainage and power). As such, there should therefore be a basic presumption in favour of residential development here subject to compliance with General Policy 2 and the supporting guidance including the Residential Design Guide.
• 5.3 Access

• 5.3.1 A new access is proposed which achieves the maximum available visibility. Whilst the proposed dwelling is larger than the original which it replaces, it remains a single dwelling so should not generate significantly more or different patterns of traffic.
• 5.3.2 The access, visibility, parking capacity and turning space is greatly improved from what previously existed. The garage provides the opportunity for secure bicycle storage space as well as for the charging of electric vehicles.
• 5.3.3 We believe that the proposal addresses the concerns raised previously by the Highway Services Division of Department for Infrastructure and is acceptable in terms of highway safety, satisfying General Policy 3h and i and Transport Policies 4 and 7.

5.4 Density

• 5.4.1 The previous scheme generated concern that two dwellings represented over development of the site, both in terms of the quantum of buildings on the site but also the increase in traffic discharging onto Minorca Hill.
• 5.4.2 What is proposed retains the density of development to a single dwelling. Whilst the proposed house is larger, and occupies a larger footprint, given the overall size of the site, what is proposed is not considered unreasonable and addresses the concerns raised previously about the density of development.
• 5.4.3 Whilst a sizeable part of the site is dedicated to driveway, this is necessary due to the desire for vehicles to be able to enter and leave the site in a forward gear and to be able to provide secure and convenient car parking.
• 5.4.4 The position of the access has been chosen to maximise the available visibility which results in the proposed dwelling remaining towards the northern end of the site, as was the original dwelling. The site narrows considerably to the south of the proposed access.
• 5.5 Design

• 5.5.1 The design of the dwelling does not follow the traditional elements of the original cottages alongside. These dwellings mostly date back to the 1800s and their proportions and internal dimensions including ceiling heights are typical of that age of property. To try and replicate that in a new dwelling which needs to accord with modern Building Regulations would, we consider, result in something which did not sit comfortably in this streetscene and would stand out from its neighbours.
• 5.5.2 The proposed design has included traditional elements including the pitched, slated roof and the use of stone which will also reduce the impact of the new building compared with a white painted rendered finish. Adopting the same roof pitch as the adjacent cottages, which is slightly lower than what is proposed, was considered. However, due to the dimensions of the proposed dwelling, this made the building appear inappropriately proportioned and a slightly higher pitch was used.
• 5.5.3 The design has tried to maximise the internal floorspace whilst limiting the overall height and impact, accommodating the first floor partly within the roof-space rather than

• having a full two storeys which would be a more traditional form of two storey property. And noting that the original dwelling was a two storey property (see below).
• 5.5.4 The Residential Design Guide forms in its Introduction that its aim “is not intended to stifle creativity or to promote planning by numbers and off the peg designs, but rather to create a supportive context for good quality designs, be they traditional or modern.” It advises that “All planning applications will be judged on their own merits, taking account of the likely effect on neighbouring properties and the character of the building or street”.

• 5.5.6 The Guide advocates the need to address Sustainable Construction, considering the need to:

• • maximise carbon sequestration;

• • minimise greenhouse gas emissions;
• • maintain and enhance ecosystems;
• • achieve biodiversity net gain;
• • provide sustainable drainage systems; and
• • provide active travel and public transport infrastructure.

• 5.5.7 The site is highly sustainable and close to various public transport routes. The orientation of the house and use of large areas of glazing will maximise solar gain and minimise the need for artificial light and heat with optimal opportunities for solar panels on the property roof. The development does not result in the loss of any trees and retains as much green space and vegetation as is practicable. There are opportunities for the installation of bird and bat boxes and bee bricks.
• 5.5.8 The proposal will be connected to the mains sewerage system with a soakaway for the disposal of surface water. There are opportunities for the use of water butts for reusing rainwater for gardening.

5.6 Impact on neighbours

• 5.6.1 The proposed dwelling is taller and larger than what previously existed. However, it has been positioned such that it is not directly opposite Hillcrest, Hillcrest Cottage or Sundawn. Whilst the dwelling is within 20m of the front of Lilac Cottage, there are no windows directly facing that neighbouring property other than one which serves a kited staircase from where there would be no permanent or convenient view.
• 5.6.2 The difference in level and distance between the two properties results in the recommended 25 degree measurement of the impact on the outlook from Lilac Cottage, being achieved. As such, we believe that the proposal accord with the advice in the Residential Design Guide in terms of impact on neighbours and will not result in any adverse impact on the living conditions of those in nearby residential properties.

5.7 Conclusion

• 5.7.1 We would submit that what is proposed is a well designed dwelling which will be finished to the highest quality which will sit comfortably on this spacious site in a highly sustainable location.

• 5.7.2 The provisions for access and parking are greatly improved on what existed previously and the property can be adequately serviced.
• 5.7.3 The design does not slavishly follow the guidance on traditional cottages but incorporates traditional features and materials. The site is not within the village’s Conservation Area and Minorca Hill accommodates a range of building types. As explained earlier, to design a new dwelling here which follows more closely the design principles of traditional Manx cottages could well result in something taller and more out of proportion with the neighbouring dwellings and we considered it more appropriate to design something which does not attempt to pretend that it has been there for over a hundred years but to design something contemporary but complementary which accords with regulations and aspirations of the present day.
• 5.7.4 The dwelling is ideally placed to maximise solar gain and accommodate renewable technology, much of which - air source heat pumps, solar panels etc - are capable of being installed under the Town and Country Planning (Permitted Development) Order 2025.
• 5.7.5 We believe that the proposal satisfies all of the relevant planning policies and is an acceptable form of development.

Sarah Corlett 05.06.25