Officer Report

Application No.: 13/00575/B Applicant: Mr Trevor McCullough Proposal: Erection of sixteen dwellings with associated infrastructure including roads and drainage Site Address: Former Follies Cabaret Restaurant Harbour Road Onchan Isle Of Man IM3 1BG Case Officer : Mr Edward Baker Site Visit: 26.06.2013 Expected Decision Level: Planning Committee

Officer’s Report

THIS APPLICATION IS REFERRED TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE IN VIEW OF THE SCALE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE PLANNING HISTORY OF THE SITE AND BECAUSE A SECTION 13 AGREEMENT IS REQUIRED IF APPROVAL IS GRANTED.

THE APPLICATION SITE

• 1. The application site is the former Follies Cabaret Restaurant site, Harbour Road, Onchan. The site comprises approximately 1.2 hectares and, as its name suggests, was the location of a former restaurant. The restaurant buildings and site have since been cleared and the site is currently empty and redundant. It consists of mostly hard standing with some overgrown areas, particularly at the rear.
• 2. The site is situated to the west side of Harbour Road, which is a primary route through a number of large housing estates. Harbour Road is positioned on a north-south axis and rises in a northerly direction.
• 3. The site has a frontage with Harbour Road on its east side. It is surrounded on its north and south sides, as well as the rear to the west, by housing. The site is broadly rectangular in shape, although it kinks outwards on its south side, and falls from east to west.
• 4. To the north, the site sides onto the rear of four semi-detached two storey dwellings on Marine View Close (a residential cul-de-sac). To the south side is the rear of five detached bungalows on Kirkway (another residential cul-de-sac). To the west the site backs onto the rear of two detached dwellings at the end of Furman Close. To the north west corner, the site is next to No. 18 Furman Close, being one of a pair of semi-detached dwellings.
• 5. The site is characterised by a number of mature trees on the perimeter of the site. There is also a line of leylandii hedge along part of the south boundary, as well as a handful of mature trees within the site. THE PROPOSAL Background

• 6. The application originally proposed 18 dwellings of a completely different design and layout. The planning officer had strong reservations about this initial scheme, principally in relation to overdevelopment of the site; substandard garden space and poor design. Several months of negotiations between the architect and planning officer followed, culminating in a completely revised scheme. It is this revised scheme, for 16 dwellings, which is being considered. The amended plans have been subject to re-advertising. Revised proposal
• 7. The application seeks planning approval for the erection of sixteen dwellings as follows:

12 x 3 bedrooms 4 x 4 bedrooms

• 8. There are two house types: A and B. House Type A is a three storey semi-detached dwelling (3 bed), save for Plot 9 which is detached, with accommodation in the roof. House Type B is a larger three storey semi-detached dwelling (4 bed), again with rooms in the roof. All the houses would be finished in white render with natural slate for the roof. The windows would have dark grey framing and the doors would be natural treated timber. Rainwater goods would be grey and House Type A would have a lead canopy above the front doors.
• 9. Plots 1 to 4 are two pairs of semi-detached dwellings (House Type A) that would have a frontage to Harbour Road. They would be positioned either side of the spine road that would provide access through the centre of the site to the rear. Plots 5, 6, 15 and 16 (House Type A) would be situated to the middle of the site, again positioned either side of the spine road, although Plots 5 and 6 would be perpendicular to Plots 15 and 16, and would face north towards the centre of the site. Plots 7 to 9 (House Type A) would be situated broadly parallel to Plots 5 and 6 on the south side of the site. They would “turn the corner” towards Plots 10 to 14 (House Type B) that would be located at the rear of the site, creating a semi-courtyard effect.
• 10. The scheme would provide two on-site parking spaces for each dwelling.
• 11. The application states that the scheme is aimed at providing housing at the lower end of the market.
• 12. The application follows some pre-application discussions with officers. PLANNING HISTORY
• 13. The site has the following relevant history: 12/00384/B – application for seven detached dwellings withdrawn in 2012.

09/02055/B – approval granted in 2010 for the erection of replacement substation. The approval appears to have lapsed on 09 February 2014. It is understood that the substation was required in connection with the scheme for the sheltered housing apartments.

08/00909/B – approval granted at appeal in 2009 for 24 sheltered housing apartments, wardens apartment and ancillary accommodation.

07/00883/B – application refused at appeal in 2007 for 22 sheltered housing apartments with wardens and ancillary accommodation.

06/00960/B – application refused at appeal in 2007 for 26 private sheltered housing apartments with warden, ancillary.

06/00057/B – application refused in 2006 for four apartment blocks to provide 30 private sheltered housing apartments with wardens and ancillary accommodation.

• 14. There are a number of earlier applications relating to the previous use of the site as a restaurant, but which are not considered relevant to the current application. PLANNING POLICY
• 15. The area is identified as being for tourism use by the Onchan Local Plan 2000.
• 16. There are two policies in the Onchan Local Plan 2000 which are particularly relevant:

• Policy O/RES/P/19:

‘The erection of new residential properties may be permitted within areas designated for residential use where these would fit in with the density, massing, design and character of existing adjacent dwellings.’

• Policy O/RES/P/20:

‘Except where required otherwise by the Local Plan, car parking standards of at least three spaces per dwelling which may include a garage will be applied to all new residential development within the Local Plan area. Permission will not generally be forthcoming for extensions or conversions which result in a loss of parking space behind the building line.’

• 17. The following policies in the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 are relevant:

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

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

• Strategic Policy 2:

‘New development will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(2) of these towns and villages. Development will be permitted in the countryside only in the exceptional circumstances identified in paragraph 6.3.’

Strategic Policy 5:

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

Strategic Policy 10:

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

• (a) minimise journeys, especially by private car;
• (b) make best use of public transport;
• (c) not adversely affect highway safety for all users, and
• (d) encourage pedestrian movement.’ Spatial Policy 2:

‘Outside Douglas development will be concentrated on the following Service Centres to provide regeneration and choice of location for housing, employment and services

• • Ramsey
• • Peel
• • Port Erin
• • Castletown
• • Onchan

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

Spatial Policy 5: ‘New development will be located within the defined settlements. Development will only be permitted in the countryside in accordance with General Policy 3.’ General Policy 1:

‘The determination of matters under Part 2 (Development Control) and Part 3 (Special Controls) of the 1999 Town and Country Planning Act shall have regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and all other material considerations.’

Whilst General Policy 2 does not strictly apply given the zoning of the site for tourism, the principles contained within General Policy 2 are sound planning principles that ensure good development, and in this regard is relevant:

‘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.’ Housing Policy 4 states:

‘New housing will be located primarily within our existing towns and villages, or, where appropriate, in sustainable urban extensions(1) of these towns and villages where identified in adopted Area Plans: otherwise new housing will be permitted in the countryside only in the following exceptional circumstances:

• (a) essential housing for agricultural workers in accordance with Housing Policies

7, 8, 9 and 10;

• (b) conversion of redundant rural buildings in accordance with Housing Policy 11;

and

• (c) the replacement of existing rural dwellings and abandoned dwellings in

accordance with Housing Policies 12, 13 and 14.’ Housing Policy 5:

‘In granting planning permission on land zoned for residential development or in predominantly residential areas the Department will normally require that 25% of provision should be made up of affordable housing. This policy will apply to developments of 8 dwellings or more.’

Recreation Policy 3:

‘Where appropriate, new development should include the provision of landscaped amenity areas as an integral part of the design. New residential development of ten or more dwellings must make provision for recreational and amenity space in accordance with the standards specified in Appendix 6 to the Plan.’

Transport Policy 7 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan 2007 states: ‘The Department will require that in all new development, parking provision must be in accordance with the Department’s current standards.’ REPRESENTATIONS

• 18. Onchan District Commissioners – recommend approval.
• 19. Highways Division – formal comments awaited.
• 20. DEFA (Arboricultural Officer) – no objection: ‘From a tree point of view I would divide the site into two parts.

• 1. The perimeter trees which constitute the bulk of the tree cover and which are largely unaffected by the development (except in so far as protection will be required during engineering works) and

• 2. The trees within the site which are marked for removal.

DEFA has no objection to the removal of the trees and shrubs within the site, many of which are overgrown and relatively unimportant. The developer expressed an interest in trying to relocate the mature ‘Manx’ palms and their loss from the site is acceptable.

With regard to the perimeter trees there is really a mixed bunch here. Careful monitoring of the mature specimens on the NE boundaries (Harbour Road and behind the houses on Marine View Close) will be required over the long term as these may prove difficult to retain once the houses are occupied. They are however past their best and the whole nature of the site will allow for garden landscaping to replace what trees may be lost in the future. I don’t see them

• as being a concern during the development phase.

The sycamores on the remaining boundaries should be kept if possible and pruned if necessary although, again, this may be done at a later date when residents move in. The line of cypress trees on the southern boundary behind the properties on Kirkway are not important and could be removed in the long term.

I would suggest that protective fencing be erected in line with the canopy spread of all the trees to be retained. This should be seen as creating a construction exclusion zone and no storage of materials or soil should be allowed inside it. Once the development is complete this can be removed.’

• 21. Department of Social Care – formal comments on the revised scheme are awaited.
• 22. Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority – no objection, subject to conditions.
• 23. Manx Electricity Authority – advisory notes.
• 24. The following comments have been received from local residents about the revised scheme:

• Owner/occupier of No. 1, Bank’s Howe, Onchan – comments as follows:

• - Notes the welcome changes to the proposal, which somewhat eases the site of development.
• - Wishes to make no further comment. Owner/occupier of No. 22, Turnberry Avenue, Onchan – objection
• - The number of dwellings is out of character with the footprint of all dwellings in the vicinity.
• - The proposal is for high rise in an area largely made up of bungalows.
• - Concerns about a lack of parking and turning space.
• - The high density dwellings are characteristic of the worst examples of estate housing on the Island.
• - Inadequate infrastructure to support this number of dwellings.
• - The four bedroom houses will have more than two cars. There will be overspill parking onto Harbour Road. Harbour Road is busy and sight lines will be obscured by parked cars.
• - Twelve houses would be more sustainable number for the site.
• - Impact on the quality of life of people living in the area.

• 25. In the interests of completeness and transparency, the comments from local residents concerning the initial scheme for 18 dwellings are reported below:

• Owner/occupier of No. 2 Fairway, Onchan – objection

• - An application for a smaller residential scheme was refused – it is illogical why the current scheme would be approved.
• - Concerns about the design of the dwellings and that they would not be in keeping with the area.
• - There are no garages or storage.
• - Lack of parking.
• - Concerns about internal access arrangements.
• - Insufficient footpaths within the development.
• - Concerns about the proximity of the mature trees on the site boundary. The tree roots could cause damage to the foundations of the new houses.

• Owner/occupier of No. 1, Bank’s Howe, Onchan – objection

• - The density of the development is much too severe.
• - The proposal would not blend in with the neighbourhood.
• - The site entrance onto Harbour Road would be dangerous.
• - Concerns about the speed of traffic and highway safety.

• Owner/occupier of No. 2, Bank’s Howe, Onchan – objection

• - The proposal would alter the character of the area.
• - Loss of open space and existing pleasant views. The applicant’s offer of a commuted sum towards open space provision in the area will not compensate the community for the loss of open space and views.
• - There are no garages and concerns about a lack of parking. This could lead to cars parking on Harbour Road.
• - Harbour Road is already busy and the problem will be exacerbated by 18 additional new homes.
• - The previous proposal for 7 dwellings (which was withdrawn) was much more suited to the site.

• Owner/occupier of No. 3, Marine View Close, Onchan – objection

• - The proposal would have a significant negative impact on the area.
• - Harbour Road is very busy and concerns about traffic and highway safety.
• - Insufficient parking.
• - Affordable housing will have a negative effect on property values.
• - Loss of views.
• - The scale and style of the housing is inappropriate.
• - Noise.
• - Block C would be too close to my house.
• - Copies of the plans were hand delivered to some of the neighbouring houses but not to mine, when my property would be the most affected by the proposal. Owner/occupier of No. 2, Marine View Close, Onchan – comments as follows:
• - Agrees that something should be built on the site and was quite happy with the scheme for 7 dwellings (which was withdrawn).
• - 18 affordable homes is too many for the site.
• - Devaluation of local property.
• - Loss of views.
• - The houses are too close to my property.
• - Loss of privacy.
• - Insufficient parking.

• 26. Douglas Borough Council offered no objection to the original scheme (it is understood that they were consulted by mistake). ASSESSMENT Background
• 27. The planning officer advised the agent of significant concerns about the original scheme in July 2013. The original proposal was for 18 dwellings and there were concerns about the level of development, lack of garden space for some of the dwellings, and what was considered to be a very poor design and layout for the dwellings.
• 28. Several months of detailed negotiations involving the agent, applicant, landowner and planning officer followed, leading to a complete overhaul of the design and layout of the scheme. The number of dwellings has been reduced from 18 to 16 dwellings, and whilst this might seem a small amount, fundamental improvements have been made across all the design issues. The amended scheme has been formally submitted and the application readvertised. Whether this is a suitable location in principle for housing
• 29. The site is situated within the midst of a very large area of housing in the settlement of Onchan. However, having regard to the previous use of the site as a restaurant, it is identified as being in tourism use by the Onchan Local Plan 2000. The proposal for housing is

• at variance with the land-use zoning for the site.

• 30. Notwithstanding, planning approval was granted at appeal in 2009 for the erection of 24 sheltered housing apartments on the site. The appeal was made by a third party against the Planning Authority’s decision to grant planning approval, and the Inspector raised no issue about the appropriateness of redevelopment of the site with sheltered housing. On the matter of the principle of development, the Planning Authority took the view that the previous use of the site as a restaurant had caused environmental problems for nearby residents. There had been no proposals to redevelop the site for tourism. The site was surrounded by housing and there seemed no good reason why the site could not be developed for residential purposes. The proposal would make effective use of previously developed land and no objections had been raised by the Inspectors presiding over the previous appeals about redevelopment of the site for sheltered housing. For these reasons, the principle of development was considered acceptable.
• 31. It is considered that the reasoning equally applies to the current proposal. The site is located within an established urban area and is surrounded by housing. The proposal would make effective use of a brownfield site in a sustainable location, with good access to shops, services, jobs and public transport. The Planning Authority has previously accepted that redevelopment of the site for residential purposes is acceptable and there has been no substantial change in circumstances that should lead it to a different conclusion this time around. The site is felt to be eminently suitable for housing, despite its zoning for tourism use, and the development of the site for housing is therefore acceptable in principle. The effect of the proposal on character and appearance of the area
• 32. A substantial amount of effort has been put into revising the scheme by both the agent and planning officer over many months of discussions. The resulting scheme is considered to be attractive and pleasant, providing a strong sense of identity and place, with good overall design.

• 33. The development would present an attractive frontage to Harbour Road, being the part of the site most visible from the public realm. Plots 1 to 4 would address the main highway and would be set behind a new roadside wall and railings. These dwelling would have relatively spacious areas of garden around them, which along with the mature trees that would be retained at the front of the site, would provide a pleasant green setting. Further into the site, the majority of the dwellings face towards the internal spine road, and Plots 5 to 14 would turn the south west corner of the site, creating an attractive semi-courtyard. It is considered that the development would have its own unique identity, whilst at the same time being in keeping with its surroundings, and would create a good sense of place, which is important to urban design. Interestingly, if one considers the arrangement and footprint of the dwellings on the proposed figure/location plan, the development does not look at all out of place in comparison to the layout and density of other housing in the area.
• 34. The dwellings are considered to be of a good design. They would have a relatively straightforward form, being two storeys with a large roof to provide accommodation in the roof space, and vertical gables. However, there is a variation on the normal theme with the design of the dwellings demonstrating a touch of flair and contemporary architecture, adding interest. The dwellings generally have clean lines and this is considered part of their successful design. Added visual interest is provided for House Type A with a lower section of rough cast render in contrast to the smooth render above. It would also have simple but robust lead canopy over the front doors. House Type B has integral garages projecting forward of the main facade and front facing gables, giving an distinct and interesting articulation. At the rear there would be a modern flat roofed box “extension” at ground floor to make better use of floor space. This would be clad with timber on one side and has an attractive contemporary feel. All the houses would be finished in a traditional Manx palette of materials including white render and natural slate for the roofs. The garage and front doors would be finished in natural treated timber, adding a further quality finish. Given that the dwellings are aimed at the lower end of the market, the design is considered to be particularly successful. The design of the houses would reinforce the sense of the place provided by the layout of the development.
• 35. The hard landscaping treatment of the site would be strong and distinctive, and consistent with the architectural treatment of the dwellings. Boundary treatments for the publicly visible areas would be a combination of walls and railings, and railings only, finished in render and grey brick to complement the palette of materials used in the dwellings. Timber fences, which are generally considered inappropriate in the public realm, would only be used in the rear gardens and would in the most part be out of sight. There would also be variety in the treatment of the hard surfaced areas. The main spine road would be finished in red coloured paving bricks. The parking spaces would be finished in contrasting grey paving, and the pavements and footpaths in an orange paving, providing a good quality finish. The attention to the hard landscaping of the site will also reinforce the identity and character of the development.
• 36. There is a reasonably large number of mature trees on the boundary of the site, including Sycamore, Beech and Lime trees at the front (east part) of the site; Sycamore trees on the north boundary; and Sycamore, Beech and Yew trees on the rear (west) boundary. Along part of the south boundary, to the rear of Nos. 9 and 10 Kirkway, there is a line of leylandii. There are further trees and shrubs within the site; however, DEFA notes that these are overgrown, in poor condition or relatively unimportant. The removal of these particular trees raises no objections. The trees on the perimeter of the site are generally more important, although they are not all in good condition. DEFA believes that these trees would be largely unaffected by the development. The effect of the proposal on residential amenity

• 37. It is considered that the development would satisfactorily respect the living conditions of adjacent neighbours surrounding the site. The neighbours most affected by the proposals are Nos. 7 to 11 Kirkway, which are the bungalows whose rear gardens abut the site to the south; Nos. 18, 23, 24 and 25 Furnam Close which are two storey dwellings backing onto the site to the west; and Nos. 1 to 4 Marine View Close, which are two storey dwellings whose gardens adjoin the site on its north side. The main issues to consider are the impacts of the development upon these neighbours in terms of overlooking, overbearing and a loss of light. Nos. 7 to 11 Kirkway
• 38. Dealing with the impact on Nos. 7 to 11 Kirkway first, No. 11 would be largely unaffected with the nearest dwelling, Plot 4, being some distance from the boundary and gable end on. There would be no overlooking, overbearing or appreciable loss of light.
• 39. Nos. 9 and 10 Kirkway would be more affected by the development. Plots 5 to 9 are quite close to the boundary, at around 8 or 9 metres at the closest point to the boundary with No. 10. However, at this point there are the Manx palm, Lime and Sycamore trees on the perimeter of the site that would provide screening. Where there is no such screening, the elevation to boundary distance would be closer to 10 metres which is normally considered to be acceptable separation to ensure that there is not a harmful level of overlooking. In any event, there is only one window at the rear of Plots 5 to 9 that has the potential to result in overlooking, and this is a first floor bedroom in each dwelling. The other first floor window is a bathroom window and could be fitted with obscured glazing. The roof lights at the rear of Plots 5 to 9 would be high level and would not result in any overlooking. The elevation to elevation distance from Plots 5 and 6 to the rear of No. 10 would be around 25 metres, which is more than sufficient separation to ensure no harmful overlooking into the dwellings themselves or the more private space at the immediate rear of No. 10. Plots 5 to 9 are located to the north of Kirkway and, together with their distance from the boundary, would not result in any significant loss of light or overbearing.
• 40. Plots 7 to 9 would also be close to the rear boundary shared with No. 9 Kirkway. The closest dwelling to the boundary would be Plot 7 at around 8 metres, when 10 metres is normally considered appropriate. This relationship would be tight. There is currently leylandii on the boundary that would provide screening, but it should be noted that this could be removed in the future. Fortunately, the elevation to elevation distances are acceptable at 19 metres, and the closest window in Plot 7 would be at about 9 metres to the boundary. Regard is also had to the previous approval for a three storey apartment block in this area and that would have been much closer still and would have had a far greater impact on No. 10 (see report, below). On balance, the relationship is therefore considered acceptable. Plots 8 and 9 are slightly further away again and their relationship with Nos. 8 and 9 Kirkway is considered acceptable. There would be no significant overbearing or loss of lights to any of these properties.
• 41. Plots 9 and 10 would be sufficiently distant from Nos. 7 and 8 Kirkway such as not to have any identifiable harmful impacts on their amenity. Nos. 18, 23, 24 and 25 Furman Close
• 42. The relationship of Plots 10 to 14 at the back of the site with these properties on Furman Close, which are located to the west and north west, is not so marginal. The nearest main elevation to boundary distance would be from Plot 14 at around 10 metres at first floor level, but this quickly lengthens because of the shape of the rear boundary. The closest main elevation to elevation distance (at first floor) would be around 21 metres, which is more than adequate. In any event, the mature Sycamore, Beech and Yew trees on the west boundary are to be retained which would provide natural screening. No. 18 Furman Close is situated to the north of Plot 14 and more or less parallel to it. The gable to gable distance would be

about 9 metres. Plot 14 would have some impact on the rear garden of No. 18 in terms of loss of light, but it is felt that the separation distance are sufficient for there not to be any unacceptable impacts on amenity. In summary, it is considered that the development would not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the amenity of the neighbouring properties on Furman Close.

Nos. 1 to 4 Marine View Close

• 43. Plots 1 and 15 are the closest dwellings to the nearest houses on Marine View Close. However, both would be gable end on at a distance of 7 metres (Plot 15) and 11 metres (Plot

1) to the boundary with Marine View Close. This relationship is acceptable given that the facing gable ends of the dwellings are blank. Elevation to elevation distances are around 14 metres, which again is acceptable given that it is blank elevations presenting themselves towards Marine View Close. It is considered that there is sufficient separation between the houses such as to not result in unacceptable overlooking, overbearing or loss of light to Nos. 1 to 4 Marine View Close.

Approval for 24 sheltered apartments

• 44. Regard is had to the previous approval for the erection of 24 sheltered apartments on the site, granted at appeal in 2009 (08/00909/B). Whilst the approval is no longer extant, it remains relevant, especially since there have been no significant changes in policy or other material considerations since the decision. The sheltered apartments were to be built in three main blocks; with two large blocks at the front and rear, and a smaller block in the centre. The block at the front was particularly large, partially dug into the ground, and provided three storeys. The block at the rear was a smaller building but had three storeys. The smaller block in the centre was single storey. The footprint of the blocks is helpfully shown on the proposed layout for the current scheme for comparative purposes.
• 45. As discussed, the relationship of Plots 5 to 9 with the properties on Kirkway is considered to be more marginal in terms of its general acceptability (but found to be satisfactory). However, it is considered that the scheme for the sheltered apartments would have had a far greater impact on Nos. 8 to 10 Kirkway. The rear block of sheltered apartments would have been three storeys and generally much closer to the boundary with Kirkway. The current scheme is considered to have a far better relationship than the previous approval for the sheltered apartments. This point is material to the consideration of the current proposal and further supports its acceptability.
• 46. The sheltered apartments would have had in some cases a far greater impact on Nos. 18, 23, 24 and 25 Furman Close than the current proposal.
• 47. It is considered that the sheltered housing block at the front of the site would have a much greater impact on Nos. 1 and 2 Marine View Close than the current proposal. Standard of amenity within the site
• 48. It is considered that the dwellings themselves would be afforded acceptable levels of amenity. Elevation to elevation distances within the development would be at least 19 metres which is satisfactory. Each dwelling would have decent amenity space, although Plots 5 to 8 have relatively small gardens. Access and parking
• 49. The revised scheme has been drawn up in close consultation with the Highways Division. The Highways Division has yet to provide their formal comments on the revised

• proposal and their response will be reported to the planning committee by means of a written or verbal update.
• 50. The proposal provides two on-site parking spaces for each dwelling, which accords with the requirements of the Strategic Plan. It is considered that there would be sufficient parking for the development. Affordable housing
• 51. Housing Policy 5 normally requires 25% of the housing on schemes of 8 dwellings or more to be affordable housing. The Housing Division of the Department of Social Care has in this instance agreed that a commuted sum would be acceptable in lieu of providing the affordable housing on the site. It is understood that the figure that has been sought by the Housing Division is £160,000. Formal confirmation of the amount is awaited from the Housing Division as well as explanation as to why a commuted sum is acceptable to them rather than on-site affordable housing provision. The applicant has agreed to this sum, which will need to be secured by way of a Section 13 agreement. Open space provision
• 52. Recreation Policy 3 of the Strategic Plan requires residential schemes of 10 units or more to provide open recreation and amenity space within the development. Open space is broken down into three components: formal open space (e.g. kick about areas); children’s open space (e.g. play grounds); and amenity (e.g. nature conservation). If open space provision cannot be made within the site, or near to it, then the Planning Authority may accept a commuted sum towards open space provision in the area.
• 53. There is no public open space within the immediate vicinity of the site. There is an area of open space and playground on land to the north of Buttermere Drive, approximately 250 metres to the north as the crow flies. Onchan Pleasure Park is located approximately 380 metres to the south west. Both are within walking and cycling distance of the site.
• 54. The applicant states that they are unable to provide open space within the site. The Strategic Plan acknowledges that on-site provision is generally required for schemes of 20 units or more, recognising that for smaller sites it can be very difficult to provide open space at the same time as providing sufficient separation with the houses so as not to result in noise conflicts from children playing. Furthermore, the site presents some particular design challenges that make it difficult to provide open space on the site.
• 55. These issues were considered at the pre-application stage when the principle of a commuted sum in lieu of open space was discussed. Whilst there is guidance on how Recreation Policy 3 should be applied, as set out in Appendix 6 of the Strategic Plan, there is no advice on how commuted sums should be calculated, other than the sum should be the equivalent of the cost to the developer of providing the open space within the site. The planning officer at the time suggested the applicant should agree a sum with Onchan District Commissioners, who would ultimately be responsible for spending it on open space provision in the area. The applicant agreed a sum of £9,000 with the Commissioners.
• 56. The present planning officer queried this approach, challenging whether the sum of £9,000 was the equivalent cost to the developer of providing open space within the site. With no formula for calculating the commuted sum available, the Commissioners were asked to review their calculations and advise on the amount that would be equivalent to the cost of providing the open space on the site. The result was that a sum of around £19,000 was advised by the Commissioners (based on the original scheme for 18 dwellings).

• 57. The scheme was subsequently revised and reduced to 16 dwellings, as described in the report, and the Commissioners were asked to review the sum in the light of the changes. In reporting back to the Planning Authority, the Commissioners stated that there had been an error in the original calculations and the sum should be around £41,000, broken down as follows: Open space Sq. metre £/sq. metre Total Formal 864 £13 £11,232 Amenity 384 £6 £2,304

Children’s 288 (Swings) 87 £9,221 (Roundabout) 73 £7,427 (See saw 2) 35 £4,348 Toddlers multi 46 £6,590 £27,586

£41,122

• 58. For several months, up until only recently when the revised figure of £41,000 was given, the applicant was under the impression that a commuted sum of £19,000 would be acceptable to the Planning Authority. Onchan District Commissioners have stressed that they are satisfied with the earlier figure of £19,000 and have said that they have no plans for development of open space in the area for the foreseeable future. The latter point is not crucial because commuted sums normally only need to be spent within a five or ten year period. Nevertheless, the situation is not ideal with the applicant having now been given three different figures for the commuted sum - £9,000, £19,000 and now £41,000.
• 59. Unfortunately, the issues have not been assisted by the lack of clarity in the Strategic Plan about how commuted sums should be calculated or the availability of good practice guidance. In this instance, and to be reasonable to the applicant, it is felt that the lower sum of £19,000 would be acceptable. This was suggested to the applicant who has responded by agreeing to pay the sum. The applicant has however queried why children’s play equipment should be provided for the children’s open space (this contributes to £27,500 of the overall figure of £41,000), when they argue the Strategic Plan doesn’t require it. The Strategic Plan, however, defines children’s open space as being a: ‘Designated area for children containing a range of facilities and an environment that has been designed to provide opportunities for outdoor play; and casual or informal playing space within housing areas.’ Having regard to this definition, it is considered appropriate that the cost of play equipment is included in the commuted sum. In any event, the applicant has agreed to pay the sum of £19,000, which is the amount felt to be reasonable under the circumstances. The commuted sum will need to be secured by way of a Section 13 agreement. Other issues raised during the consultation process
• 60. Drainage – the conditions recommended by the Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority duplicate existing building regulations and other legislation, and are unnecessary.
• 61. The effect of a proposal on the value of property is not a material planning consideration. RECOMMENDATION
• 62. It is recommended that approval is granted subject to the prior completion of a Section 13 legal agreement to secure commuted sums towards open space and affordable housing.

• PARTY STATUS
• 63. The following parties should be afforded interested person status:

The local authority, Onchan District Commissioners is, by virtue of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2013, paragraph 6 (4) (e), considered "interested persons" and as such should be afforded party status.

Isle of Man Water and Sewerage Authority Department of Social Care (Housing Division) Department of Environment, Food and Agriculture (Arboricultural Officer)

• Owner/occupier of No. 1, Bank’s Howe, Onchan – opposite the site
• Owner/occupier of No. 2, Bank’s Howe, Onchan – opposite the site

• Owner/occupier of No. 2, Marine View Close, Onchan – next to the site
• Owner/occupier of No. 3, Marine View Close, Onchan – next to the site Owner/occupier of No. 2 Fairway, Onchan – may be affected by traffic

• 64. The following parties should NOT be afforded interested person status: Owner/occupier of No. 22, Turnberry Avenue, Onchan – not close to the site. Manx Electricity Authority – doesn’t raise material planning considerations. Douglas Borough Council

Department of Infrastructure Highways are part of the Department of which the Planning Authority is also part and under the 2005 Order should not be afforded party status

Recommendation

Recommended Decision: Approve subject to Legal Agreement

Date of Recommendation:

11.02.2014

Conditions and Notes for Approval / Reasons and Notes for Refusal

C : Conditions for approval

• N : Notes attached to conditions R : Reasons for refusal
• O : Notes attached to refusals

• 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 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) Order 2005 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.

• C 2. Natural slate shall be used for the roof materials. Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area.
• C 3. The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until the parking and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans. Such areas shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking and turning of vehicles associated with the development and shall remain free of obstruction for such use at all times. Reason: In the interests of highway safety.
• C 4. The proposed first floor bathroom windows in the rear (south) elevation of Plots 5 to 9 inclusive shall be glazed with obscure glass to Pilkington Level 5 or equivalent. The window shall also be non-opening unless the parts of the window which can be opened are more than 1.7 metres above the floor of the room in which the window is installed. The windows shall be permanently retained as such.

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

• C 5. No site works or clearance shall be commenced until protective fences which conform with British Standard 5837:2012 (or any British Standard revoking and re-enacting British Standard 5837:2012 with or without modification) have been erected around any existing trees and other existing or proposed landscape areas in positions to be indicated on plans to be first submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority. Unless and until the development has been completed these fences shall not be removed and the protected areas are to be kept clear of any building, plant, equipment, material, debris and trenching, with the existing ground levels maintained, and there shall be no entry to those areas except for approved arboricultural or landscape works.

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

N 1.

The applicant/developer is reminded that this approval is subject to a Section 13 legal agreement which secures commuted sums towards affordable housing and open space.

This approval relates to the following plans, date-stamped as having been received on 23 December 2013: Drawing Numbers 117/001 (site location plan), 117/002 (figure/ground location plan), 117/003 (existing site plan), 117/004 (proposed site layout), 117/006 (site sections), 117/007 (landscape plan), 117/010a (House Type A), 117/011 (House Type B).

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

Decision Made : ……………………… Committee Meeting Date : ………………….. Signed :…………………………………….. Presenting Officer Further to the decision of the Committee an additional report/condition reason is required. Signing Officer to delete as appropriate

YES/NO