Dept Decision and Inspector's Report - Copy

Cabinet Office

Government Office DOUGLAS Isle of Man IM1 3PN Direct Line (01624) 685280 Fax Number (01624) 685710 Email [email protected] CHIEF SECRETARY Will Greenhow ACMA 18th July 2014

Planning Secretary Planning Department Department Of Infrastructure Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas Dear Planning Secretary,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURE) (No2) ORDER 2013

PA Ref: Applicant: Department Of Infrastructure Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling and creation of temporary garden area with hard landscaping and fencing Address: Bridge House 3 Bridge Row Foxdale Isle Of Man IM4 3EQ I refer to the abovementioned planning application. In accordance with the Article 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013, I herewith give notice of the decision as follows.

In accordance with Article 10(8) of the abovementioned Order the Planning Inspector appointed by the Council of Ministers has now considered the application and submitted his report.

On 10th July 2014, and after consultation, the Council of Ministers noted that the Inspector had recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in Paragraph 32 of his attached report.

On further consideration of this matter, Council did not concur with the recommendations set out in the Inspector's report.

• Council did not agree that the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the street scene and area by virtue of the loss of the building subject to the Application;
• Council considered that the loss of the building would not have a significant impact on the historical interest of the terrace and the area;
• Council considered that the employment of a surface of gravel could be mitigated by appropriate measures;

• Council did not consider that the proposal would have an adverse impact on highway safety but, given concerns with the current road layout at the junction of the Main Road (A3) and Mines Road (A4) junction, considered that a road improvement scheme would assist in relation to highway safety;
• Council considered that the establishment of a garden on this site as a temporary measure would not be unreasonable.

Council therefore determined to approve the application subject to the condition(s) specified below.

1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of 4 years from the date of this notice. (Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No.2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.)
2. The development hereby approved shall not be carried out except in full accordance with the following plans: Drawing Nos. 01, 02, 03 (all received on 7 August 2013) and No.10 (undated). (Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out as approved.)
3. Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme showing the proposed layout of the garden, and incorporating full details of the proposed site levels and the proposed hard and soft landscaping, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, together with a programme for implementation of the approved works, and the proposal shall thereafter be undertaken in full accordance with the approved scheme and programme. (Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area, and to ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting for the development.)
4. Prior to the demolition of Bridge House a comprehensive photographic survey of the property must be carried out, submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. (Reason: In order to retain a record of the site and the building in the interests of local history.)
5. The development of a Road Improvement Scheme. (Reason: The Council of Ministers was unhappy with the current road layout at the junction of the Main Road (A3) and Mines Road (A4) junction. The Council of Ministers considered that a road improvement scheme would assist in relation to highway safety.)
6. Measures to mitigate the Inspector's concerns in respect of the use of surface loose gravel. (Reason: To mitigate the Inspector's concerns in respect of the use of surface loose gravel.)

In accordance with article 10(c) of the Order, please be advised that the decision of the Council of Ministers is binding and final (subject to the possibility of judicial review by petition of doleance).

The Planning Inspector's report, upon which the decision was determined, may be viewed by visiting http://www.gov.im/categories/planning-and-building-control/planning-development-control/department-applications/departmental-applications-decisions/ or by contacting the office of the Chief Secretary for a hardcopy (Tel 685204).

Yours faithfully,

A Johnstone Planning Appeals Administrator On behalf of the Chief Secretary

Report To The Council Of Ministers

Application By The Department Of Infrastructure For Planning Approval For Demolition Of Dwelling And Creation Of Temporary Garden Area With Hard Landscaping And Fencing At Bridge House, 3 Bridge Row, Foxdale

Case Reference: DF13/0026 Planning Application: 13/90943/B

Introduction

1. The application relates to a site in which the Department of Infrastructure has an interest as owner. It has been referred to the Council of Ministers for decision pursuant to Article 10 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No 2) Order 2013. I have been appointed to consider the application and make this report. I inspected the site on 7 April 2014. My report gives brief descriptions of the site and the proposal, summaries of the main points made in a letter of information in support of the application, in a planning statement from the Department, and in consultation responses and letters of representation. It continues with my assessment, conclusions and recommendation.

The Site And Surroundings And The Proposed Development

1. The site is the curtilage of Bridge House; a 2 -storey end of terrace property on the south east side of Main Road (A3)/Mines Road (A24) junction. The building is vacant and was last used as a dwelling. It stands at the rear of a narrow footway on Mines Road and is set back slightly from the carriageway of Main Road, there being no footway on that frontage. The position of the building limits visibility for drivers moving from Mines Road into Main Road. There are shop-style windows on the ground floor of the front elevation. The surroundings are characterised by 2 -storey residential properties, most of which are semi-detached or in terraces. Many of these have painted rendered elevations and slate roofs.
2. The property would be demolished and the site laid-out as a temporary garden. The party wall with 2 Bridge Row would become an external wall, and would be rendered and supported by 2 buttresses. A "Sketch Arrangement" drawing shows the provision of a gravel surface with feature granite boulders, 2 areas of planting with Manx fuchsias, 2 seats and post and wire fencing, and also includes a pavement on the Main Road frontage to coincide with an improved visibility splay.

Information In Support Of The Application

The main points are:

1. The property was acquired in 2001 and was in moderate to poor condition. It is now in poor condition with many defects including dampness. A condition report has been provided. The building has solid stone walls and lacks a damp-proof course. It has been unoccupied since 2001, except during 2003-7 when it was let as social housing. It was partly refurbished but has deteriorated and is uninhabitable. Only essential maintenance has been carried out, due to the intention to demolish. It is now unviable to refurbish and let the property. A refurbishment to a habitable condition would cost about £ 100,000. To restore the original appearance and features would cost £ 250,000. Having regard to the purchase price, the property will have become a substantial investment with very little return to the taxpayer.
2. The property was acquired to allow widening of the road junction, which is too narrow, lacks visibility and is unsafe. HOVs have to encroach onto the other sides of both roads. It is congested at peak times. Mines Road is the main secondary route from Douglas to/from Peel. It is the main route during the TT/ Manx Grand Prix periods and when the principal route is closed. There have been 5 recorded accidents

in the last 5 years. An application to carry out junction improvements was refused by the Council of Ministers in 2011 (PA10/01602/B).

1. The following points relate to the conclusions of the Inspector who considered PA10/10/01602/B:

• the building is not in a Conservation Area and did not merit Registration;
• it is identified as a Category B building in the Foxdale Local Plan adopted in 1999 ("the Local Plan"); this is assumed to mean that Bridge Row was felt to contribute to the street scene and that it may have been desirable to preserve the elevations in preference to redevelopment;
• the Inspector's report recorded that the Conservation Officer thought that Bridge House was of insufficient interest to warrant retention and that approval of demolition should not be resisted;
• the building has lost its historic significance and many original features; bakery equipment and paraphernalia are no longer present, except for the oven; concrete tiles have replaced the natural slates; 2 chimneys on the roadside gable and a chimney to the bakery oven have been removed; a basement window/door opening in the roadside elevation has been filled in; PVC windows/doors have replaced the sash windows and timber doors; PVC gutters/downpipes have been installed; sizes of some door and window openings have changed; some elevations have been rendered;
• it is likely that some of the changes have been made since the Local Plan; it is arguable that the property now has a negative effect on the street scene;
• the decision to refuse the junction improvement because it was not shown in the Local Plan was harsh, as not every detail is presented in the Local Plan; it seems likely that the junction was overlooked at the time of the Local Plan's preparation;
• the Local Plan only looked forward 10-15 years to 2009-14, and was only intended to be a guide;
• traffic using the junction has increased in a way not originally foreseen, due to developments nearby and general increases in traffic and in the Island's population;
• a reduction in speed, as suggested for consideration by the previous Inspector, is irrelevant, as it would not improve the poor geometry of the junction or the limited visibility.

1. With respect to alternatives, it is not an option to do nothing due to problems of damp being caused within 2 Bridge Row. The proposal includes weather-proofing of the former party wall to prevent this. Refurbishment would need expenditure with little or no return. There would not be much demand for the property, due to the busy junction; traffic noise; lack of parking; the dangerous access to village amenities; the existence of steps to the back door; the absence of gardens; and the high heating costs.
2. Two letters of support have been received. In response to the objections of Patrick Parish Commissioners the following further points are made:

• the garden would only be temporary, as it is hoped to improve the junction within 5 years;
• the content/appearance of the garden is to be discussed with the Commissioners with a view to possibly including items or landscaping to depict the mining history and/or the former bakery use;
• the Department of Infrastructure would maintain the garden;
• social housing use is not an option due to the costs of refurbishment;
• Winkle's bakery at the Eairy has more heritage interest than this property;
• the Highways Division supports the improved visibility and creation of a pavement;
• the fencing around the site is to be omitted to give clearer visibility and improve the appearance.

Planning Statement

The main points made in the Department of Infrastructure's statement are:

1. The site is in a "predominantly residential" area and is identified as a "building of interest" in the Local Plan. It is not in a Conservation Area. Para. 8.4 of the Local Plan recognises that there are buildings

that are not worthy of Registration but which are largely unaltered and contribute greatly to the village's appearance and character. Mention is made of "properties alongside the A3 and the top end of Mines Road" which "are original structures". Para. 8.9 of the Local Plan has a recommendation (F/R/RB/1) that a report should be prepared identifying and investigating those buildings which have played an important role in Foxdale's mining history. Paragraph 8.10 states that "all of the buildings referred to in paras. 8.2-8.8 inclusive must as far as possible, retain their original features and appearance".

1. An application for junction improvements including the demolition of Bridge House was refused by the Council of Ministers in June 2011. The Planning Authority makes no recommendation on the current application. There are 3 issues to be considered. The first is the impact on the visual amenities of the buildings of interest and the street scene. Parts (b) and (c) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan ("the Strategic Plan") are relevant to this issue. For the application to be approved, it would be necessary to be satisfied that the works would be appropriate and would not have a significant visual impact on the area, and also that the loss of the building would not have a significant impact on the historical interest of the terrace and the area. The Conservation Officer's comments are relevant to this issue and include:

• the building is of vernacular Victorian era design and probably dates from the late 1860's;
• it is built of local stone and the front façade is rendered;
• the windows are suggestive of a past use as shops and consistent with having been 2 properties;
• any original finishes or exterior detailing have long since vanished.

1. The second issue relates to the impacts on the highway network. Parts (h) and (i) of General Policy 2 and Transport Policies 4 and 7 of the Strategic Plan are relevant to this. It is necessary to be satisfied that the proposal would not have an adverse impact on highway safety. The third issue concerns the impact on adjacent properties. Regard needs to be given to how the face of the adjoining building at No. 2 would be finished. It is necessary to be satisfied that such works would not have adverse effects on the appearance of the area and the adjacent property.
2. Four conditions are suggested if it is decided to approve the application.

Responses To Consultation

1. The Highways Division asked for deferral until a plan of the proposed visibility splays is provided. The Traffic Officer has since stated that any improvement to visibility is to be welcomed and that withholding permission because the drawings are incomplete is not recommended (Note: Drawing No. 10 (Job No.13-068) on the case file shows both the proposed and existing visibility splays).
2. Patrick Parish Commissioners oppose the application, making the following main points:

• the location is not one where anyone would wish to sit and spend time;
• there could be future resistance to the garden being removed;
• the layout is unacceptable; the surfacing material could spread onto the footpath, and could be used as missiles as happens where pebbles have been used on an area at Archallagen Terrace;
• the garden would encourage young people to congregate; the location is unsuitable for this;
• the owner has neglected the building;
• while the Commissioners echo the concerns of some residents about the building's dilapidated condition, that is not a valid reason for demolition;
• the Commissioners would consider using their powers to require an owner to remedy an "unsightly" building if the building is considered to be unsightly rather than just dilapidated;
• damage to the adjacent property can be remedied simply by repairing any leaks;

• it would be better to improve the property and use it for social housing which is in short supply;
• the building is of historic significance; the ovens from when it was the village bakery still exist in the basement and should be preserved; there is an argument that it should be Registered;
• no new proposals have been presented to the Commissioners to improve visibility at this junction since PA10/01602/B was refused, and no data has been presented since then to show that visibility requires improvement; there remains no justification for the application;
• without plans for junction improvement, there is no basis to approve demolition; Mr Beale in supporting the proposal has referred to accidents and near misses, but has provided no evidence;
• the views of Ms P Newton on the application are supported by the Commissioners;
• the Policy section of the Planning Authority's statement destroys any justification for the scheme;

Other Representations

1. Mr Paul Lemaire (2 Fir Cottages, Main Road) objects on the same grounds that led to refusal of the previous application. The building is of heritage importance and should be retained. He is concerned about the lack of consultation and wishes there to be a meeting to discuss the site.
2. Mrs Lesley Taylor (of 7 Mines Road) supports the proposal as the property is dilapidated, attracts vermin and is an obstacle to being able to sell her house. The junction is dangerous. Demolition would be beneficial in providing improved visibility. The garden and seating area would be an improvement.
3. Mr Adrian Beale and Mrs Eleanor Chapman (of Bailey Beg, 1 Mines Road) support the proposal due to the building's increasing state of disrepair. It attracts vermin and is dangerous and an eyesore. Demolition would improve visibility at this dangerous junction, where accidents and near misses have been witnessed. Reducing speed limits would not resolve the traffic problems. This building is not the heart of the village, having regard to the existence of the clock tower and the social facilities of a pub, a shop and a school. The building is unsuitable for social housing. The Local Plan is out of date. Account should be taken of how much the village has changed since it was a mining settlement. The details of the garden need refinement, but provided the area is left neat and safe, with an improved footpath, there are no issues.
4. Ms Patricia Newton BSc DipTP MRTPI (Planning Consultant of Laxey) makes a number of main points. The application is wrongly addressed; if Bridge House has a number it is 1 Bridge Row. This application, together with the one to be made later for road improvements, is a replication of PA10/01602/B, but does not overcome the reasons for refusal of that application. Those reasons were that the property should not be demolished as there were no adequate reasons to override the status given to this building in the Local Plan. There is no evidence to support the claim that the building causes damp to a neighbouring property. That claim does not justify demolition in the absence of evidence to show that any problems could not be resolved by making repairs. The property has been kept empty deliberately, and the proposal amounts to "constructive demolition".
5. The Isle of Man Planning Scheme (Foxdale Local Plan) Order 1999 map shows Bridge House as one of a group of "buildings of interest" in a predominantly residential area. It is not understood what is meant in the supporting information by the term "Category B" building; there is no such category in Isle of Man planning terminology. The Department has not undertaken the study recommended in Para. 8.9 (F/R/RB/1) of the Local Plan to identify and investigate "those buildings which have played an important role in Foxdale's mining history". Ms Newton was appointed to look at certain specific buildings, and to report to the Department regarding their architectural interest and history. That study was not completed. That does not mean that buildings such as this one do not continue to be of interest.

Bridge House is crucial in the street scene and important to the village's mining history. It is a strong focal point. It is a purpose built bakery with dwelling, of vernacular design and built at a time when the mining industry was successful. It has served various shop purposes. Its architecture reflects its historic interest. Its loss would leave an unattractive gap and would open the rear of other properties up to view. It would destroy the heart of the village. It would undermine the work of the Foxdale Heritage Society in promoting the village, with the context that Policy F/P/T/1 of the Local Plan states that the Department will continue to encourage the promotion and development of tourism within Foxdale.

1. The proposal is contrary to the Local Plan. The problems of this junction were considered in that Plan, and the Highway Authority was fully consulted during its preparation, but there is no proposal in the Plan for its improvement. Paras. 3.22 and 3.25 of the Local Plan are taken to mean that the loss of buildings in Foxdale for road improvements is not favoured. The emphasis of the Local Plan was to restrict future development to areas where it would have no significant visual impact, and any such development was to be undertaken in a manner which would have no such impact. In applying this statutory Local Plan, the prime consideration should be the retention of the buildings of interest. The fact that the building has been inadequately maintained does not justify demolition. The application should be refused, but if it is approved the opportunity should be given for a full survey and recording of the building.
2. Further points made by Ms Newton in rebuttal documents include:

• the manoeuvres of HGVs leaving Mines Road and turning north, or travelling south along Main Road and turning into Mines Road, are not affected by the existence of Bridge House;
• the garden would not have wide pavements leading to it; it is doubtful whether encouraging pedestrians to this site would fulfil the requirements of Transport Policy 4 that new development must be designed to be capable of accommodating pedestrian journeys in a safe manner;
• the exposed flue stack of 2 Bridge Row and the buttresses would be seen in place of the present Manx stone gable wall of Bridge House, and would be unsightly;
• the scheme is contrary to parts of Strategic Plan General Policy 2 as it would harm the townscape and the character of the locality, and would not respect the site and its surroundings;
• although some original features have been lost, Bridge House retains its main internal feature of the oven, and features such as the Manx stone gable with names/initials of people who gathered there inscribed on it and the opening above the oven which was a meeting place for local people;
• no details have been submitted to show how the basement void would be filled and made safe; without that information the impact on neighbouring properties cannot be fully assessed;
• adjacent properties could be affected by being exposed to the weather following the demolition.

1. Mr Geoffrey Clark BTp (of Ballaquark, Douglas) comments about perceived deficiencies in the preparation of the Local Plan. He considers that policy "dictates against" the proposal, but that "pragmatically (it) should be approved". Mr I K Bleasdale MRICS DipTP DipLI (Chartered Surveyor, Planning \& Historic Building Consultant) \& Mrs E Bleasdale (both of Kirk Manghold) have no objections. Their comments relate to perceived deficiencies in the preparation of Local Plans, and the manner in which other Government Departments fail to involve in Plan preparation. They state that the property is "unattractive and unloved", but make no detailed comments on the scheme.

Inspector'S Assessment And Conclusions

1. It is highly material to the consideration of this proposal that an application involving the demolition of Bridge House was refused by the Council of Ministers as recently as June 2011. That application was for improvements to the Main Road/Mines Road junction. The refusal notice did not give a detailed

reason for refusal, but stated that the refusal was for the reasons specified in the appointed person's report; the gist of which was that there were no other material considerations of sufficient weight to justify a decision contrary to the development plan. With that context, I consider that the main issue to be considered now is whether there have been any changes in circumstances since that time to justify allowing demolition. The most important element of the development plan is the Foxdale Local Plan, which came into effect on 1 June 1999. Although that Plan looked forward 10-15 years, a period which is almost over, there is no evidence that a replacement Area Plan has been completed or is at an advanced stage of preparation. Therefore, the Local Plan remains as current planning policy.

1. There is no proposal in the Local Plan for a garden on this site. The application has been submitted on the basis that the garden would be a temporary feature until the road junction is widened. However, as the last Inspector highlighted, the Local Plan does not include a road improvement scheme for this junction. Although the applicant has suggested that the junction was probably overlooked during preparation of the Local Plan, this seems unlikely as it is explicitly referred to in para. 3.25 as a junction likely to have a further burden placed upon it by any substantial development in the village. As the previous Inspector stated, that paragraph is poorly expressed, but I see no reason to disagree with his comment that "it is probable that it expressed negative views about road improvements at this junction". I concur with that Inspector that significant weight should not be given to considerations which were abundantly clear at the time of the Local Plan's adoption, and that the difficulties for large vehicles in negotiating the junction are no different than they would have been in 1999.
2. Accident records have been referred to, but there is no evidence to show that the seriousness or frequency of accidents have increased since the last Inspector's report or the adoption of the Local Plan. There is no evidence to show that the importance of this junction at times of closure of the main Douglas-Peel route has changed since those dates. The previous Inspector was correct to say that road safety is an important consideration, but I have identified no new evidence which would merit attaching greater weight to highway safety and traffic flow than was attached at the time of the last application. On the contrary, less weight to those matters is justified now as the current application does not include the same improvements to the junction that were previously proposed. The proposal includes no change to the geometry of the carriageways, whereas the last proposal included provision of "radiused corners" as well as "wider footways". The highway benefits of the current proposal would be limited to improved visibility to the south and provision of a short length of footway on the Main Road frontage. Those benefits do not merit as much weight as the more extensive improvements previously proposed. While the demolition of Bridge House may still be regarded as being preparatory to a comprehensive junction improvement, there is nothing in the application to indicate the form of the intended works, or that there is a formal programme, or that any certainty can be attached to such a scheme taking place.
3. The main matter which weighs against the demolition of Bridge House is its identification in the Local Plan as a "building of interest". Para. 8.1 of the Local Plan refers to the presence of many buildings of interest in Foxdale, and para. 8.4 to the existence of buildings which are not worthy of Registration but remain "largely unaltered and contribute greatly to the appearance and quality of the village". That paragraph goes on to state "many of the properties alongside the A3 and the top end of Mines Road are original structures". However, I have noted that the last Inspector referred in his report to an assessment by the Conservation Officer who stated that this building had been compromised by recent alterations - including the removal of a gable stack, installation of uPVC windows and loss of historic detailing - to such an extent that the building was of insufficient interest to warrant retention, and that demolition need not be resisted. I have not been provided with any up-dated detailed assessment by the Conservation Officer, but the general condition of the building is likely to have deteriorated since 2011,

Case Ref. DF13/0026 Application No. 13/90943/B Page 6

and there is no evidence to suggest that any important features have been restored in the meantime. However, I have also been given no evidence to show that there have been any changes in circumstances which would invalidate the last Inspector's statement that the approach of the Local Plan and of objectors seemed to put historic considerations "on a somewhat higher plane than usual" as reflected "in the existence of a thriving Heritage Society". Taking all these points into account, I consider that the reasonably clear intentions of the Local Plan with respect to the importance of buildings of interest constitute a matter which weighs against the approval of the current application.

1. I have taken note of the poor condition of Bridge House as revealed by the condition report, but I have found nothing in the development plan which would provide a justification for allowing demolition on the basis of the extent and cost of necessary refurbishment. A decision to allow demolition on that basis would set a potentially serious precedent which could encourage owners of other visually important buildings to allow their deterioration in order to justify demolition. There is no evidence to establish that the eradication of problems of dampness within No. 2 Bridge Row necessitates the demolition of Bridge House, or to show that this problem could not be resolved by the undertaking of basic repairs.
2. There are also in my view justified criticisms of the details and consequences of the proposed garden. Being located on this busy junction, I concur with the view that this is not a location which is suitable for an area of what would in practice be temporary public open space. There is only a narrow footway on the Mines Road frontage, and the proposed footway on the Main Road frontage would not connect with any other footway, as there is no proper pavement along this side of Main Road in front of the rest of Bridge Row. The garden would serve to encourage pedestrians to cross in the vicinity of the junction, which could exacerbate the potential highway safety dangers. The intention to use loose gravel for the surface could also add to hazards for highway users as this material could spread onto the adjacent footways/carriageways. Only sketch details of the garden have been submitted, which do not clearly establish how the changes of levels across the site would be dealt with. Taking account of the indication that it is intended to omit the post and wire fences shown on the sketch arrangements, there could be consequent dangers to users of the garden, particularly at the change of levels which would be needed to retain the rights of access to other properties which cross the land immediately to the east.
3. The final material consideration relates to the effect the proposal would have on the character and appearance of the street scene. Bridge House is an important feature of that scene as part of the group of buildings that gives a sense of enclosure and containment to this side of the junction. The creation of the open area of the proposed garden would have no connection as a feature with that existing character and appearance of the street scene. A predominantly gravel-surfaced open space such as is proposed has no visual context within the existing street scene, and would constitute a visually unfortunate gap in the mainly built-up character of the immediately adjacent frontages. Consequently, it is my assessment that the proposal would fail to respect the site and surroundings, including in terms of form, design, layout and landscaping, and would adversely affect the character of the surrounding townscape and the locality, in conflict with the intentions of General Policy 2 of the Strategic Plan.
4. Bringing these matters together, I have concluded that the proposal is unacceptable in planning terms and that the application should be refused. I have identified no changes in circumstances since the previous refusal of planning approval which would justify permitting the demolition of Bridge House.
5. Should the Council of Ministers disagree with my assessment, and decide to grant planning approval, conditions 1,2 and 4 suggested in the Department's statement would be necessary and reasonable requirements. Condition 2 would need amendment to refer also to Drawing No. 10 which illustrates the

Case Ref. DF13/0026 Application No. 13/90943/B Page 7

proposed and existing visibility splays. Suggested condition 3 is not appropriate, as none of the drawings to be detailed in condition 2 shows a landscaping scheme, and the "sketch arrangement" submitted on another drawing is insufficiently detailed to form a proper basis for approval. As a result, if the application is approved I would suggest the attachment of a condition to require the submission for approval of a detailed scheme showing the layout of the garden and its landscaping, together with an implementation programme for those details. These conditions are detailed in the Appendix below.

Recommendation

1. I recommend that planning approval be refused for the following reasons:
2. The proposal does not accord with the provisions for the site in the Foxdale Local Plan, which contains no policies or proposals for the establishment of a garden on this site or for the possible subsequent undertaking of a road improvement scheme in this location.
3. The proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the street scene and of the area by virtue of the loss of the building of interest which occupies the site, and its replacement by an area of open ground which would be visually unrelated to existing features of the street scene and out of keeping with the sense of enclosure and containment provided by the existing buildings on and adjacent to the site. The proposal would conflict in those respects with the intentions of the Foxdale Local Plan and parts (b), (c) and (g) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.
4. By virtue of the intention to employ a surface of gravel, which could spread onto the adjoining footways and carriageways, and by encouraging the attraction of additional pedestrian movements to this site, which has limited footway provision in its vicinity and is located adjacent to a busy road junction, the proposal would be potentially hazardous to the safety and convenience of highway users, with particular reference to pedestrians. The proposal would conflict in that respect with part (i) of General Policy 2 of the Isle of Man Strategic Plan.

Stephen Amos MA(Cantab) MCD MRTPI Independent Inspector

Appendix

Conditions recommended to be attached in the event of the application being approved.

1. The development hereby permitted shall commence before the expiration of 4 years from the date of this notice. (Reason: To comply with article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Procedure) (No. 2) Order 2013 and to avoid the accumulation of unimplemented planning approvals.)
2. The development hereby approved shall not be carried out except in full accordance with the following plans: Drawing Nos. 01, 02, 03 (all received on 7 August 2013) and No. 10 (undated). (Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that the development is carried out as approved.)
3. Prior to the commencement of the development a scheme showing the proposed layout of the garden, and incorporating full details of the proposed site levels and the proposed hard and soft landscaping, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Planning Authority, together with a programme for implementation of the approved works, and the proposal shall thereafter be undertaken in full accordance with the approved scheme and programme. (Reason: In the interests of the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area, and to ensure the provision of an appropriate landscape setting for the development.)
4. Prior to the demolition of Bridge House a comprehensive photographic survey of the property must be carried out, submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority. (Reason: In order to retain a record of the site and the building in the interests of local history.)