Officer Report Planning Application 10/03/2020

15 May 2011 The Council of Ministers Sirs #### Case Reference Deggered #### Planning Application 10/03/2020 ##### Application by Department of Infrastructure Network Planning Section for Planning Permission for Junction Improvements at Main Road and Mines Road, Foodale. 1. I have the honour to report that on 9 May 2011 I carried out a site visit at the above location. This report contains a description of the site and its surroundings, the plot of the representations made, and my recommendation of the decision which might be made in the case. The case is being made by written representation. ##### The Site And Surroundings And The Development Proposed 2. Mines Road (A24 Foodale - Douglas) makes a T junction with Main Road (A3 Cachinbon - Ramsey). Both roads have straight approaches to the junction. Mines road meet steeply to the junction, with no swelling of the approach. Main Road runs roughly north to south, with a downward gradient to the north. Mines Road runs off to the east. The locality is subject to 30mph speed restriction. The vicinity of the junction is subject to waiting restrictions at all times on both sides of Main Road. Dimensions of the roads are given in the Applicants Planning Statement of case, section 1.2. 3. At the south eastern corner of the junction is Bridge House, once a shop with accommodation above and to the rear. This building stands at the back of the narrow footway of Mines Road, and at the carriageway edge of Main Road. Opposite and to the south is development of terrace houses, much of it having small front gardens, but generally without off street parking. At the north western corner of the site the footwear is backed by a stone wall, beyond which is the garden of Dingle Nook around a stream which issues from a culvert beneath the junction. The site is not designed to be a small site. ##### Case Reference: DIFHS/0021 This project is a part of a project at the top end of Mines Road with original structures, although incompatibuted with the site. Policy KW/0027 stated that all of the buildings referred to in paragraphs 6.2-6.8 inclusive must, as far as possible, retain their original features and appearance. 1. There was a conflict between highway safety and conservation objectives. The highway benefits were set out, and had to be set against the loss of a building which was noted as being of interest, whose loss would create the character of the area. 2. Assessment by the Conservation Officer is that the building is compromised by the recent alterations, including the removal of a gable stack and replacement of windows with a PVC, and loss of historic detailing meant that the building was of insufficient interest to warrant retention. 3. It is concluded that, on balance the improvement to highway safety should take priority over the loss of Bridge House. ##### Recommendations By Third Parties The material points are: 1. Patrick Parish Commissioners make no comment. 2. Mr P Lomaine, 2 Ftr Cottages objects to the demolition of Bridge House. The Foodale Local Plan set out the premise that the village should be preserved in its entirety as a heritage site. The demolition would set back work which was done in preparing the plan. The building was the Miner's Bakery. It was called Bridge House because of the bridge that crossed Miners Road about 50m away. The ovens were still in place and there were names inscribed on some of the stones of the gable. If historic buildings were to be demolished, there would be little point in the work of the Foodale Heritage Society. Demolition would expose other resident's back yards, spoiling the outlook from Mr Cottages and its neighbours. Improvements to the junction should be confined to the Dingle Nook side of the road. 3. Mrs P Newton, Planning Consultant, South Cape, Laony advises that she had been commissioned to carry out a study of certain buildings in the village, although the report required by Policy KW/0021 of the Foodale Local Plan had never been undertaken. Bridge House had been constructed to provide the town's bakery in the late 1960s/early 1970s, subsequently being a general store, butchers, shopers and latterly a fishing-tackle shop. It was in a prominent position, forming a cornerstone, and was a part of a group of Iw demolished, and the remnant of its site paved to provide hard standing. The stone wall at the north western corner would be replaced on a new line. ### The Case For The Applicant Department The material points are: 6. The AS is the main route for commuting traffic between Castletown and Ramsey; A24 leads to Douglas and provides access to Fonda's Primary School. Visibility at the junction is below the required standard, being limited to ten to the left, and 32 m to the right when measured 2.4 m back from the edge of the Main Road carriageway. 7. The geometry of the junction is such that large goods vehicles and buses could only make the turn by encroaching onto opposing traffic lanes. Traffic on both roads travels in excess of the speed limit, particularly in the southbound direction on Main Road. 8. Between May 2005 and December 2010 there had been 9 recorded accidents in the vicinity of the junction, six of which involved vehicles entering or leaving the junction, and two involved collision with parked cars in advance of the junction. These were consistent with the poor geometry and visibility at the junction. 9. Improvement was needed, minimising the impact on the local environment, meeting the standards recommended in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, and being economically viable. 10. A range of options had been considered, leading to the preferred proposal of demolition of Bridge House, improvement of the junction layout and the addition of central hatching on main road. Minor improvements to gradients would be made, and footways provided around both sides of the junction. This would remove the necessity for large vehicles to encroach onto opposing traffic lanes, would increase visibility significantly, and give drivers a more confined impression of the road, leading to slower traffic flows. Improved footways would make safer access for householders. 11. The third party landowner of Dingle Nook had been consulted. Electricity and telephone wires had been placed underground, and demolition of Bridge House (purchased by DoE in 2001) had been sanctioned. ### Evidence By The Planning Authority [^0]vish have taken place, or an analysis of how accidents would be expected to be reduced or eliminated by the works. 20. Whilst some alternative approaches have been examined, I agree with Mrs Newton that reduction of speed through this section of the village should be assessed to see whether safety would be improved. I accept that the geometric shortcomings of the junction would not be improved by reduction in speed limit, but there is no evidence that traffic flows are such that delays arise at the junction. Thus, if there is no good evidence of reductions in accidents, and no good evidence of reduction in delays, the purpose of the improvement becomes elusive. 29. Under normal circumstances, there would be little historic merit to Bridge House, and my inclination is to agree with the Conservation Officer that demolition need not be resisted. However, the approach of the Local Plan and the two objectors seems to put historic considerations on a somewhat higher plane than usual; this appears to me to be reflected in the existence of a thriving Heritage Society. 30. Taken all in all, I do not find that material considerations other than the development plan are of such weight that a decision contrary to the development plan is indicated. Permission should therefore be refused. 31. Should the Council of Ministers disagree with this conclusion, note should be taken of the objection concerning the adequacy of the plans. Bridge House is an attached building, and the Council should want to be satisfied that the new face of the adjoining building is properly finished, and that the edges of the site are adequately dealt with. There should be detailed records of the features of Bridge House before demolition. I append a schedule of conditions appropriate in the event of approval. ### Relimpiendation 32. I recommend that planning permission is refused. I have the Honour to be Sirs Your obedient Servant [^0]: 1. I have taken place, or an analysis of how accidents would be expected to be reduced or eliminated by the works.